The Bible manuscripts
What would be the most important deception how satan would like to deceive people away from the truth? That he would tamper with the Word of God by adding the words, leaving out the words, and by changing the original words' completely different words. If he could deceive people by saying that he has the original texts, and that the real original texts are counterfeits, so his deception would be completely successful. He has done this, and by this deception, he deceives a large part of the mankind, and even some of the sincere disciples of the Lord Jesus.
In this article, I'm going to bring out the origin of the original texts of the New Testament. I also bring out the deception regarding to unreliable manuscripts, which are used to deceive the Christian world.
Manuscripts papyrus pergaments
Greek New Testaments
Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (A)
The Byzantine text
Erasmus of Rotterdam and Textus Receptus
Traces of a lie
Westcott and Hort manuscript
Possible deception in the end time
The Lord Jesus revealed the deceivers
The origin of the New Testament
The original Greek texts of the New Testament have been written upon papyrus and parchment (pergament).Papyrus and parchment don't last forever, because of this all the original texts have long since become illegible and age has destroyed them. Therefore, in the guidance of God, all the New Testament texts copied repeatedly, and thus the original texts have been preserved as copies until today. Copies of the original texts are manuscripts of the New Testament.
The original texts of the New Testament are called also as fragments.. Fragment refers to pieces and parts.The text of the New Testament consists of different parts of the Gospels and the letters about which it is assembled into the single book.
Originally, the New Testament texts are written as individual Gospels and letters, and they have later compiled the New Testament Greek text, from which have been translated Bible translations.
Altogether, there are more than 5366 the original Greek texts, from which is assembled all 27 books of the New Testament. At this point, many people who don't believe in Bible, says that over the centuries to copied Bible texts have crept into the errors.This could happen if it would be the book written by the men, without the guidance of God.
From the world cannot find another similar book than the Bible, where would be as extensive text evidence (5366 original Greek texts fragments), early New Testqament translations with several languages, from which many are based to original Greek texts, several New Testament quotations in the works of the early writers, several Greek and other language lectionaries where the passages are arranged for systematic reading of the Bible. So wide evidence which agrees to one another proves that possible copying errors are really low. The best proof is, of course, more than 5366 copied New Testament texts, which tell from the Saviour Jesus the Messiah and the prophetic message of the texts, and its realization, proves that it is the question from the God's word, which has not changed from the original text.
Greek New Testaments have assembled more than 5366 Greek original texts, which originally written on papyrus and parchment.
Greek New Testament edition is not always as reliable as the manuscripts based on to the original texts, because reliability of the Greek New Testament edition depends on how faithfully, and widely it agrees with all original texts' fragments of the Gospels and letters.
When you study the history of different Greek New Testament editions, and how they are made, then you find out which editions are trustworthy and correspond to the original texts and what editions are not reliable and do not fully correspond with the message of the original texts.
Codex Vaticanus written in Egypt (Alexandria) at the 4th century. The text of Codex Vaticanus collected from one region of Alexandria's Egypt.
Codex Sinaiticus written in Egypt (Alexandria) at the 4th century. Constantin Tischendorf discovered 1844 the Codex Sinaiticus from Mount Sinai, St. Catherine's monastery.
Manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are not as reliable as the Byzantine text. The Byzantine text had been assembled in Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Africa, Alexandria, Gaul, southern Italy, Sicily, England and Ireland.
The Bible tells us that the apostles traveled in Israel, Syria, Greece, Turkey, Italy and Asia Minor. These churches were certainly kept the original letters of the apostles Peter and Paul and the Gospels in the original form when they copied them forward.Discoveries of the Byzantine texts from the many same places where the Early Church preached the gospel is the evidence that Byzantine text corresponds in the best way the message of the New Testament original texts.
There is controversy from the origin of the Byzantine text, some say that it is written in the 4th century and some in the 5th century. The Byzantine text is written in the majority of the surviving original New Testament Greek texts. This also refers that it is the most accurate and original. Some say that the Byzantine text is even older than the Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text is a copy of the original New Testament texts.
Although the Byzantine text would be written later than the texts of Alexandria (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus), so it does not prove that it is not the original text. All the New Testament manuscripts are compiled from the original 5366's writings, which are written on papyrus and parchment. Older or younger age is not important, but rather how faithfully the manuscripts had been copied from the original Greek New Testament fragments.
Many make a mistake thinking that the Greek New Testament editions, or the manuscripts always correspond with original ones. There is strong evidence that the Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus) are not authentic original texts, but differ from them greatly.
