Untitled

The Bible is the handbook of The Kingdom so Satan uses heretics to attack it because:

It tells us type of faith required to enter The Kingdom

It tells us about Jesus, who He is and what He has done for us

It tells us how to obtain eternal life

It tells us what God requires of us as His Citizens

It tells us how to defeat Satan

Satan has to remove its message in some way and he uses heretics to attack these areas in The Bible. It is only as they are able to modify the Bible to reinforce their heretical stance on doctrine can they succeed with their heresy and replace The Kingdom of God with their (Satan’s) kingdom.

Noah Webster, in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language gives a definition of heresy (which I have paraphrased as follows):

Heresy is perhaps too general a word as the person you are calling a heretic also calls you one. The same with apostasy so that is also not a good word to use. An absolute reference is needed and I propose the KJV and the received text is used to define that which is in error as this translation sits on over 1800 years of continuous Bible Theology unlike the two codices that form the basis of modern UBS Greek (which were unused for 1400 years and lately taken up again) and which have no continuous transmission of theology. These two codices were used as they were still in one piece and were considered to be the oldest extant Biblical text available so theologians declared these were the most accurate texts.

It is said these two codices (Sinai and Vatican) survived because their text was so corrupted no one bothered to use them while the good texts were worn out from use. There is also the quotes from writers before these codices were written which in the majority support the Greek text used for the KJV. So the assumption that these two codices are the oldest and thus the most accurate text is not necessarily correct. But more on this later.

Heresy is the alteration of doctrine to accommodate or reinforce your incorrect beliefs (doctrinal position). If you alter scripture to support this change of doctrine then it means you do not serve the same God as the Bible or you would accept what God says in it and not alter it.

Know The Bible truths so that the error of the heresy is clearly understood.

Need to hear The Holy Spirit to be guided by Him in understanding the heresy and showing the heresy for what it is

You need to observe the fruit of the heretical belief to see if it is Godly or not.

Heretics attack the truths of the Bible in a way that backs up their teaching and beliefs so that their heresy is supported by their version of the bible either by what it says or the way they interpret/translate it.

They interpret it according their theology (belief system) and not actually what it says. They do thus by:

Changing the meaning of the translation of the Greek Text:

They make words mean what they want them to mean so that the word is translated differently in different places even though there is no rational for doing that.

The leave verses out or change them to mean something different to what they originally meant

They add or remove words or phrases to give th em the sense they want

Adding footnotes that question the validity or accuracy of verses or their interpretation of the doctrine behind a verse

Mythologize Genesis or other parts of The Bible to say these things never really happened

Make up theories such as the Gap theory to make their beliefs more palatable in regard to sin and creation

Rationalising parts of the Bible to remove the need for faith (miracles are an example of this)

They denounce the KJV as being incorrect and needing to be corrected through the critical Greek Text and use this to justify their corruption of doctrine

By doing these they remove The God of The Bible who is All Powerful and Almighty and create a new god that is not like the God of The Bible. This shows they worship a different God to that of The Bible.

Unfortunately modern scholarship is behind the Greek used in Bible translations today ignoring the 1850+ years of continuous received Greek text that is available to them and which has an unbroken doctrine for these 1850+ years from the apostles until the critical text was used to replace the received Greek text.

There are two approaches to translating biblical text : formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence is when the text is translated and says what the text actually means. This is the approach behind the King James Version. Dynamic equivalence means that you translate it in such a way to say what you believe. This means you alter the text as you think you should so what the text says is in a way secondary to what the Greek test actually says. As each translators and editors of each version sees things differently you have the same words translated differently in the various versions which is why there is such a difference between modern translations.

Another problem is that in terms of copyright law, new Bible versions can only be copyrighted as ‘derivative works.’ Words must be changed whether or not they need to be changed . Editors and translators may update that one archaic word in eight thousand in the KJV, but they must change many other words, so the new translations are different to the KJV. To justify their changes and use the critical text the KJV must be shown to be incorrect. This problem occurs amongst modern bibles so that they can never completely agree as they must use many different words to say the same thing and words and phrases that are substituted for another do not always say the same thing or have the same meaning. This is another reason modern bibles are different to each other.

The problem with dynamic translation is that each translator imprints their own doctrinal belief on the translation and if they are liberal Christians then their translation will be liberal. Unfortunately many of the editors and translators of the modern versions are liberal (heretical) in some way in their beliefs or have compromised them in some way so they are not following Jesus as Lord and translate accordingly so that their beliefs are not threatened.

