If you have already read the chapter about unfaithful handlers of the scriptures and the chapter about the influence of Latin grammar upon the Alexandrian Greek New Testament, you can now read about how Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal influences changed the texts significantly, in correlation with the back-translated Latin influenced changes.

This study now turns to the Church at Rome and the Alexandrians, and how their unique doctrines became infused into the texts that would later become the Hort and Westcott Greek New Testament (GNT) and ultimately, virtually all modern translations, to one degree or another.

These doctrinal changes work together to produce a text that is not faithful to mainstream evangelical teachings, but inline with uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrines, which might please you if you are Church at Rome, Arian or Gnostic, otherwise not.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINAL ACCOMMODATIONS

The following topics will be discussed:

uniquely Church at Rome doctrinal changes of the 4th century, that found their way into the Hort and Westcott GNT (and thus modern translations)
uniquely Arian and Gnostic beliefs that found their way into the Hort and Westcott GNT (and thus modern translations).

OBSERVATIONS (a preview)

FORENSIC STATISTICS

( ref: __HW_forensic_statistics.html )

This table reflects data and statistics gathered from reviewing the Stephanus Greek NT that is then used to draw conclusions about the character of the Hort and Westcott Greek NT.

Hort and Westcott Greek NT	count	percent
Verses reviewed	7552⁽¹⁾	100%
Verses with uniquely Church at Rome doctrinal accommodations	2850	42.6%
Verses with Arian and/or Gnostic doctrinal accommodations	368	4.9%
Verses with Latin language vestiges (Some Greek from Latin? Yes!)	2336	30.9%
Verses with Medieval Greek instead of Koine (less orginal)	257	3.4%
# verses with real differences⁽²⁾ doctrinal verses out of total verses	4441	60%
# verses with real differences⁽²⁾ non-doctrinal verses out of total verses	13	0.17%
percent of differences⁽²⁾ in doctrinal verses out of total changed verses	4441	99.7%
percent of differences⁽²⁾ non-doctrinal verses out of total changed verses	13	0.3%

NOTES

The verse count is actually based on the Stephanus GNT, but Revelation is not included in this review, because of its unique nature.
"Real differences" only means differences that change the meaning of a verse (spellings of names, Medieval Greek instead of Koine, etc, is excluded)

OBSERVATIONS

Ordinarily, a large number of differences (variants) could mean that any given text is suspect as inaccurate. However, the table above shows that the Hort and Westcott Greek NT has a large number of:

uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations
Latin language vestiges, indicating a Church at Rome back-translation
Medieval Greek spellings, indicating 4th-6th century origin and later, and not all 1st century.

The largest number of differences (variants), almost exclusively exists in doctrinal verses, when Hort and Westcott is compared to Stephanus Greek NT, which indicates:

these differences (variants) are not mistakes, since these kinds of statistics indicate, at the very least, there is only one chance in 15,000,000,000,000,000 that this many variants exist almost exclusively in doctrinal verses as "mistakes", while scant variants of any kind exist in non-doctrinal verses
these deliberate changes appear to be made primarily to accommodate uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrines (mostly by deleting texts)
the "mistakes" that exist in a very few non-doctrinal verses appear to be due to the sloppiness that all scholars agree exists in Vaticanus, and the 19th century forgery, Sinaiticus, both the primary sources for Hort and Westcott Greek NT.

Also not shown is the huge number of early 2nd-4th century quotations that favor the Stephanus Greek NT over Hort and Westcott Greek NT, that number in the hundreds.

We have no choice but to conclude that the Hort and Westcott Greek NT is based on deliberately altered texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, that accommodate uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrines.

We theorize that the Greek texts were first back-translated from the Latin, and then when the those in Alexandrian, Egypt acquired them, they were infused with Arian and Gnostic doctrines. Further evidence for this shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in the Egyptian type font.

The few scant variants in non-doctrinal verses were likely the product of the sloppy work performed in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, per the opinion of most all scholars.

As can be seen in the above table, the number of doctrinal accommodations is very significant!

Our studies further show that the doctrinal accommodations number as follows:

critical doctrines changed = 280 changes
essential doctrines changed = 642 changes
important doctrines changed = 2295 changes

This puts an end to the argument by those that say the differences are only "minor", since there are a huge number of differences between Hort and Westcott and Stephanus Greek NT!

With respect to copying "errors", allegedly made over the centuries, we would expect to find that they are distributed proportionately between doctrinal verses and narrative-only verses. However, as can been seen in the above table, the variants exists almost exclusively in the doctrinal verses, with scant variants in non-doctrinal verses. This can mean only one thing, those so-called "mistakes" were deliberate changes. Of course we must resolve then who made the changes, but more on that shortly.

As can be seen in the table above, the odds of only doctrinal verses containing "errors" made by copying mistakes that change the meaning is statistically impossible. These "errors" therefore are deliberate changes !!!

Since the variants, are not accidental but deliberate (based on statistical analysis), the issue then becomes, who has faulty doctrine, the traditional Received Text GNT or the Hort and Westcott GNT??? Our contention is that since all these doctrinal verses reflect uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations, that the fault lies in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and certain related texts, from which the Hort and Westcott GNT.

