Titus 3:10 ought to set a fire under you about the heresies of the modern Bibles if nothing else does

I've been having a discussion on a Christian forum over the last couple of days in which one poster has consistently denied the inspiration of scripture, specifically by denying the inspiration of the apostle Paul's writings. Many have criticized him quite aptly but nobody has called him a heretic but me. I am hoping others will come along to convince me either that this term is accurate or is false.

But many of the posters there accept the modern versions and it occurred to me they may be a bit leery of the very word "heretic" because their versions don't use the term. A couple there have even seemed to suggest that the very idea of heresy went out with the Middle Ages when many considered to be heretics were persecuted, tortured and put to death.

Anyway, here is my latest post on the subject there:

If I am convinced by others here that ***** does not deserve to be called a heretic then of course I would agree that he is to be accepted as a brother in Christ.

But if he does deserve it then the KJV has this to say:

Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

But anyone who does not have a KJV (or a Webster's) will have a different reading at that verse -- you will have a reading that in fact strongly implies to the average reader the exact opposite: that it is someone who identifies a heretic who should be rejected, as a "divisive" or "factious" person.

Here is a page from Blue Letter Bible that makes that clear.

Even the New King James has the altered version of this verse:

Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,

A DIVISIVE man!!!! Not a heretic but a "divisive" man!!!

If you consult Strong's you'll find that "divisive" and "factious" are meant to refer to a person who holds false doctrine, or a heretic, but that's not how the average reader understands the term, as the devil of course well knew when he planted the term in the ear of Westcott and Hort.

A comparison of the different readings of Titus 3:10 ought to set off loud alarms among God's people about the many heresies in the modern Bibles put there by the heretics Westcott and Hort back in 1881.

2 Timothy 3:16 and other sorrows

I just looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 at Blue Letter Bible to see which of the translations says "God-breathed" as opposed to the KJV's "given by inspiration of God," because I keep running into people who use that phrase, and in the process of tracking it down I was appalled to find out what a translation called the ASV has for that verse:

Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

as opposed to the KJV's:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Most of the other modern versions of this verse have those annoyingly unnecessary changes in the English that do nothing but keep the flock of Christ from being able to share in the same rendering of His word, as in the change from the KJV's "profitable" to the less precise and less elegant "useful."

But I did find out that only the NIV has "God-breathed" -- a change no doubt done in the need to earn a copyright for this version, since a certain number of changes are necessary to qualify, but this change is also a pretentious attempt to try to sound precise and original, the sort of thing that captivates people who don't have a clue about the work of translation, but is certainly no improvement in the English itself over "given by inspiration of God," and again, divides the flock of Christ, being change for change's sake.

All that is offense enough to report, but the ASV actually drastically changes the meaning of that verse, so that instead of saying that ALL scripture is profitable, it says instead that only those scriptures "inspired by God" are profitable, which implies that there are scriptures NOT inspired by God, and it makes the instruction in itself the righteousness rather than the method of learning righteousness. It's interesting that none of the other versions retained this reading; I guess even they had to suspect it was heresy. Here it is again:

Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

I figured the ASV (American Standard Version) must be the precursor to the very popular NASV (or NASB) (NEW American Standard V-for-Version or B-for-Bible) but I wasn't sure so I looked up its history online and got this page:

AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (ASV) EXPOSED

The American Standard Version (ASV) of the Bible was first published in 1901. This mistranslation of the Bible is in the public domain, since its copyright has expired. Of course, this naturally led to the COPYRIGHTED sequel, the New American Standard Version. As a wise old preacher said, "there is nothing 'new' in fundamentalism." The World English Bible (WEB) is an update of the American Standard Version that is still in the Public Domain, but uses more modern English. Compare the ASV, WEB or NASV to the Textus Receptus and you'll find heresies galore.

And he goes on to list some.

The hideous and successful deception of the modern versions just makes me weep.

======
Aug 3, 2011: The post above was obviously done before I had my bearings on this subject and realized that Burgon needs to be the pivot around which all my posts swing.

Found Burgon's discussion of 2 Tim 3:16 in his Revision Revised so I'll do an updated post on this subject eventually. As with all the other enormities committed against the Bible this one also goes directly back to Westcott and Hort. "God-breathed" isn't the main problem with it obviously, although it is an example of a strange sort of disdain for the English language in the modern translations.

Sinister Sinaiticus Bogus Bible Revered by Deceivers Digitized

Whoop-de-do, today a headline at Yahoo says "World's Oldest Christian Bible Digitized." They're talking about Codex Sinaiticus, one of the old manuscripts that Dean J W Burgon excoriated as corrupt (in his Revision Revised, 1883), although it was revered by Westcott and Hort who based their famous 1881 revision (mutilation) of the King James Bible on it.

Maybe the link to the website that is dedicated to the Sinaiticus will last longer if the Yahoo link gives out:

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.

Right. It survived in such complete form BECAUSE it was so mutilated and corrected it was useless to the church.

Burgon treats it as one of five extremely bad Greek texts used by Westcott and Hort in their revision, of which three are the worst, and about those three he says:

...that [these mss] are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: -- have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, -- which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God. [p. 16, Revision Revised].

But it's the oldest most complete manuscript, although a complete bastard among the texts which represent the true Bible, so it's treated like some kind of precious original. Again, it does not represent the true Bible, it's a bastard. Of course it's important for THAT reason anyway, but that's apparently not the reason for those engaged in this digitization and preservation effort. Those liberal rationalist anti-supernaturalist deceivers W&H adored it along with the other bastard, Vaticanus, and made it the basis of their English Revised Bible, which has become the granddaddy of all the modern Bibles that poor deceived Christians are now assured are based on the true text. What an abomination. What a sad case of wolves in sheep's clothing pulling the wool over the eyes of almost the entire church. SO sad.

Am I being extreme?