Remember that Satan will do anything to stop you reading and understanding The Bible in your own language so that you will not read the truths that will set you free and help you to fight him. If he cannot do that he will corrupt the translation so the truths are hidden or missing.

To change the Bible one needs to remove the fact that God has said He would preserve its words (truths). The KJV quotes this preservation statement by God as follows:

Psa 12:5 (KJV) For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

If you examine a modern version you will note it is no longer the Bible that is preserved but the people in the preceding verse.

ESV Psa 12:5 "Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise," says the LORD; "I will place him in the safety for which he longs."

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.

This allows translators and editors to take liberties to make their translation say what they want it to say so that they can modify, leave out and/or change words, phrases or verses to suit their doctrine (belief system) and as many of the translators and editors were heretical in some of their beliefs they passed these erroneous doctrine and beliefs onto the version they were on the translating or editing panel of, corrupting the text so their incorrect doctrine would not be so obvious.

There are over 5300 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The translators and editors need to explain why they preferred these corrupted readings (considered so for 1450+ years) using 5 main manuscripts, edited apparently by heretics, and ignoring the 5300+ others manuscripts which in the majority endorsed the content of the King James Version.

I propose to discuss the two texts used as the basis for Bible translations so the differences between them can be seen and so that people are encouraged to examine further the issues of possible corruption in the critical text used for the translation of modern Versions,

There are two Greek Texts used for translation: The traditional text called the textus receptus (received text) and the other is called the critical text. The critical text is based on a few hand picked manuscripts ignoring the remaining 5300 manuscripts that do not support their position of doctrine. It seems strange to ignore the majority of manuscripts that have been continuously used for 1800+ years and use a few hand picked manuscripts that no one bothered to look at for 1450+ years especially when there appears no sound basis for doing so.

The received text was used for the King James Bible. The greater number of manuscripts and similar support this text. Over 5300 of the 5339+ Greek manuscripts of the Bible agree over 95% of the time with the received text.

The received test is also called a Byzantine text as it is based on manuscripts from all over the Christian world (except Egypt) and is the main type of text used by early church fathers when they quoted scripture.

The modern critical text is an eclectic text based on a handful of carefully chosen texts and is the basis of the Greek text used in modern Bibles starting with the Revised Version and later. There main two (codices Sinai and Vatican) are all fourth century manuscripts or later and are called an Alexandrian Text because their origin is Egypt. They were used mainly in Egypt because they were edited to agree with the beliefs of the people in that area who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Unfortunately, as I will show later, this lack of belief in the Divinity of Jesus has carried over into modern versions like the NIV.

Because of their doctrinal differences the two texts (received and critical texts) are not reconcilable.

Imagine a country is invaded. The invader wants to write a history of the country. He can do two things:

Select books or sources of information that are favourable to their regime and use carefully chosen resources that tell the effect on the invaded people in a way favourable to the invaders (Critical text).

Use all resources that show the truth about the invasion; and its effect on its inhabitants and give an unbiased account of what happened (Byzantine text).

At the core of the eclectic critical text are two main codices: the Sinai and the Vatican codices. The Vatican codices lay on a shelf in the Vatican library for over 1450 years ignored by the Catholic church and the editors of the received text, because it was not a good text to translate from. It was ignored by the translators of the King James Bible it was so corrupted. The codex from Sinai was so bad it was going to be used to light a stove in a monastery in an out of the way place and was rescued from there. Its Greek text was so little thought of it was going to be used to light fires, yet these two codices are the basis of The New Testament translations of all modern versions.

So we have as the basis of the modern Greek test two codices. One so bad it was going to be used or fuel. Another so bad it was ignored by all responsible bible translators.

These two codices disagree with each other in at least 3000 place in the Gospels so are not a good source to form a common Greek text to translate from. Of Concern is how the translators and editors using these codices managed to make a unified text from them to use as the basis of translation of a The New Testament. It is also to be noted that the Vatican codices had ten different people correct it at different times (mainly in the 6th and 7th Centuries) it was so corrupted. One also wonders whether the editors that compiled the modern critical Greek text used the original of this manuscript, the corrections or whatever of either fitted their doctrinal belief system.