Thus Hort and Westcott's GNT, and thus virtually all modern translations, translated in whole or in part from these texts or their derivatives, such as SBL, NA, UBS, or other derived GNTs, are essentially texts that reflect uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations. Remember these accommodations number over 3200 verses.

Conversely, thorough examination of the traditional Received Text, the Stephanus GNT, for example, shows it does not accommodate any of these unique beliefs. And there are over 150 translations in the world that are based only on the traditional Received Text GNT, so this is not a "King James only" argument.

(Click here for a partial list: Modern translations)

Obviously we are not Church at Rome followers, when we make the above assertions, or for that matter, we are not Arians or Gnostics either. We are just researchers letting readers know what we have uncovered.

(NOTE: Verses are counted using modern verse numbering, for statistical analysis; verse numbering did not exist until 1550.)

Thus we must conclude that the Church at Rome and the Alexandrians were responsible for deliberately altering the Greek texts to accommodate their doctrines.

THE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINAL ACCOMMODATIONS

General Description of the Study

A spreadsheet was used to keep track of all the differences that represent doctrinal accommodations by Church at Rome, Arians and Gnostics.
This spreadsheet was also used to keep track of the grammatical issues related to the back-translation of the Latin into the Greek, along with Arian and Gnostics grammatical influences, such as Medieval Greek instead of Koine Greek, for example.
Together, a "picture" is formed of the correlation between evidence for Latin grammar vestiges in the Greek text, (back-translated Latin) and Church at Rome doctrinal accommodations.
Additionally, a "picture" is formed of the correlation between evidence for Alexandrian Greek influences and Arian/Gnostic doctrinal accommodations. (Note to the reader: Alexandria, Egypt was especially noted for its Arian and Gnostic Christians. They will be discussed shortly.)
Correlation of grammar to doctrinal accommodations is documented to include, but not limited to, emphatic word-order changes, changes to the tense, mood or voice of verbs, changes to formal gender (sets of applicable adjectival traits/characteristics), and occasional grammatical construct errors and articles manipulation.
In a separate, but complementary spreadsheet, is seen the progression of doctrinal accommodations, that is, the original text Greek NT, then uniquely Church at Rome doctrinal accommodations, then Alexandrian doctrinal accommodations, then even a few doctrinal changes by Hort and Westcott and others into virtually all modern translations. This progression is clearly supported by the forensic evidence. If an attempt is made to change the order of accommodations (for examination purposes only), the progression order breaks down, because then regression interferes with the natural progressive order, resulting in a sort of chaos. So the progressive order is established.
Because forensic evidence shows the correct progression, the Alexandrian Greek texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were not sole predecessors to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, but the reverse is also true as much as 40% of the time, where at least in some significant portion, the Latin Vulgate was a predecessor to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and thus the Hort and Westcott GNT (and its derivatives), and thus virtually all modern translations, are in part based on this line of text and including the back-translated Latin text of Rome. (This is NOT the traditional Received Text progression, btw.)
In order to verify which is the original scriptural text in each remarkable variant, much study was applied to using as many text sources as possible to determine the original text, such as:

the Old Latin and Aramaic of about 150 AD and the Coptic of 125 AD and of course Greek sources such as Codex Bazae and others
citations of scripture verses by church leaders from the 2nd-4th century
even the Diatessaron Harmonies of the late 2nd century (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron.)

Together, these texts, along with a few other sources, such as other Greek sources and other scholarly references, verify the original words, phrases or whole passages. However, some contemporary textual critics disagree and say things were worded differently than the traditional Received Text (example: Stephanus GNT), or even not present in the originals. Our research shows the traditional Received Text is faithful to the original authors, while the Hort and Westcott is not, and is in fact a deliberate corruption.

The verification of the original text, serves as a basis then for observing changes of every kind, and thus the uncovering of doctrinal accommodations, while also identifying the Greek spelling and grammatical changes influenced by the Latin of Rome and Medieval Greek used in Alexandria, Egypt and later on as well.
Because it is easy to establish which verses have some doctrinal significance, and which are basically narrative, we were able to count the verses with variants and see whether they were proportionately distributed between doctrinal and non-doctrinal verses. Our study showed that virtually all the variants occur in the verses which are doctrinal, with only a scant few variants occurring in narrative verses (except for spelling differences that do not change the meaning one iota). Thus, one can only conclude that these variants are not errors due to copying, etc., but deliberately made changes to accommodate doctrinal preferences. This is proven by simple probability theory.
Finally, our study shows that 100% of the variants that are doctrinal, accommodate uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrines. Thus one is forced to conclude that the traditional Received Text GNT is absent of uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrines. (We use the word "uniquely" to differentiate between that which is uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic, and those common doctrines that are shared between Church at Rome and non-Church at Rome, or for that matter contemporaries who practice the old Arian and Gnostic religions.)

More Details for Meditation

We would love to provide the reader with the detailed spreadsheets. We will provide, however, ample examples from the spread sheets that will have to suffice as proof of our studies.

Why not publish the spreadsheets?

