INTRODUCTIONToday, many Christians possess modern translations, not realizing they are based on untrustworthy Greek and Hebrew texts. These old and new testament texts were created by Hort and Westcott, who made the false claim that since their texts were based on the earliest and best manuscripts, around 4th century AD, and being earliest, they must automatically be more accurate.However, between the beginning of the 2nd and 5th century AD, more and more false teachings came out of the Church at Rome and certain Alexandrian churches with their Arian and Gnostic beliefs, and these false teaching have been infused even in recent years. Given the amount of false teachings, it was necessary for bible texts that supported these false doctrines to be created to reduce adverse discovery by believers. The result was primarily the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrian type texts supposedly during this 4th to 5th century AD period, but can now be proven to be forgeries. The propagation of false doctrines to modern translations worked this way:
Our in-depth studies have found over 3200 verses with doctrinal changes in the New Testament (almost 8000 verses), primarily through the removal of words, phrases, sentences and even sections of scripture. And virtually all modern translations based on Hort and Westcott have the very same doctrinal changes. This table illustrates this: http://www.millpark.org/bible/doctrine-critical/Hort_and_Westcott_and_RT_versions.html . Here is a reference to many of the corrupted verses from outside our own studies, and this list is only a sample at: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html . There are other references that can be found on the Internet. If you look those verses up in their context, the wise believer can discover what false doctrines have arisen, because "offensive" verses have been removed. What follows for the student of the bible is the evidence of the forgeries we have uncovered. We estimate this to be up to 2 hours of reading. |
| 1.accommodates uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic doctrines in about 40% of the verses (> 3200 verses) which is astounding !!!! 2. have over 30% of New Testament verses back-translated into Greek from the Latin texts of 4th Century Rome (contemporary verse numbering) 3. the "earliest and best" manuscript sources claim is not true, but is more like a contemporary Catholic, Arian and Gnostic set of forgeries, the evidence shows. |
| 1. as
proved by statistical analysis and probability theory, namely that of
all the altered verses, 9.5% do not change doctrine, BUT 90.5% of altered verses have changed doctrine, proving changes were made deliberately, not accidentally by scribes !!!!! 2. being motivated by religious viewpoint accommodation, particularly Church at Rome and Alexandrian churches, even up to today, changes were made to alter doctrine 3. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are forgeries from the 1850s and 1400s, respectively, and not from the first few centuries AD, as some have claimed 4. Alexandrian authors and others have also emended Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations into the Greek New Testament texts, and so today 5% of New Testament verses have these emendations, such as calling Joseph Jesus' biological father (implies God is not the real Father), removing "his" from "his only begotten son" (implies Jesus' is not God's son), and Jesus' existence started only at his birth and not before then (just one letter changed in a Greek word changed "birth" into "initial-life", Matt 1:18), and almost 400 more times in the New Testament such Arian/Gnostic changes have been made. |
| 1.
recent editors of the Greek New Testament, in the editors' own words,
show they are dubious editors at best, and apostate at worst 2. many denominational accommodations and biases degrade modern translations 3. much of the Greek is not even translated correctly, as "only begotten son" is only translated as "one and only son" (but which type? adopted son, step son, proxy son, but not "begotten" son from "generated" in the Greek, but why not? apostasy?) 4. these translators, by trusting the proved forgeries of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, prove these translators lack credibility. |
| The
Table of Contents that follows outlines a study that will
show,
with significant forensic evidence, which lines of scripture can be trusted
today, and why. This is a broad study, perhaps a 1-2 hour read for
some, so it is broken down into sections, as follows, to allow for
breaks. |
TABLE OF CONTENTS (links)
Your comments are welcome at info@hometownmail.net |