It is also a concern that Unitarians (who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus) were on the editorial panel of the RV and ASV. It is a concern as they accepted with the Greek text (the critical text) use for these versions because it agreed with their theology. They were also able to influence changes to the test of the RV and ASV to make them agree with their heretical theology. The NIV and modern versions use this same critical test that the Unitarians approves the theology of.

I will discuss the relevance of the ages of the manuscripts later but will comment that these manuscripts were still there because no one used them while the Byzantine codices were worn out from use and no longer exist because of this.

It is to be remembered that The British Bible Society promoted these apostate manuscripts as it suited the purposes of the Unitarians in charge of it. In the 1830’s those who believed in The Trinity broke away from the British Bible Society and formed the Trinitarian Bible Society. IS it any wonder the modern version are acceptable to unitarians and others the deny THe Trinity or the divinity of Jesus

At this point I will touch on the statement of God that His words world be preserved for ever. I have mentioned Ps12:7 and how the modern versions change this so they can edit their translation as they need to back up their theology. But God states this preservation also in other places such as Mat 5:18 and Is 59:12. If God did not preserve His word how would we know what He requires of us. So it is necessary for Him to preserve His word so people throughout all time will know His requirements of them and so that they are standardised for each generation because they have not changed in any way.

To say God did not preserve His Word is to call Him a liar and hypocrite asking us to obey His Word but not preserving it so we would not know all or part of the guidelines we needed to obey Him.

The modern versions alter doctrine so that it conflicts with the doctrine that has been accepted by Christians for over 1800 years so it cannot be the preserved word of God or for 1800 years Christians have been living incorrectly and the critical text they are translated from cannot be from God as God is not the author of doctrinal confusion.

We need The Bible so we can know what God requires of us. It also needs to be preserved so all ages have the same standard and one age is not required to obey a different standard to another age.

God has to preserve His Bible for this to happen so the people of 100 AD will have the same Bible as the people of 2000 AD. This means you do not have to rediscover what God has said to us in His Bible, removing a major foundation of modern theology.

We do not need the original or oldest documents of the Old or New Testament as God has preserved what He wants us to know in the copies of the Scripture we have had given to use from our ancestors.

We do not need theology that says men have to find out what God really meant (which is coloured by their belief system) and then who edit the Bible according to what they believe it means or believe it should say.

If they had truly trusted God, they would have accepted what was revealed in the scriptures handed down to them without having to edit the Bible suit their system, bringing in any errors they had and which are now in these modern bibles as well as a Christianity that is uncertain in doctrine at times and which is a poor reflection of what Jesus said the Christian life should be!

This divine preservation by God means that there is an unbroken line of the transmission of His Words and doctrine from Creation to now. This we find in the received text but not in the critical text, which was laid aside and ignored by the church for 1450+ years. God did not preserve its teachings (words) and put it aside as if He did not want to preserve it in any way.

The critical text fails the test of divine preservation which is why the theologians have to devise a reason to ignore this test.

The doctrinal position of the critical text is such that non-Christians can prefer it to their own bible. Jehovah Witnesses prefer the NIV to their own corrupt translation when witnessing and Satanists use the version of the Lords Prayer in the NIV to worship Satan. This could never happen with the Received Greek text that the KJV was translated from.

I will show some doctrinal differences in the translations made from these two different texts using the NIV and KJV, the best known representative of each of the critical and received Greek texts. The KJV is based on the received text and the NIV on the critical text. I have already mentioned the change made in Ps 12:7 which was made so modern translators could do what they wanted with their translation if they could justify what they wrote.

Some worrying differences between these two Greek texts are discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

The NIV has a note to imply the passage is not the Word of God. The note goes something like this:

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 6:9-19)

This is a blatant lie! There are over 1640 manuscripts extant with this chapter of Mark. Only five do not have this passage and even then one of them still has space for it. These five are among the ones chosen to be the basis of the Greek used in modern New Testament Translations. They have ignored 1635+ texts to imply this passage should not belong to The Bible. This passage is the only place we have been delegated authority to do the Miracles Jesus did as well as attack and defeat Satan.

If God is behind this note in the NIV He is a hypocrite saying we will do greater works than Jesus then casting doubt on our authority to do these. Jesus is also cast as a liar for saying something he did not mean or for requesting us to do something we were not able to do.

In the Gospels Jesus said we would do greater works (in quantity) that He did. Removing this passage makes Jesus out to be a liar and a hypocrite and unable to be our redeemer. Why would theologians support this note that implies these things? God would not. If Jesus did not say this how can we believe anything placed in these Bibles as being what Jesus said or accept their veracity and truthfulness and faithfulness to the originals.