These spreadsheets are tens of thousands of lines long, representing over 10 years of study, and so it would be "messy" to view that much information, not to mention, overwhelm the reader.
The research constitutes proprietary work, and if published might be used by others for profit, and we are non-profit in our motives, since our goal is distribution of our findings for free.

Doctrinal Backgrounds

At this point, we need to introduce the doctrines of the Church at Rome, Arians, and Gnostics of the 4-10th century, when the Alexandrian Greek texts are purported to have come into existence. We do this so that when we provide many examples of textual changes, one can see the doctrinal accommodations.

Church at Rome

It is very well documented by the Church at Rome church (known as the "Church at Rome" in the 1st to 5th century) how it went through wide-spread changes in doctrine. Indeed, Latin scriptures' progression even reflects those changes from the 1st to 5th century.

While counterpoise deny the early "Church at Rome" changed doctrines, the early Church at Rome leaders wrote of the changes in their own words and even their reasons for said changes, including of course, that the pope was divinely inspired to make said changes.

Below is a table showing well-documented doctrinal changes introduced by the Church at Rome. It is not complete, but provides the most well-known ones.

While the current Church at Rome sometimes denies changing doctrines, you can see the changes by simple reasoning. You see, the new doctrines were declared at the dates shown above, and did not officially exist before those dates. This therefore, in and of itself, constitutes changes from non-existent doctrines to those that came into existence.

Even one of the doctrinal changes is documented by Tertullian, since in 190 AD he actually said we are saved by faith alone, and not by water baptism, but by 230 AD, he had been persuaded by the Church at Rome that water baptism was needed to be saved and verbalized this belief.

Now that the reader has become familiar with some of the significant early doctrines introduced by the Church at Rome, this will help one to see from our research where we describe the changes made to support uniquely Church at Rome doctrine.

Now you may ask, "If they changed doctrine, did they need to change scriptures too?" This is a good question!

Well, when one studies the history of the Church at Rome long enough, one comes to appreciate three things:

they claim that only the pope and his appointees can interpret scripture
they often rationalize scriptures to their own interpretation
it was easier, in the late 4th century, for Jerome to produce a Latin bible, with a modified text to support uniquely Church at Rome doctrine, than to provide convoluted explanations for contradictions to the new Church at Rome doctrines, particularly the more important ones, and especially those verses that appear to contradict the new Church at Rome doctrines of the previous three centuries, as well.

Now, here are some promised examples.

Acts 8:37

It can be proven this verse was removed by Jerome, or his proxies, so that it did not appear in the New Latin Vulgate. It is basically a verse that states that the required prerequisite for baptism is faith in Jesus Christ, and since new born babies cannot do that, this verse had to go to allow for baptism of babies in the Church at Rome.

In fact, some of the early Church at Rome fathers argued, "Why wait until a baby grows up to bring them into the church? Baptize them now, and thus make them members now." Well, in the case of salvation that must be earned anyway, according to Church at Rome theology, this is logical. Baptism was only one of several steps one had to take to get to Heaven, per Church at Rome theology.

Now here are some quotations from the Church at Rome, showing there was some disagreement that belief was a prerequisite to baptism, for salvation.

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

So at first, they seemed to be in agreement that babies were not to be baptized, as indicated by a conscience effort of the person to fast before being baptized, something a baby could not do. Furthermore, this was written when some of the Disciples were still around, who would have pointed out the error of baptizing babies. So they had to be in agreement, for the time being, in 70 AD.

“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." [Clement of Rome (before 110 AD)]

So Clement, Peter's disciple, claimed it was faith alone that saved, not water baptism in 110 AD.

"Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" "(First Apology 61 [151 AD], Justin Martyr).

"No one can attain salvation through water baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life" "(On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203], Tertullian).

So up to about 200 AD, water baptism did not save you, but spirit-water baptism, according to Tertullian. But this was contradicted soon after Origen:

"The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism, even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." [Origen (185-254 AD), commentary on Romans 5:8]

So now, since water baptism was necessary for salvation by the early 3rd century and reinforced by Origen's statement, it was logical to baptize babies now, and deal with confirmation and other adult requirements later.

These kinds of teachings are repeated, pro or con, for babies being baptized by Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine and others of the Church at Rome before Jerome publishes the New Latin Vulgate. So they did initially intend that baptizing was only for those capable of fasting on their own, in the beginning, but eventually anyone at all, including babies were to be baptized.

What are the proofs that Acts 8:37 was always present, written by Luke? This is the current evidence:

The verse is found in uncial E (6/7th century), the Old Latin (2nd century), Peshitta (2nd century, Aramaic), Coptic (2nd century) and is cited by Irenaeus (180 AD) and Cyprian (250 AD). See also Ruckman (31) p 331, (54) p 19-20. Ruckman (57) Acts p 291 also cites Tertullian (2nd century), Pacian (370 AD), Ambrose and Augustine (4th century) as knowing of the verse.

So even early Church at Rome leaders cited the verse, and thus it always existed. However, by the time Jerome produced the New Latin Vulgate, it was realized Acts 8:37 had to go in order to match the church doctrine of baptizing babies in order to avoid arguments over the doctrine of infant baptism. (Note: modern verse numbering for this verse)

Fortunately for us today, scholars throughout history knew it was in the original Greek, and so insured its presence in the Greek thereafter, despite the Latin Vulgate's exclusion and despite the exclusion by Hort and Westcott, and subsequently by most modern translations.

