The Great Apostasy: Satan's Agenda in Promoting the Westcott-and-Hort-derived New Bible Versions

From a poster at a debate forum, here is another example of how the false belief that the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts of the Bible are "earlier and best" encourages distrust of the Bible and the major tenets of Christianity.

She treats 1 John 5:7 as THE source of the idea of the Trinity, so since it isn't in the "earliest and best" Greek manuscripts this major tenet of the faith can be dismissed as a later invention.

In her next post she says, in answer to another poster who said the Trinity doesn't depend on that one verse:

As this link showed, yes there are many verses used to show that Jesus is a god, but that isn't the issue here. Since the Bible states that there is only one God, the orthodox group of Christianity had to find a way to counter the claims that they were polytheistic. The idea of one god in three persons is really only supported by 1 John 5:7. There are two other verses in the Gospel of John that could be construed to support the Trinity, but they are weak. (John 14:10 & John 10:30)

In other words that one verse pretty much is what I originally understood her to say, THE source of the idea of the Trinity as we understand it, One God in Three Persons.

But like so many who judge the Bible from the intellect (or the flesh), she fails to appreciate that the Trinity is to be found in countless passing references in the Bible, in both old and new Testaments, that characterize Jesus Christ as Jehovah God Himself, not "a god," both fully God and fully man, and God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as both God in all powers and attributes as well as separate personalities. The charge of polytheism is made by many ignorant sorts, but the true Trinity is all over scripture prior to all such charges. In any case, this kind of argument can mislead some who follow their flesh instead of the Spirit in understanding the Bible.

She treats Luke 22:20 as THE source of the idea of the NEW Covenant, so since it isn't in the "earliest and best" Greek manuscripts apparently in her thinking this also can be dismissed as a later invention that has wrongly defined Christian doctrine.

She also points to Mark 16:17, one of the last twelve verses of Mark, as the basis for Christian Science, but the whole passage as the basis for Christian witnessing and evangelizing, which she implies would not have become characteristic of Christianity if the "earlier and best" manuscripts had remained the basis of the religion.

This poster also references Bart Ehrman, who is famous for having gone from a "born again" believer to agnosticism through this sort of Bible scholarship and now writes books questioning and denouncing the central beliefs of Christianity.

This poster lists basic Christian beliefs not found in the "earliest and best" Bible manuscripts, referencing Bart Ehrman:

Here are 12 Basic Tenets of Christianity that I found on the internet.

1. Jesus Christ is the Only Way to Eternal Salvation With God the Father
2. We Are Saved by Grace Through Faith – Not by Works
3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
4. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ
5. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ From the Grave
6. The Ascension of Jesus Christ
7. The Doctrine of the Trinity
8. The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God
9. We Are Baptized With the Holy Spirit at the Moment of Salvation
10. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit
11. The Doctrine of Hell
12. The 2nd Coming of Jesus Back to our Earth

From the research of Bart D. Ehrman, these are from the top ten most familiar verses that weren't “originally” in the New Testament. (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Bart D. Ehrman, 2005, Pgs 265-266)

She emphasizes at the end of her post that her topic is specifically how Christian doctrine is different from what it was originally meant to be because the original Bible mss were not its basis:

This discussion is about verses or sections of the New Testament that aren’t in the earlier Greek manuscripts and how they could impact basic Christian tenets, beliefs, traditions, and practices.

Of course she treats the Bible the same way Ehrman does, by treating each book as separate from the others rather than as revealing an aspect of the truth that is to be combined with the others to give the complete picture. In fact Ehrman specifically criticizes this basic rule of Biblical exegesis.

It seems to me that this poster's argument (and Bart Ehrman's) accurately reflects exactly what the modern Bibles based on the bogus Alexandrian texts are intended by Satan to do to the church, which he well accomplished through Westcott and Hort and scholars who lean to their own understanding: to suggest that it was misguided or evil men who invented Christianity by ignoring the "earliest and best" sources, to undermine faith in God's word, ultimately no doubt to precipitate the Great Falling Away that true scripture prophesies will characterize the last days before the revelation of the Antichrist and the Second Coming of Christ.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

At least it seems to be accomplishing this objective whether intended or not. All while at the same time keeping vast numbers of sincere Bible-believing pastors and teachers convinced that the W&H Bibles are based on the "earliest and best" manuscripts, so they then pass on this false teaching and some who take the pains to investigate what this implies will also fall away.

Later: Someone answering her on that thread also accepts the lie about the superior "oldest and best" Alexandrian manuscripts although he disagrees with her that the supposedly wrongly added material has had the impact on church doctrine she is claiming it has. He is quite knowledgeable about where the Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus. All I can say is how sad it is that this gigantic lie has become so accepted among Christians.

Later yet: Hoping to get her point said as well as possible: Her idea is that much of Christian doctrine has NO basis in the Bible at all, and this is shown by the fact that much of it isn't in the "earliest and best" manuscripts, so of course it was therefore inserted later -- not derived from the Bible but made up and inserted into the Bible -- which is the standard explanation from the Westcott-and-Hort-Alexandrian-text-fiasco camp for the discrepancies between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrians. They won't consider that the Alexandrians were corrupted by heretics, which is so amply testified by Dean Burgon, so they put their trust in these bogus claimants to superiority and judge the TRUE text by this false standard to be the corrupted text. PUTTING GOOD FOR EVIL AND EVIL FOR GOOD.

Boy what a massive destruction campaign W&H / Satan pulled off against the word of God.

And STILL so many preachers and teachers go on blithely accepting the intellectualizations of Daniel Wallace, James White, Bruce Metzger, the Bible Researcher Marlowe and the whole compromised bunch of them.

Wake up wake up wake up wake up.