If modern Bibles leave such an important passage as this out how or imply it is not original how can we believe anything they say.

I would definitely say the note is not scriptural or inspired by God and would cause me to be concerned at the translators and editors and their motives implying Jesus is a liar and God a hypocrite. The fact is th at all these signs were done by the Christians in the book of Acts and by this historical evidence this passage is confirmed as scripture. This deliberate error also means you cannot trust the rest of a Bible that has this error in as you o not know what else they have corrupted.

1 John 5:7 of the received text is left out of the critical text and v6-8 are combined to form a new v7 in the NIV. This rearrangement of verses implies the omitted v7 is not The Word of God. The omitted verse is as follows:

Why would the translators and editors purposely leave out a verse that proves The Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. God would not do that. This omission shows the influence of the Unitarians in the choice of the text for the Greek promoted by The Bible Society in England and later overseas.

Blasphemy occurs in Is 14:12 of such a horrendous nature that it calls into question the faith of the translators of the NIV.

The translators of the modern New Testaments know the Names of Jesus and have used them in the following verses: 2 Pet 1:19, Rev 2:-28 and Rev 22:16. The Title of Jesus I am referring too is where Jesus is called "the morning star"

Why then do they alter the text of Is 14:12 to replace the name of Satan with that of Jesus, the NIV has:

God would not replace a name of Satan with that of Jesus. The translators of the modern Bible do not know Satan from Jesus it appears or there is a hidden Agenda in their translation. Remember 95% of manuscripts have Lucifer and not Jesus so why have the translators and editors ignored this? It is almost as if the translators and editors of the modern versions have turned their back on the KJV and its doctrine.

Another passage that shows they do not know doctrine or are deliberately ignoring it is James 5:16 The NIV has ‘sins’ while the KJV has ‘faults’. Which is correct?

According to the Bible our sins were dealt with at Calvary and were forgiven there. They are forgiven before we sin so do not need to confess them to anyone. All God requires of us now is repentance from the sinful act. We are told admit our weaknesses (faults) so we can be helped to overcome them but we do not need to confess any sins resulting from them. Is it possible the translators and editors do not believe in the forgiveness of sin we were given at Calvary? Why do they think we need to confess our sins to someone other than Jesus?

In 1 Tim 3:16 the word ‘God ‘is replaced by ‘He’ and by this the divine nature of Jesus is attacked. ‘He’ refers to a human nature. ‘God ‘refers to a divine nature. Why would the translators remove the divinity of Jesus unless they did not believe He was God. God would not do that!

The NIV is so strong in humanising Jesus and removing His Divinity that its attitude to Jesus has been questioned at times!

The NIV says if you are angry you sin. Jesus was angry at the moneylenders in the Temple. According to modern Bibles Jesus sinned and cannot be our redeemer. In the text used for this verse in the KJV the problem does not arise. The NIV left out the phrase ‘without a cause’ and the only cause can only really be to defend the things of God (Which Jesus was doing). Why do they not want you to defend the things of God as Jesus was doing.

This verse in the modern versions remove the righteous anger we can have to fight for the things of God. According to this verse you cannot be angry at people who mock The Father, Jesus, The Holy Spirit or the things of God as you will sin if you are angry. It leads to a toothless faith that cannot criticise anything that opposes it.

Why did the editors remove from the Bible the allowance of righteous anger at people abusing the things of God. This would hinder attacks on the modern bible translators as you would be in sin if you were angry according to their bibles. Even if it was in standing up for the things of God or against the error and heresy of other faiths and religions you would be in sin according to the modern Bible. This attitude would make ecumenicism and inter faith worship easier as you could not (according to modern bible versions) stand for the things of God in a angry or forceful manner.

Also, why would people translate the Bible to make out Jesus to be a sinner and not able to be redeemer. God would not! so why would the translators and editors of modern versions do this.

In Col 1:14 the words ‘through his Blood’. have been let out. Why leave out the important point that Redemption is only through the Blood of Jesus shed at Calvary. God would not as it underpins the purpose of Jesus dying. So why do the translators and editors of modern versions believe Calvary is not important?

In Phil 4:13 Christ is removed as our strength and a mysterious person strengthens us called ‘him’, who could be anyone. This removes the divine help God gives us in Jesus and replaces it with man. ‘Him could be Satan, your brother a friend and not necessarily Jesus.