So, the fact that the Church at Rome fathers, who are listed above, knew it was in the original text from Luke, but did not include it in the Vulgate, reinforces the argument that the Church at Rome wanted to conceal the fact that faith in Jesus is a required prerequisite for water baptism in order to change the doctrine so babies could be baptized.

This is but one of thousands of examples of suppression of texts by the Church at Rome to accommodate its doctrines. Indeed, for about 1000 years it tried (in vain) to stomp out all other versions of texts, in any language, that was not the official New Latin of Jerome. This is a well-documented fact, and it resulted in millions of deaths because of its efforts. The Church at Rome even apologized for these "murders" in March of 2000. And John Wesley estimated at least 44 million were murdered because others held fast to the traditional text and/or refused to join the Church at Rome.

(The Church at Rome used rationalization to convince kings to kill non-Church at Rome followers and those clinging to other scriptural texts besides the New Latin of Jerome.)

Mark 6:11 is another verse where some words were removed by Jerome or his proxies.

It reads in the Jubilee 2000 as:

"And whosoever shall not receive you nor hear you, when ye depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet in testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome removed the words in red.

Granted that it is somewhat speculative, but it appears that the motive for the Church at Rome to remove these words is that the "day of judgment" ran into some theological conflicts with respect to the doctrine of purgatory, which was in recognition by as early as 71 AD, and most certainly by 160 AD.

The removed words are witnessed to in 11 uncials and virtually all cursives, with only a handful of manuscripts omitting the words, including 6 Alexandrian uncials. This passage reading is also written, in full, in the Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic and Gothic versions, and quoted in full by Ireneus (2nd Century, Church at Rome) and Victor of Antioch (5th Century).

Fortunately for us, the text was preserved in the traditional Received Text, and so we are reminded of the day of judgment, where the Book of Revelation also describes the judgment as being when those that are not in "the book" will be sent to hell. And those in "the book" will enter Heaven, where the only judgment will be for God to provide whatever rewards He plans for each of His children (how much and what).

Another important verse is Colossians 1:14 (as translated from the German Schlachter 2000):

"in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins."

"through his blood" has been omitted by Jerome or his proxies in the Latin Vulgate !!!

Many a believer knows how important the words "through his blood" are, since it is His blood that provides redemption and the total forgiveness of all our sins. However, the Church at Rome by about 200 AD had already established the need for "works salvation" consisting of, but not limited to, the requirements of:

water baptism
forgiveness of sins through confessing to a priest
bloodless sacrifice of "The Mass", for forgiveness of sins
good works themselves
spending some amount of time in purgatory, to be punished for bad deeds in this life.

Origen Adamantius (184-253), of the Church at Rome, wrote that "the confessional was the place to receive the forgiveness of sins." So we have at least one likely source of influence for the removal of the words "through his blood," even if it took some years for that influence to become "church law" at Rome.

Some outside of the church of Rome had attacked these words also, but here are some witnesses in their own words, writing prior to the creation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate:

John Cassian (360 AD), writing to defend several positions, quotes this scripture:

"Giving thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: for in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations, or powers: all things were created by Him and in Him. (Cassian, Against Nestorius, 5:7)"

And going back even further, Irenaeus (120-202 AD) of the church of Rome, before the adoption of priests being required for the forgiveness of sins, wrote, quoting part of what is now Colossians 1:14:

"By His own blood He redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, 'In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.' (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:2)"

Again we are blessed that God has preserved His Word in the traditional Received Text, especially the critical doctrine of redemption and forgiveness "through His blood" and not by any other means. And several external documents verify that these words were removed by the Church at Rome.

We will provide you with one more example of a deletion, which now exists as also removed in most all modern translations.

In Matthew 6:33 we read in the Jubilee 2000:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."

Apparently, the church a Rome was not happy with the words "of God," and perhaps it was because they thought by the end of the 4th century, that "the church" was that "kingdom," and they did not want to answer difficult questions about a spiritual kingdom of some kind, run by God Himself, instead of run by the pope. It also could be they did not have the Holy Ghost within, which links Christians together, and so had to defer to a pope to do this.

We of course cannot say for sure, but this is the likely explanation for why Jerome struck the words "of God." Or perhaps Jerome, or one or more of his proxies, stood "pricked" in their own conscience of the failure to put aside worldliness in favor of the seeking first the Kingdom of God, toned it down to just "the kingdom" which could mean anything, even a worldly kingdom run by the ruler of the Roman empire, but who knows? Nonetheless, removing the words DOES change doctrine.

Well, the Words "of God" (above) are well supported. They are found in the Old Latin and the Aramaic, both of 157 AD, and the Coptic, and in ample other early sources.

=======

As you can tell by now, the study of the doctrinal changes takes some effort, and creates mountains of notes. We hope you have read enough to be convinced. If not, there are plenty of websites to show you the accommodations for uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrines in the Hort and Westcott GNT.