One important note is that the Early Church spread the gospel in the early years of the gospel to those countries from which the Byzantine texts were assembled. This is important evidence that the Byzantine text is the original text. escendants of the Early Church read these original texts, which based on the Byzantine text, even before had not assembled any Greek New Testament editions. This also means that the earliest assembled manuscript is not always the most original, especially when it is not based on almost all the original texts of Greek fragments. The age of the manuscript doesn't define its authenticity, but it that is had been assembled almost all existing original text fragments. For example, text of Textus Receptus based on 95% to all the Byzantine texts and comparably translations that based on Alexandrian texts have 5%.
In this light, of course is clear that the translation of the Bible based on the Byzantine text corresponds superior with the original texts than the translations, which based on texts of Alexandria.
The Byzantine text is the original, although the Byzantine text would be assembled later than the Alexandrian texts.
I illustrate an example that proves the authenticity of the Byzantine text. Imagine that some ancient author would have written 100 books, which should have been copied over and over again, because the time destroys them, and they should have been preserved for posterity. There are two groups, which would have a different view on what those one hundred books contain. The first group would be this writer's family, which I call the A-team. The second group would be called B-team. A- team would like to remain the message of books and production of author as unchanged, and therefore, they make a precise copy of his 95 books. B-team is not so interested about the message of the book, and they interpret the message in a different way than the A-Team. B-team doesn't want to transmit the message exactly as genuine, but according to their own interpretation. For this reason, B-team selects from 100 books only five books.
B-team makes the work faster, and A-team will publish their work several decades after than B-team. In the course of history, many scholars would say that the work of B-team corresponds better with original texts, because it is older and earlier than the work of A-team. However, the fact is that the work of A-team corresponds much better with the original texts than the work of B-team. Although, the work of A-team is published later, so the text corresponds with the genuine one, because its text based on 95% to the original texts.
The example above tells us why the Byzantine text is the original and much more reliable than the Alexandrian text.
Dutchman Erasmus of Rotterdam was a Catholic monk and priest. Erasmus translated first the Latin New Testament directly from the Greek. Erasmus' Latin New Testament diverged very much from the Catholic Church's official Vulgate translation. Catholic theologians opposed to Erasmus' Latin New Testament. Therefore, he 1516 published new edition of the Greek New Testament (Novum Instrumentum) and also new Latin translation. Erasmus' New Testament Greek text, and its significant difference compared to the Catholic Church's official Vulgate translation proves that Vulgate has not been faithful to the original Greek texts. Vulgate has been translated from Alexandrain texts (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus). This means that texts of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are very different from the Byzantine text. Byzantine texts are consistent with each other in almost 95%. This evidence proves beyond doubt that the Alexandrian texts are not reliable texts.
Erasmus withdrew from the church politics and didn't participate bashing of Luther, because he respected and appreciated him. The Greek New Testament which Erasmus made is called Textus Receptus.
Erasmus used mainly the Byzantine text, as the text source of Textus Receptus, but also other sources. It's really unusual that the Catholic Erasmus did his Greek New Testament based on the Byzantine text. Catholics still today oppose the text of Textus Repetus, because it is very different than the text of Vulgate, which based on the Alexandrian texts. Roman Catholic Church's gospel based on, for the most part, to pagan doctrines. It is thus clear that also by the texts of Alexandria are supported of false doctrines. This also proves that the Byzantine text is the original New Testament's manuscripts.
Erasmus's Greek Bible is called Textus Receptus. There are many who used Erasmus's text, for example, Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek (Textus Receptus) into Germany. The text of Textus Receptus based on the Byzantibe text, which is also named the Majority Text. The name the Majority Text has been given because Byzantine texts had been written from the most existing original texts of the New Testament. This makes the Byzantine text superior in relation to other manuscripts.
Comma Johanneum. 1 John 5:7 Erasmus added words: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. For example, for this reason many oppose Textus Receptus and say that it is unreliable. First time spanish writer Priscillianus wrote 1 John 5:7 in the same way than Textus Receptus. There is none place in original Greek texts where would be in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. The undisputed fact is that it is an addition not the original text. Why Erasmus put those words to Textus Receptus? Catholics pressured Erasmus that he would have put those words to his text. Erasmus had said that if you can find even one Greek manuscript, in which would be those words, so he will add them in his text. They tricked Erasmus and showed to him as "proof" Greek text, which had been translated from Latin, in which was this addition. Thus Erasmus was forced to keep his promise.