People do not understand how much New Age type thinking is allowed by changes like this so that the Bible becomes more palatable to New age and other religions as they can substitute, Satan, Buddha, Gaia or who ever they want for the word ‘him’. This problem does not arise with the KJV as it specifically mentions Jesus is our strength.

In the NIV Lord is omitted 39 times, Jesus is omitted 87 times and Christ is omitted 39 times and more world friendly titles are sometimes substituted.

The problem with the NIV is that at times it changes the Name of Jesus to generic one and does not capitalise these generic names. Anyone who was not a Christian would not know these names referred to Jesus so would not have a reason to believe in Him. The NIV would not lead them into faith in Jesus (Rome 10:17). It would also allow people to substitute their own god for Jesus and by this generic use of names for Jesus set the basis for a one world bible where the generic names of Jesus could be applied to their own god.

Surely God would not change His Bible in such a way that reduces the chance for people to see Jesus and have faith in Him and which also allows his enemy to use it for his own purposes!

In his book "Serious omissions in the NIV Bible", Keith Piper lists 30 ways the NIV attacks Jesus, 17 ways it downgrades Jesus and 10 ways it alters the requirements for Salvation. Why would a Bible attack Jesus. Why would the translators and editors use a critical text that attacks Jesus. These questions need a satisfactory answer.

In the New Age and other cults or religions Jesus is not God, just another master and by removing or changing His divine titles to more human, generic ones the Bible is made more user friendly as the problem of Him being God’s Son is no longer there. This problem does not arise with the KJV.

Why are the translators making modern translations more user friendly with other religions and cults? I cannot imagine God doing that.

Maybe these modern versions are not heretical but are correct in which case the doctrine of 1800 years has been incorrect. I cannot imagine God allowing error in His people for over 1800 years.

I have difficult in trusting the NIV Bible which implies God is a hypocrite, Jesus is a liar and which implies Jesus is just another man. As all modern Bibles are based on the critical text used by the NIV so I also have difficulty in trusting them.

Dean Burgan was one of the greatest Biblical scholars of all time. He examined the controversy over these two texts (the received text and the critical text) and defined seven tests to determine which was the true Greek text and thus the one to use for the purpose of Bible translations.

Being the oldest text does automatically make it a better text. Even though the critical text has two codices that are 1600 years old, the received text is mentioned in documents that are just as old if not older. The fact that they are quotes from the Bible and not actual codices like the Sinai and Vatican Codices does not invalidate their witness to the antiquity of the received text.

This not a good test today with the advent of printing but in the days when documents were hand written, people only copied that which was best. The test of numbers in regards to existing documents goes to the received text where, at the time of Dean Burgon, 5210 of the 5255 manuscripts were of the received text. One wonders why modern translators have limited themselves to such a small body of evidence to use as a basis of the sacred text of The Bible.

The received text is found throughout the Roman world while the critical text is found only in Egypt which would indicate it was a local phenomena attached to the beliefs of people in a specific area unlike the received text which was accepted throughout the rest of Christendom. On this basis the received text wins again.

The Sinai and Vatican codices fail this Test as they disagree with each other in over 3000 places in the Gospels alone. They cannot both be right so one has to be a false witness and possibly both, depending on how much error is them. There is little or no problem with the receive text in this area. As evidence f the correctness of the received test it is to be noted that it has been used from the time of the apostles till now while the critical text disappeared for 1500 years and was ignored by the majority of Christians. There is also the agreement between all the documents of the received text as against the differences in the documents of the critical text.

The received text has continuity from the time of the Gospels first being written to the time the King James Translation was made and later. The Sanai and Vatican codices were written between 300- 400 AD used for two- three centuries then forgotten for 1250+ years. These two codices are the main documents for the critical test used in modern versions. They fail the continuity test which shows the Byzantine texts on which the received texts were based were considered scripture from the writings of the apostles until the King James was published and through this translation are still continuing on unbroken till the current date while one of the major codex used for the critical test was consigned to the rubbish heap to be used as fossil fuel.

Is the text true to the doctrinal meaning of the passage or does it translate differently in different passages, according to what the translator or editor believes should be there. Because of its omissions the critical text is not doctrinally sound at times as a result of words, phrases or passages partly omitted, left out, altered or translated unusually. It fails this test while the received text is consistent in its usage and translation.