What we have not shown you, however, are the much more subtle changes in the verb tenses, moods and voice, the gender of nouns, word emphatic ordering, and use of articles to set up context, that in effect, changes doctrine as well, albeit, many of these types of changes do not make their way into English or other language versions (which often leads to a lack of understanding by a reader without the Holy Spirit's guidance).

Indeed, we have documented hundreds of such word changes in the Greek, impacted under the influence of the Church at Rome, which surfaces in the back-translated Latin grammar vestiges in the Hort and Westcott GNT. Of the verses impacted by Latin grammar vestiges, we show that over 800 of these verses impact doctrine, whether they surface in a translation/version or not.

Here is an example.

In John 6:29 we read:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he has sent."

In the John 6 context, Jesus is talking to essentially non-believers, preaching the gospel to them. So to most non-Church at Rome, the idea that people should "believe in Jesus," is part of the steps one takes to be "born of God," also called "born again." These steps are represented by:

acknowledging I am a sinner
believing Jesus died for my sins
coming to the Lord in repentance and surrender.

At this point, for the sincere person, God takes over, the rebirth occurs, and a new life in Christ begins.

Well, in the Stephanus Greek NT, the word for "believe" is in the aorist subjunctive active, which means the act of believing by a non-believer is an "event", NOT a continuous or repeated action, and so if one "believes" as an event, then the condition/subjunctive is met, and so it conforms to the definition of "the work of God" in the verse above.

However, the Latin is in the present subjunctive active, and subsequently, the back-translated Latin to Greek of the Hort and Westcott GNT, is also in the present subjunctive active. Now this means the act of regeneration does not take place in a moment in time (an event), but rather over the life of the "believer", as the present tense subjunctive means one must make repeated confessions to believe in Christ in the present tense, which fits Church at Rome doctrine.

So we see how even hidden doctrinal changes exist in the Hort and Westcott GNT, even if they do not surface at the translation level.

It is noteworthy, however, to see that denominations do disagree over the meaning of "believe" in this verse, and so we have denominations that use "the event" regeneration model, and other that use the "repeated believing, life-time regeneration model." Perhaps the scholars of some denominations, depending on which GNT version they studied, formed their denominational beliefs based on the tense and mood of the verb "believe".

One more for our readers ....

In Galatians 3:22 it reads:

"But the scripture has concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to the believers."

Without so many details this time, suffice it to say, with respect to the underlined words, that the Latin verb is in the present tense, which indicates a continuous, ongoing process, while the Greek of Stephanus indicates a "state of being" in the perfect tense, mostly because we are "Adam's Race" of sinners. The difference is simple, if we are "sinners" before we are saved, we can be saved and our state changes from "sinner" to that of having imputed righteousness, another "state", and further, it is permanent.

However, the Latin, by treating those "under sin," as in a perpetual process for life, can never be saved in this lifetime. We cannot change from a perpetual sinner to an imputed perpetual non-sinner, since our state is not changed, that is, we are still sinners (a state) under condemnation of judgment.

However, imputed righteousness can change the state of person, because, by definition, the act of imputation changes our "state" (in the eyes of God) from "sinner" to "saint", and that is all that matters to God.

Of course, "the game" that Church at Rome and others play is to keep congregations so convinced they are not going to Heaven without the help of "the church". It is defined as an ongoing process of salvation, all because of the tense of a verb. It enslaves them to have endless works, prayers, attending Mass, endless confession, and of course purchasing indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, in order to possibly make it to Heaven, and certainly they will not have an absolute assurance of salvation.

Our response is simple:

Galatians 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

But there is more in various links, such as:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped5.html

Were uniquely Church at Rome changes right or wrong?

Now that you have read about many doctrinal changes made during the first four centuries by the Church at Rome, it is fair to ask, were these changes right or wrong?

Now most know that the Church at Rome claims it was correct in making these changes by the succession of popes, with Peter as the first pope. And since Peter wrote his letters under inspiration of God, Peter's successors can also write under the inspiration of God, and change doctrine as they so please, claiming divine inspiration.

Here is what is important!!!

If God does uses the popes to teach us doctrine, we need to listen and obey. But if not, we need to find the truth elsewhere.

One way to do this is to ask, "Was Peter the first pope?" In fact, the whole authority of the Church at Rome hangs on Peter as the first pope. The biggest claim to Peter as the first pope is found in:

MATTHEW 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Look closely at The Rock (click) to understand why Peter is not the Rock or foundation of the church.

Peter, and thus his successors, are not the rock Jesus builds His church on!!! Jesus builds the church on Himself, the Christ, "the anointed one." Peter is not the anointed one, or his new surname would be "Christ", but it is not. Furthermore, if anything, the Church at Rome has sought to build a tangible (masculine) church (buildings, etc) but the true church is intangible (feminine) and is led directly via the Holy Spirit itself:

1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

So it would seem the Church at Rome, as well as many other denominations, have assigned to themselves far greater authority than God gives them.

OK, but you ask "How does Christ build and maintain His church without pastors?"