The Bible teaches in OT and NT about one God, and even NT teaches that one God is in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible doesn't ever say that God is three. In the light of the teaching of the Bible, we understand that Comma Johanneum place is the addition, which doesn't belong to the original text.
This doesn't in any way dim the value of Textus Repectus's text, because texts that are based on Alexandrian texts have more and worse mistakes than text of Textus Receptus.
For the sake of the pressure of Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus added extra words to his text (1 Joh 5:7). Roman Catholic Church has attacked against Textus Receptus accusing that it contains errors. They have used 1 Joh 5:7 place to show mistakes of Textus Receptus. In this we can see in a nasty way the treacherous character of Roman Catholic Church. First, it offers a bad fruit and demand that you must receive it, and when you receive it, so Roman Church accuses you and tries to defile your reputation.
This was carefully planned plot against text of Textus Receptus, because added text wasn't even on the Vulgate (Jerome 405 AD), yet the Catholics insisted that this addition must put into the text. June 2, 1927, Roman Catholic Church decreed that Comma Johanneum was open to dispute.
Jerome's Vulgate (Jerome 405 AD) became the official and approved Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome 405 AD didn't include Textus Receptus's addition of 1 John 5:7, because it didn't occur in sources that Catholics trusted and kept as the original. It is noteworthy that the Jerome 405 AD is the first Roman Catholic Church's official translation, which it recognized and accepted. Catholics have later added Comma Johanneum to Vulgata version of the Clementine 1590 and 1592. Clementine Vulgate was not published until 1590, and the second version 1592, so this Catholic Vulgate published for several decades after the Textus Receptus was published. In this light, clearly the Catholics wanted to Textus Receptus part of the text, which did not represent their own original text tradition. Contrary to their own official text, they wanted addition to the text of Textus Receptus, which was not Vulgate's sources and Byzantine's texts. Clearly Roman Catholic Church wanted to defile Textus Receptus and RCC wanted addition according to their own theology.
Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept Textus Receptus and don't hold is as well written text of the New Testament. Roman Catholic Church's influence is minimal concerning to Textus Receptus. Some try to say that Roman Catholic Church has poisoned Textus Receptus, but that is not true, and evidence from it is that text of Textus Receptus differs very much from Vulgate. Majority of Textus Receptus's text is based on the Byzantine text, which the Roman Church doesn't consider as the original text, and for this reason they are attacking against the Byzantine text. Therefore, Hort said: "Our (Westcott and Hort) object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions". In fact, the truth is that Westcott and Hort Greek text based on Alexandrian corrupted texts.
Erasmus of Rotterdam is considered to be the man who was completely on the leash of the Catholic Church. However, this is not true. The Roman Catholic Church strongly criticized Erasmus because he refused for translating his text compatible with the Vulgate text. Erasmus kept translations based on Alexrandian texts as Vulgate corrupted that he doesn't want to use it. Erasmus translated the text of Textus Receptus to differ from the texts of the Roman Church. This means that the text of Textus Receptus diverges very much from teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the reason why Catholics have attacked fiercely against the Textus Receptus. Text of Textus Receptus destroys prestige and authority of Alexandrian texts and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, Catholics are bashing Textus Receptus.
Erasmus wasn't on the leash of the Roman Catholic Church completely. His works of Textus Receptus proves this, which fully diverged from Vulgate (Jerome 405 A.D.), because Textus Receptus has been translated much more according to Byzantine text. If Erasmus was been completely on the leash of Roman Catholic Church, so text of Textus Receptus would resemble Vulgate's text, but it doesn't resemble, but fully diverge from it. We should always remember that the text of Textus Receptus resemble much more the Byzantine text than text of Vulgate. Vulgate's text has been made from the ground of Alexandrian texts and thus not resemble the text of Byzantine.
I don't defend 1 John 5:7 of Textus Receptus, which wasn't in the Byzantine text. I don't say that Textus Receptus hasn't got any errors, but Textus Receptus is much purer than Vulgate's text and texts of Alexandrian (Westcott and Hort). It is obvious that Textus Receptus is a much better manuscript as volumes based on Alexandrian texts.
Textus Receptus diverges from the Byzantine text in Rev 22:19. Byzantine text speaks about tree of life and Textus Receptus about the book of life. Few errors of Textus Receptus don't make it unreliable, because its text based on to Byzantine text. Alexandrian texts have many thousands errors, additions, omits and omits of verses. Textus Receptus' text used the majority since the 19th centuries. King James version 1611 and Martin Luther's German translation based on Byzantine text.