The received text has no need to be corrected and so you will not find manuscripts with doctrinal corrections, except to correct a spelling or miscopied word and the correction will agree with the other Byzantine manuscripts. The Sinai codex was corrected by 10 different people over a period of 200 years before they stored it away as still unreliable to use. Given the agreement in many places of the Vatican codex with the Sinai codex there must be similar error in the Vatican codex as well. So it can be seen the critical text is based on two Greek codices that were not considered very accurate or correct and needed to be edited to reach the truth of what they should have said and even after editing one was discarded as too unreliable to use an the other shelved and forgotten.

If modern versions translated the critical text similarly in all their translations then they could have some credibility. But they do not do so as each editor and translator stamps their own belief (doctrine) on what they believe the version should contain and how it should be expressed. This has resulted in disorder and confusion. Why are there so many modern translations. They cannot all be correct especially when they say different things because they use different words to express what they believe the critical text says.

God is not a God of confusion so who is behind this confusion in the modern versions ? God cannot be behind this confusion and inconsistency!

It can be seen that the critical text does not do too well in these tests but that the received text used for the KJV does.

Anyone willing to examine these tests for themselves and who open mindedly does the research will reach the same conclusions I have.

I am no scholar so I have drawn on the work of others more knowledgeable than myself but Just looking at how the critical text treats Jesus and the confusion of Bible translations that has resulted I find it difficult to see the hand of God on them especially with some of the glaring heresies in them unlike the text behind the KJV which Glorifies Jesus and results in cohesiveness in the Bibles translated from it.

"By their fruits you shall know them" said Jesus so let us look at the fruits of the received text and the critical text.

The received text resulted in the Reformation. In the translation of the KJV from it, England became a great nation and started to decline after the publication of the Revised Version in 1881 which was based on the critical text. When the NIV was published in 1970 the western churches started their decline. It too was based on the critical text.

There is confusion in translations based on the critical text where modern versions do not agree with each other in the way passages are translated.

There is confusion in doctrine as things left out or questioned in modern versions conflict with the doctrines of yesteryear as expounded in the received text (used by the translators and editors of the KJV). The problem of doctrinal conflict in the text behind the Bible only occurred after the critical text was used to replace the received text

The church has little fruit to be seen by society so has become irrelevant or a mystery to many.

There is a worldliness in the church as The Word is not affecting the people in the way it used too.

More people are liberal in their theology both in the congregation and ministry leadership because the modern versions are not as condemning of sin as the received text was so tolerate sin that would not have been accepted in the time when the received text was used as the basis of Bible translations..

Churches no longer do the work of Jesus and many are social clubs that do not offer the world anything that would attract them to Jesus.

The fruit of the critical text does not recommend it as being a dynamic, Spirit Filled, powerful Greek Text in a way the received text is.

The fruit of the translators and editors of the modern bible versions is such that they do not want you to identify Antichrist by the omission of "Christ is come in the flesh". This omission also allows anyone to be a Christ for the purposes of their belief system as you do not need them to have a virgin birth.

Why do they hide Antichrist and and remove the need to declare Jesus is The Christ requiring only to confess Jesus and even then it can be their Jesus and not the Jesus of the KJV.

According to this verse you can be a heretic, believe in Jesus and not be an Antichrist (against Christ) which means any heretical editor or translator of the modern bibles is not an Antichrist even though they reject he is the Christ (anointed one). This lack of belied in The Christ opens the way to a one world faith based in a belief in Jesus (whoever you make Him out to be) and a bible that allows you to believe what you want about Jesus and allows you to adapt it to your particular faith. (See Gail Riplinger’s book on New Age Bile Versions)

If you Look hard you will find other signs of the decline in the Church as a result of the usage of the so called better critical text.

Strong in one of the editions of his concordance details the differences between the KJV and the RV (the first really modern version using the critical text). There are 264 and 1/4 pages of 8 point type with 8 columns to a page. The critical test is not an Greek text that is a correction of the received text but a whole new Greek text designed to replace the received text for reasons unstated by the editors of it.

Anything that modifies doctrine or denigrates Jesus is heretical. The critical text does this so it is heretical and the modern Bible versions based on this text as a result must be heretical. It only requires one thing for it to be heretical like substituting Jesus for Satan in Is 14:12 so Jesus has now fallen form heaven and not Satan (and implies Jesus came to earth involuntarily) or changing Ps 12:7 implying the Bible is no longer preserved by God, or the changing of the Names of Jesus so He is less Divine. This is heresy at its worst and these changes can only have been deliberate by people who did not accept the divinity of Jesus and could not be God sanctioned.