ANSWER: Pastors do not build and maintain the church, they only lead the church by personal ensample to look to Christ the Rock who maintains the church, and that through the Holy Spirit's direct relationship with all truly born of God believers, the Spirit provides life, guidance, grace, etc, basically all the fruits of the Spirit and more, including power. Christ then directly builds and maintains his body of believers, the true children of God. ("Ensample" means mentoring, btw, not mere example.)

1 CORINTHIANS 3:11 "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Simply put, Peter is not the foundation of the church, or its "rock". And from even a cursory examination of the New Testament, Peter's two Epistles are very small in comparison to the writings of the Apostle Paul, and each of the gospels are huge compared to Peter. Paul is so dominant that if any one person were a "rock" it would be Paul. However, Paul defers to Jesus as the Rock, as two of his verses from Corinthians (above) point out. (See The Rock)

So only Jesus is the Rock the church is built on, and only Jesus is the foundation of the church. And John wrote why this is the case, namely that Jesus directly communicates with true believers, so that intermediaries are not required. (Pastors, etc, are only ensamples/mentors.)

So dear brothers and sisters, pray for guidance. Was Peter selected by Christ to be the rock He would build His church on? The Greek does not support that notion, and is even contradicted by many scriptures, not just 1 John 2:27 (above).

Arian

Immediately, it must be stated that "Arian" has nothing to do with Hitler's "Aryan race".

The spelling is different, because these two things are different. (They only sound alike.)
"Arian" is related only to a sect having a set of "Arian" beliefs, beginning shortly after Christ walked the Earth.

We know a lot about the Arians, because mainstream Christians of the 1st and 2nd century had doctrinal disagreements with them, and those arguments are preserved in many writings to this day (especially in "Against Heresies") Their doctrines include, but are not limited to:

Jesus is not God in the flesh
"Son of God" is an honorary title only (not literal)
Trinity manifestation does not exist the way Christians think of it
Salvation comes from moral behavior, following Christ's lead
"Grace" is limited to God recognizing the moral behavior and participation in Christianity as a religion
Jesus did not exist before the creation of the Earth (contrary to John 8:58, the "I am" is forever, and is also contrary to 1 John 5:7)
Holy Spirit not created until Jesus was created on Earth (contrary to John 8:58, 1 John 2:27, and 1 John 5:7)
God does not necessarily fill a "Father" role
Jesus not equal to God and not equal to the Father
Eventually, in 321 AD, Arius was denounced at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox (contrary) view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father, within in the concepts of Arianism
Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, and as a result of this, influenced the Alexandrian Greek texts (and Hort and Westcott GNT, and thus virtually all modern translations).

There are countless sources for these facts. The reader is invited to explore these.

So is there evidence for their influence in the Alexandrian texts? ANSWER: Yes

The Alexandrian texts came out of Alexandria, Egypt (virtually all agree)
the Hort and Westcott GNT demonstrates the Arian doctrinal accommodations are present in significant numbers.

The above will be discussed a bit more after the next section.

Gnostic

We know a lot about the Gnostics of the first few Christian centuries from many sources. Their beliefs consisted of, but were not limited to:

"secret knowledge" by only a select few; other followers had to listen to the select few
salvation of the soul could be achieved by attaining a deep, mystic, and divine knowledge
Jesus is not truly the Son of God (deny he was born of Mary by the Holy Ghost)
God is denied as the direct creator of the Earth and universe
Jesus not God in the flesh, only divine via “gnosis” exists (enlightenment)
some see Jesus as a false Messiah, who perverted the teachings of John the Baptist (repentance, salvation in Christ, etc)
belief in secondary god(s) who carry out “worldliness” (that is, gods rule the upper world, other gods rule our lower world)
practiced mythology and cosmology.

The Apostle Paul even warned Timothy about the "secret knowledge," as a so-called "science":

(1 Tim 6:20) " O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

The Greek word for "science" means "knowledge" and the Greek word itself is "gnosis". Thus Paul was already concerned about "Gnostics" in the first century! And indeed they had influence over the Alexandrian texts hundreds of years later.

(Of course this can include other "gnosis" groups throughout the centuries.)

Gnostic and Arian influence in the texts of Hort and Westcott GNT

Statistically speaking, this study has found that there are over 360 verses containing Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations in the Hort and Westcott GNT, that is, about 5% of the verses (using modern verse numbering). We could provide you with the 360+ examples, but the reader might tire, and besides, there are many websites with long lists of these. However, we provide you with a few significant examples.

Hort and Westcott GNT (HWGNT) examples:

MATTHEW 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

HWGNT is missing what is in red, as is the Alexandrian texts, and likewise, many modern versions. This appears to be a Gnostic rejection of Jesus as the Son of God!

Gnostic thinking would have been that Joseph was the natural father, and the Holy Ghost did not intervene to make Mary pregnant, so the word "firstborn" (in red) had to be removed to promote this Gnostic perversion and not let anyone think Mary gave birth to Jesus supernaturally. Note that there are ample early texts to support the word "firstborn', including, but not limited to the Old Latin (157 AD), the Peshitta (157 AD) and even the Latin of the Church at Rome.