Next I bring forth few things that prove imperfection and unreliability of Alexandrian texts.
Codex Sinaiticus (A)
Codex Sinaiticus discovered from the Monastery of Saint Catherine at Sinai 1844. Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Shepherd of Hermas, which don't belong to New Testament's texts.
Sinaiticus has 9000 passages differently than Textus Receptus. Sinaiticus omits 4000 words from gospels and added 1000 words. Sinaiticus diverges also plenty of Vaticanus.
Text of Sinaiticus has written carelessly, letters, words and entire sentences have been written twice and omitted sentences. Several corrections have been made to Sinaiticus many hundreds years later than it was originally written. Greek Bible scholar Frederik Scrivener has said that to Sinaiticus has been made systemically many thousands corrections (changes) in 6th and 7th centuries. Roman Catholic Church defends the text of Codex Sinaiticus. The evidence shows for us that changed and corrected text of Codex Sinaiticus don't represent loyal manuscript of the New Testament.
Codex Vaticanus (B)
Vaticanus' text omits 1491 words and sentences. Vaticanus' text has been made additions, omits and corrections (changes). Vaticanus omits many important Bible passages, for example, Hebrew 9:14 - 13:25, in other words, the whole end of this letter. Roman Catholic Church favors the text of Vaticanus. Hebr 10:10-12 cancel completely the doctrine of purgatory and for this reason Vaticanus omits completely the end of the epistle to the Hebrews, because it totally cancels Catholic Church's purgatory doctrine. It is obvious that Vaticanus' additions, omits, corrections and changes have been made to support non-biblical doctrines of Roman Catholic Church. Because non-biblical doctrine of Roman Catholic Church is not in the Bible, so they twisted their manuscript correspond to their heretic doctrines. Vaticanus originally omits the book of Revelation, Paul's letter to Philemon and pastoral letters.
The text of Vaticanus is only 50% compatible with Textus Receptus. Vaticanus' text has almost 8000 diverges from the text of Textus Receptus. Vaticanus don't mention several thousands keywords and omits 1000 sentences and 500 subordinate clauses. Vaticanus has 500 added extra words, replace or change almost 2000 words and changes about 2000 original word order. According to researches of linguistics' text of Vaticanus is classic and platonic, not Koine Greek. Koine Greek is the original language of Greek New Testament text.
These evidence shows for us that Vaticanus is not reliable New Testament text, but unreliable and work of counterfeit. Vaticanus' text additions, omits, corrections and changes make it doubtful and counterfeited manuscript by which have tried to support heretic doctrines of Roman Catholic Church.
Westminster Bible dictionary says that there don't exist other similar manuscripts than Vaticanus, in which appears so many errors in writing, lacking grammar and omits of words and sentences. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Vaticanus omits 237 words, 452 subordinate clauses and 748 sentences.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus don't represent original texts of the New Testament, because they have omitted, corrected and changed the text. It is obvious that Alexandrian texts are not reliable manuscripts, because they are corrupted texts of the Roman Catholic Church. Everyone who genuinely and honestly seeks the truth can make the conclusion that Alexandrian texts don't represent the original texts of the New Testament.
Throughout of the history Roman Catholic church has appeal to it that its belief is oldest, they have given the Bible to Christendom; they have more genuine and oldest manuscripts and so on. Those slogans of RCC are wrong and deception.
Roots of Roman Catholic Church are in 312 A.D., when Emperor declared that Christians' belief has come common religion of Rome, but roots of New Covenant church of God are in the Pentecost day. Therefore, from the citizens of Rome were made “Christians” without repentance and conversion. In the manuscripts of Greek NT text is not Greek word katholikos/katholike (catholic), and so we also see, that Jesus Christ and apostles have never taught anything about the Catholic Church, but from the Church of God.
The Early Church read books, which already existed and first ones were books of the old testament. Then came the New Testament books from which latest was the book of the Revelation.
The Bible tells that already very early letters of the apostles have gone around in the Churches. This means that very early the letters of the apostles were available in the Early Church.
2 Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
Apostle Peter wrote his letter Jesus' disciples who were in lesser Asia and Asia. First letter of Peter tells us that the letters of apostle Paul and Peter was read in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. This proves for us that apostles letters were in use of the Early Church.
3 ¶ Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Col 4: 16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
The book of the Revelation was read also in seven churches of Asia. The letter to the Colossians exposes for us that his letters were read in many churches. This proves also that the letters of apostles were spread existed churches. For this reason Clemens Alexandrian also knew all 27 books of the New Testament and hold them as the word of God.