It only takes one doctrinal change to make a bible untrustworthy and useless for the purposes of the Christian faith but I have shown modern versions have numerous doctrinal errors as a result of flowing the critical Greek text.

Given the heretical nature of the critical text it can only be assumed that the translators and editors do not know their doctrine or have modified these modern versions to suit and agenda or heretical doctrine they have. They are not judged by man but by the words they write and claim to be from God which conflict with the Words God has preserved for over 1800 years..

The mythologizing of Genesis, especially creation, the fall, the promised Messiah, the flood and the Tower of Babel and

The only comments I will make is that if you add to the Bible (like the Gap theory), Mythologist Gen ch 1 to 11 or declare miracles are not real you cannot really trust The Bible and it becomes useless as a Guide to redemption, salvation, trusting God and learning about Him. Not believing Gen 3 literally removes the need for Jesus and makes The New Testament and Jesus irrelevant.

Rationalising Miracles also removes the need for faith in God’s power to do Miracles and calls God, Jesus and the Bible liars and again you cannot trust anything That particular Bible says. You have no place to go to find out about God, redemption and salvation and must rely on what can be seen in His creation and listening to your conscience to get to heaven.

In these last days when the Lukewarm Church is To be revealed for what it is and a one world religion formed in preparation for the Antichrist, the critical text has appeared in time for it to be prepared to be the Text of the one world religion and in the process of becoming this create a lukewarm faith and resulting lukewarm Church.

To take creation away from God implies God is not God as He does not rule all as other mechanisms out of His control occurred to create all things and cause all that we see today. In otherwords there are things outside His Kingdom that He does not control. This implies there is more than one God, which by definition of God, cannot be or that He is not God and another is God who does control all.

If God is not God then Christianity is a fake religion based on someone who calls them self God but is not, as they do not have control over all that exists as there are forces outside their control.

If The Bible has error in stating God is God and that He created everything and evolution is correct and He did not the,n The Bible cannot be believe and all that was said about sin, Jesus and salvation cannot be believed as we do not know if it is true. We do not know if there is an afterlife and if it is worth trying to obtain.

To believe in evolution or a modified form of it is to deny God and you cannot be Christian and have any thing that exists out of the control of God.

Christianity is based on faith and evolution on reason and faith so the are incompatible. You cannot have reason and a faith based on reason, as evolution does, beause you do not have the evidence to backup that faith so that you not have to find imaginary things to back up your faith in evolution evolution.

Christianity has sources outside The Bible that verify the workings of God as well as the evidence of God about it and Jesus which reinforces our faith to accept these and then reason to continue building on it, based on the workings of God in our life and in the life of others.

Evolution requires reason then faith in the reasonings to continue in it. Christianity requires faith and then reason will result to reinforce the faith to help you continue in this faith as you see God at work and reason He is real by this and The Bible must be true in what it says about God and His workings in creation and our life.

So if you believe in evolution or the other theories above then do not call yourself a Christian as you are a hypocrite and God does not like hypocrites.

Trinitarian Bible Society was formed in 1830 when Unitarians took over the Bible Society in England and also have good material on Bible corruption: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

Chick Publications also has some good thought provoking material on their web site: http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

The Bible was written by men inspired by The Holy Ghost, If you attack the Bible you attack the Holy Ghost. If you call into question the Bible in any way you are demeaning the Holy Spirit. This is really Blaspheming The Holy Spirit for which you lose your salvation and are unable to repent (Heb 6:4-6).

To doubt parts of the Bible as being accurate also questions the Holy Spirit’s credibility and demeans Him resulting in Blaspheming Him.

Those who are so unwise (as modern translators and editors are) as to tell God what His Bible actually says or should say have blasphemed The Holy Spirit. There is no hope for them as they have consciously called The Holy Spirit into ridicule replacing what He said in The Bible with their own views on God.

Woe to the Bible translators who write what they believe should be there, ignoring what God had said already because they are wiser in their own eyes. They have their reward on earth and will have none except hellfire in the days of eternity!

Woe to the churches that blindly accept their writings as ruth. They will be blind guides leading the blind sheep and will go the way of the world in what they do unless they repent and will not demonstrate he kingdom and may end up not being a part of it being candidates fo the lukewarm church Jesus will spew ot of His mouth in the end times.