The above shows that when the Alexandrians back-translated the Latin, in whole or in part, they did not agree with the word in red (above) and pulled it out. And this also appears to be an attack on the virgin birth of Mary's child, Jesus, that is, Mary and Joseph had pre-marital relations, or at least Mary did. Thus it is a kind of anti-Christ attack.

Next:

LUKE 1:28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

HWGNT is missing what is in red, as is the Alexandrian texts, and likewise in most modern versions. This appears to be an Arian rejection of Mary, even in the sense of having the special honor of giving birth to the Messiah.

Arian thinking was that they likely had less respect for women in general, and also the idea of Mary being "blessed" in some way for giving birth to Jesus might imply that it was Jesus as God in the flesh that she was being honored for, which they of course rejected by virtue of their doctrinal beliefs.

There are ample early manuscripts to support the full text, above.

Next:

LUKE 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

HWGNT is missing what is in red, as is the Alexandrian texts, and likewise in most modern versions. This appears to be a rejection by the Arians of calling the scriptures "the Word of God," at least in terms of spiritual consumption. There are ample early manuscripts to support the full text. More importantly is the word "every," as some would suppress parts of God's Word; the consequence for a true believer having an inability to reach their full potential, spiritually speaking.

Next:

John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18 and 1 John 4:9 are examples of modern-day Arian doctrinal accommodations in contemporary translations! The word for "begotten" ("monogenes") is not even translated into English (or even in some foreign language versions). The word, in English, could be translated as "only-generated," "only-procreated," etc. but it has been rejected, even in modern translations. Thus they are accommodating Arian and Gnostic beliefs even today!

By translating it as "one and only son" (the way many do), it carries with it the idea that Jesus is not God in the flesh. After all, "a one and only son" could be thought of as a "one and only" stepson, adopted son, appointed son or even a proxy son. It is only when "monogenes" is translated fully does it preclude all the other kinds of sons. It is only then, does it mean Jesus is actually God in the flesh, via the miraculous birth via Mary, with God as the actual Father.

We submit to the reader that excluding "only-begotten." "only-generated" or "only-procreated" in a translation is the spirit of anti-Christ, and in tune with modern-day Arian/Gnostic beliefs.

To see some more details of the progression of the accommodations of doctrines, see Scripture Progressions.

The spirit of anti-Christ in various texts

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ, is come in flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, of which ye [you all] have heard that it should come, and that now it is already in the whorld." (Jubilee 2000)

With respect to the principles of emphatic word ordering in Greek, we have performed a study to look at verses containing the names "Saviour", "Lord", "Jesus" and "Christ" or any combination thereof, and found out of 1766 verses containing one or more of these words, 239 verses (12%) contain variants of these words, deletions of one of multiple words, word ordering differences, and complete absence, even substituting a pronoun, for example. After much study of manuscripts, doctrines of the Church at Rome, Arians and Gnostics, we summarized the variants and assigned "faults" as objectively as possible to each variant. The table that follows shows our findings and is a summary from a very large spreadsheet of data and indications of faults. An explanation follows the table.

FAULTS:

groups »»	Church at Rome	Arian/Gnostic	Hort and Westcott
authority	27	10
emphatic	23	10
function	38	20	1
personal	55	31
confusion	24	1

Notes

Due to doctrinal influences of each of the above groups, the changes they made to texts reflect the issues they have with:

authority = a rejection of authority in certain areas (ex: Lordship)
emphatic = de-emphasizing important facts (ex: making Jesus more important than saving the lost)
function = alternate doctrines (ex: rejecting salvation by grace, Jesus not eternal)
personal = a rejection of a personal Jesus, Lord or God (ex: He does not lead us personally)
confusion = not being certain of the right text (ex: grammatical errors, sloppy work, Latin vestiges)

When there are 239 verses out of 1766 with so many conflicts, we find this is not the result of mistakes, but deliberately made changes to conform to doctrines of Church at Rome and Alexandrians, and even in a small part, to Hort and Westcott beliefs. (The above is not the only H&W change, they themselves made to the GNT texts.)

Ironically, the verse 1 John 4:3, quoted above, actually is altered by Church at Rome, Alexandrian, Hort and Westcott, in their own ways, so as to not make them look "guilty as charged." But in fact, all the verses reflected in the accountings in the above table, have "that spirit of antichrist" and so try as they may, changing 1 John 4:3 does not cover up what we see as antichrist doctrinal accommodations (per our beliefs).

The texts compared in this study for purposes of tabulation of "faults" included Stephanus GNT, Latin Vulgate NT of Jerome, Alexandrian GNT, and the Hort and Westcott GNT. Outside references include the Old Latin NT, Peshitta NT, Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, Tatian's harmonies, and even some Coptic NT texts, and some other references. Together, we were able to get at the correct Greek texts and identify the ones with changes, and under examination determine the apparent faults in their thinking.

While we would love to publish the spread-sheet for these 239 verses with the changes to "Jesus, Lord, Christ and Savior," we will provide you a few examples that should suffice. Besides, plenty of examples can be found on the Internet and in books. Here are some of them:

2 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, ..."