Actually, RCC collected texts, which Early Church had already used about almost 300 years. So in fact RCC has not given us Canon of the Bible, but collected it, which was already used in Early Church.
God's word and its teaching have been existed all the time in the Early Church, since then when they were completed.
Roman Catholic Church favored texts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus can be earliest stored, but their texts based on very concisely to the original texts (Byzantine). Roman Catholic Church favored manuscripts have been later changed, corrected, added text and omitted some books, omitted words and sentences. These things don't make them the best alternative but worst alternative.
Roman Catholic Church concept that they have the earliest manuscript, and teaching is developed to deceive people, because they have not genuine and original, but counterfeited, falsely teachings and manuscripts.
1881 published B.F Westcott and F. J. A. Hort Greek New Testament manuscript, which almost totally replaced Textus Repctus in the New Testament translating work. Westcott and Hort is the foundation of almost all modern translations, in which has come more manuscripts as Novum Testamentum Graece.
Hort has said: “Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.”
Wescott and Hort's text based on Alexandrian manuscripts; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Their text is favored by the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort had a strong and wrong prejudice against the text of Byzantine. Hort went so far that he publicly defamed and twisted the text and reliability of Byzantine text. It is obvious that text of Westcott and Hort represents counterfeited texts.
The church of Rome and Vatican have attacked throughout of their history against the truth of the Bible. One attack is supporting for corrupted texts of Alexandrian. Westcott and Hort's text was a new tool against the truth. Manuscripts that are based on Byzantine text represent the original texts of the New Testament.
Wescott and Hort practiced occultism. Wescott and Hort's text has impacted almost to all liberal modern translations; therefore, those translations are poor versions. King James Version 1769 and J.P. Green's Literal Translation based on Textus Receptus; therefore, they are good versions, in which I recommend for you.
Wescott and Hort's text supporters hold Textus Receptus as unreliable and for this reason they have attacked against Textus Receptus with all kinds of arguments. The fact is that the entirety of Textus Receptus' text is in accordance with the teaching of the Bible. Westcott and Hort's text lacked clear Bible teaching, and their text omits very essential words and verses. It is obvious that occult background of Westcott and Hort is the reason why they have changed original meaning of the New Testament. You can call in very good reason Wescott and Hort's text as the occultic bible. The Bible version, which is principally translated from Westcott and Hort is not reliable translation, but we can call then in very good reason as liberal translations, corrupted texts.
Nestle Aland's Greek New Testament diverges only a little for Wescott and Hort, but principally based on it.
Jehovah's witnesses the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures principally based on Wescott and Hort. Jehova's witnesses are heretics and have corrupted texts, which source is in Roman Catholic Church.
Throughout of the history the Roman Catholic Church has always deceived people according to it that what has been favorable and suitable to church and its doctrine. I wouldn't surprise if from the Vatican archives, cache of Roman Catholic Church or somewhere is brought forth, for example, counterfeited Hebrew and Aramic NT texts, which would support false doctrines of Roman Catholic Chruch.
Roman Catholic Chruch can dig up also some other distorted texts by which they try to convince the world that they have original gospel. The fact is that Roman catholic Church is a deceiver and forger of the gospel.
In the gospel of Luke chapter 4 is very important teaching to us. Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit, and He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Devil tempted Jesus there. Devil said to Jesus. If you be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. Evil spirits want that you concentrate things, which you are not told to do or things which you are not yet ready, but will be in the future. Task of Jesus was not in the wilderness to make for stones as breads. Evil spirits are leading you to reach out miracles and sensations and away from the truth of the word of God. Evil spirits lead you to live according to emotions by carnal mind, but they want to keep you out from the truth of the word of God. It is important to believe to the word of God.
The gospel of Luke's chapter 4 tells us very clearly that how satan distorted and changes the truth of the word of God, and "preaches" his own faked gospel. When we research this place, we notice the same character as what Alexandrian texts represent.
Devil said to Jesus that cast down from pinnacle of the temple and then devil said. For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over you, to keep you: And in their hands they shall bear you up, lest at any time you dash your foot against a stone.
Jesus said gospel of John that devil was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So how devil can quote the word of God. devil quoted Psalm 91 verses 11 and 12, but devil left out four words for verse 11 and those four words are in all thy ways. God charges us and keeps us in His shelter in all our ways. So you see that satan comes very near to the word of God and twists it that it looks similar as the word of God, but it is not, because satan always leaves out or adds something or twists the word of God.