Hort and Westcott GNT does not have "Christ," which reflects the view of Arians/Gnostics of Alexandrian, that while accepting Paul as an apostle of Jesus, rejected the "anointed one" (Christ) as appointing Paul, and thus diminish the authority of Paul as an Apostle down to something like a leader/teacher. The Arians/Gnostics even thought themselves superior to Paul, in some ways, btw.

2 Timothy 4:1 "I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;"

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome reads "Christ Jesus" instead of "Lord Jesus Christ. In both Greek and in Latin, word order has significance, so in the verse above it reads, in effect, "the Lord, who is Jesus, who is the anointed one." But the Church at Rome in the end of the 4th century, already into the doctrine of purgatory three centuries earlier, seemed to have had trouble with the use of "Lord" with respect to anything to do with judgment, though there is ample early texts to support "Lord" being present in this verse.

Furthermore, with the "Christ Jesus" wording it reads, in effect, "the anointed one, who is Jesus." This de-emphasizes Jesus as the judge of everyone, one day, and instead emphasizes "the anointed one" as judge. This de-emphasizes the authority of Jesus as Lord, and even Jesus Himself as judge. (Hort and Westcott went along too with this fault, also, as do most modern translations.)

Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome does not contain the underlined text and this is likely because of the uniquely Church at Rome doctrine of what we like to call "enslavement", (see Galatians 2:4) that is, one must have a "works" based salvation, consisting of good works, constant repentance, saying the Mass (the bloodless sacrifice for sins), paying for indulgences, etc., all in order to be saved.

Next, while this does not surface in English, the word "Christ" (masculine) is preceded by the article "the" in the feminine. This "the" does not appear in the Alexandrian texts or the Hort and Westcott. To those that think only in "natural gender" terms (male/female) this would seem unimportant. However, Greek also has "formal gender", which has little to do with male or female and more to do with a set of adjectival traits. In this case, the feminine traits of "diverse, broad, inclusive and complete" apply. These traits fit the context perfectly, that is, Christ provides those He saves with "liberty" that is "diverse, broad, inclusive and complete" because Christ can exhibit this feminine behavior, though he, Himself, is masculine.

(The lack of any article "the" before Christ, is also an example (out of hundreds) of back-translated Latin into Greek.)

Finally, the word "therefore" does not exist in the Hort and Westcott, which reduces the emphasis as to why this verse is so important, based on the context before this verse.

Ephesians 6:1 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right."

The Alexandrian and Hort and Westcott GNTs lack "in the Lord" and this is likely because both the Arians and Gnostics and even Hort and Westcott were likely clueless as to what this meant in terms of a personal relationship with the Lord. (Evidence of this is found in Handlers.)

Also, there is another apparent motive, that all children should obey all parents, regardless of whether the parents are in the Lord or not. But that begs the question: "Should children obey parents, not in the Lord, who demand, for example, their children worship idols, not pray to the Lord, Jesus or God, commit crimes for family profit, permit sexual abuse, etc.?" Parents "in the Lord" are very unlikely to demand such behavior of their children. So for the Christian son or daughter, obeying parents has limits in the traditional Received Text.

So these are some of 239 verses containing the faults we have found related to the use of "Lord, Jesus, Christ and Savior." We hope my now you get the gist of what we are talking about. There are dozens of places on the Internet and in books with such examples, albeit, not as many that dive into the underlying Greek and Latin as we do, but sufficient to "get the picture."

Let the reader beware of the accommodations of unfaithful doctrines!

Conclusion

Having a huge number of over 3000 verses with doctrinal changes, with a high level of importance, as in the dozen or so that we have pointed out above, and this out of about 7552 New Testament verses (excluding Revelation, because of its special nature), makes us at this website see just how much effort has been made to attack God's Word !!!!

With about 42% of the GNT having doctrinal accommodations that are not faithful, it is a percentage so high as to reject the rest of the text of any particular translation or Greek source, just out of an abundance of caution, not to mention the discomfort of feeling one does not have a faithful copy of God's Word.

The doctrinal verse changes breaks down as about 2850 verses changed to accommodate uniquely Church at Rome doctrine, and almost 400 verse changes to accommodate Arian and Gnostic doctrines. Since we see that virtually 98% of these verses are doctrinal verses, and only 2% non-doctrinal verses have changes in meaning, we can only conclude, statistically speaking, the changes are deliberate, not mistakes.

So with so many deliberate changes in mind, we have tried to present the reader with some evidence of the magnitude of the issue to show who made the changes and why. Unfortunately, we cannot post documents with tens of thousands of lines, but then again, many other websites have posted their findings, some with Greek issues, some with translation issues, all pointing to the uniquely Church at Rome, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations supported by a "mountain" of forensic evidence. So there is plenty of evidence for the reader to review online.

We can only pray for you to see how you need to seek to possess a faithful copy of God's Word.

Write to us if you need advice at:

info@hometownmail.net

Let us add, out of respect for Church at Rome, that we mean no disrespect. We simply have come to a different interpretations than Church at Rome theologians, based on the forensic evidence we have studied for over a decade now, and others have studied for centuries, who we have referenced as well.

See Translations' Table for modern translations endorsed by the Church at Rome today (Catholic Church), along with a list of other traditional and modern translations.