We must understand that how important is to know the word of God and also the power of the Holy Spirit that devil cannot deceive us. Psalm 119 and verse 1690 says. Your word is true from the beginning: and every one of your righteous judgments endures for ever. All the words of God are true, but if we leave out or add something it is not anymore the word of God, but the voice of satan. We must believe the word completely and all His words. So read the Bible (good Byzantine based texts) daily and pray that God opens to you His truth from the Bible.
The Holy Spirit and the Bible
Many believers say that you can't argue on the manuscripts of the Bible or translations. My intention is not to argue in this issue, and it is not the question but awake Jesus' disciples to reject all wrong and corruption and seek for the genuine, right and original. Corrupted texts can guide believers to accept non-biblical things, which is the work of satan. Unfortunately, evil satan deceives many believers depart from the faith in the end times, because they don't honor the real word of God, but let the corrupted texts and teachings mislead them.
Jesus said that
because iniquity shall abound in the last days, the love of many believers shall
wax cold. the word iniquity is in Greek anomia, which means being without the
law of God; transgression of the law, the condition of without law, because
ignorant of the law, because of violating the law contempt and violation of law,
When the word of God is misrepresented and turned to mean oppositely what is the real meaning, so then iniquity (anomia) and waxing cold of the faith (apostasy) happens. Jesus said: You do err, not knowing the Scriptures (the Bible), nor the power of God (the Holy Spirit). Jesus' disciple needed both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not enough without the Holy Spirit, in the same the Holy Spirit is not enough without the Scriptures, so the Lord Jesus said. Oil (the Holy Spirit) runs out without the real and genuine word. Apostasy in the last days comes for iniquity; many believers are without the real teaching of the God's word. Therefore, the love of the Holy Spirit will be waxed cold in them, and they depart from the faith. We need the real, genuine and original Word, that we can grow in the Holy Spirit. It is very important that what is the source to acquire the teaching of the Word.
Pharisees and scribed corrupted the word of God
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
The Lord Jesus said that Pharisees and scribes rejected the commandment of God, that they would keep their traditions. Pharisees and scribes corrupted and twisted the word of God. The Lord Jesus revealed them as deceivers. Everyone who was there and heard what Jesus said knew whom the deceivers were. Thus, we have also the same right to say that who are the deceivers. For this reason I say that Alexandrian texts are corrupted texts by the Roman Catholic Church. So it does matter that what is the source where you draw on the Word and on which NT manuscript the Bible you read based on.
Original language of the New Testament was Hebrew and Aramaic. The first apostles and preachers of the New Covenant were the Jews, and they first preached and wrote the Gospel to the Jews. It is natural thet they first preached and wrote the gospel for Hebrew and Aramaic. The Bible also proves this by telling that the gospel first preached to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. In the time of the apostles, the common language in the world was Greek, therefore after the Jews, the gospel was preached and written the Greek to the Gentiles. We can hold Byzantine Greek New Testament texts as the original text of the New Testament, because the Early Church preached for Greek, the same message which was preached in the Early Church as Hebrew and Aramaic.
Where Hebrew and Aramaic NT texts have been disappeared? It is the well-known fact that Roman Catholic Chruch its initial history burnt and destroyed Biblical texts (also manuscripts). Maybe they thought that when they destroy Hebrew and Aramaic NT texts, so they can make Vulgate to be the cynosure of NT texts and by this way through corrupted texts they could control in monopoly position doctrine in Christendom.
We can in safety mind read the Bibles that based on Byzantine text. Byzantine text has the same message as was in destroyed Hebrew and Aramaic texts. God didn't allow that His nation would be 2000 years without the original message of the gospel, it would be impossible situation. Therefore, His original gospel is in the Byzantine text and Bibles, which are based on Byzantine text. I recommend for you to read King James Version 1769 and J.P. Green's Literal Translation, which both based on the Byzantine text.
- 33/38 Raamattu
- Biblia 1776
- 1992 kirkkoraamattu
- King James Version (KJV) 1769
- J.P. Green's Literal Translation
- 1917 Jewish Puclication Society Old Testament (JPS)
- Online Bible Hebrew and Greek lexicon
- Strong's concordance
- Biblia Hebraica
- Textus Receptus
- Byzantine Majority Greek Text
- 1881 Wescott Hort Greek text
- 1872 Tischendorf Greek NT
- F.F. Bruce: Raamatun juuret
- G.A. Riplinger: New Age Bible Versions
- Uuras Saarnivaara: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa
Petri Paavola from Finland