Today's radio show by Chris Pinto continues the discussion of the evidence for the creation of Codex Sinaiticus in 1840 by paleographer Constantine Simonides, The Simonides Affair Revisited, opposing the claims for it as an ancient manuscript that undermines the trustworthiness of our Bibles.
In this show he discusses how it came to be at St. Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai in Egypt where Tischendorf found it many years later. (I think I'm getting some of my dates mixed up, a few in the last post, so I'll have to correct them later if I'm able), and also how it came to have so many corrections in it, far more than any other Bible manuscript ever had, 14,000 as counted by Tischendorf himself, but 23,000 as counted by the library in England where it now rests. Some of them were done by Simonides and his uncle as he himself says. Which ones I wonder? And how many? And why didn't they make them in the original which was the basis for the one Simonides was making?
Overall I am convinced that Pinto's presentation of the evidence does support his own conclusion that Simonides is credible and that his reputation was unjustly smeared by those who had a vested interest in treating the manuscript as genuinely ancient. One piece of the evidence is that Tischendorf's story about how he found the manuscript isn't believed even by those who accept it as an ancient manuscript.
Listen to the show. He covers a lot of issues.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The truth about Constantine Simonides' claim to be the creator of Codex Sinaiticus Pt. 1
Finally, I got to see Tares Among the Wheat (available from Adullam Films). It certainly lives up to my expectations, does a masterful job of mustering the evidence for Codex Sinaiticus' having been the work of paleographer Constantine Simonides. The story is that Simonides' uncle Benedict of Mt. Athos monastery in Greece, wanted to present Czar Nicholas of Russia with a fresh copy of the Greek Bible as thanks for the Czar's favors to the monastery. Simonides had the knowledge and the talent for such an undertaking and found an old but mostly blank book of parchment at the monastery as a foundation for the work and spent a year on the project.
But as it turned out, the death of his uncle and the unavailability of enough parchment to complete the intended project left the work unfinished, and eventually he was persuaded to give what he had done so far to St. Catherine's monastery at what is supposed by some to be Mt. Sinai, for their library.
Which is where Tischendorf found it a few years later and mistook it for an ancient text, or at least feigned to regard it as ancient although there is some evidence that he knew better.
The information presented in the documentary is quite credible it seems to me, VERY credible, which makes the information to be found from the usual sources to be highly suspect such as this Wikipedia entry on Simonides. The lies on that page are staggering if what Pinto has presented is true, and I believe it is. Just one small point:
Apparently there are powers in this world with the intention and the ability to slander a man beyond recognition if it serves their purposes. After spending some time with Chris Pinto's work it's hard to avoid the impression that there really are true conspiracies in this world, one in particular for certain, or at least many emanating from one source in particular, the Vatican, in the service of their Antichrist project to bring down the true Church of Jesus Christ.
I would like to present more of the facts from the film here and Lord willing I may yet, but let's put it this way: I have some of the principalities and powers on my own case these days to such an extent that it's hard for me to get anything done at all.
But as it turned out, the death of his uncle and the unavailability of enough parchment to complete the intended project left the work unfinished, and eventually he was persuaded to give what he had done so far to St. Catherine's monastery at what is supposed by some to be Mt. Sinai, for their library.
Which is where Tischendorf found it a few years later and mistook it for an ancient text, or at least feigned to regard it as ancient although there is some evidence that he knew better.
The information presented in the documentary is quite credible it seems to me, VERY credible, which makes the information to be found from the usual sources to be highly suspect such as this Wikipedia entry on Simonides. The lies on that page are staggering if what Pinto has presented is true, and I believe it is. Just one small point:
On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, he claimed that he is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839. According to him it was "the one poor work of his youth". According to Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex.It is quite clear from the letter Simonides wrote to the Guardian to give evidence that he was the creator of Sinaiticus, that he had done the work over a year at Mt. Athos monastery starting in 1839, and that a year or two later he GAVE the codex to the monastery at Sinai, and that after Tischendorf had published it he saw the Codex in Liverpool in 1860 and recognized it as his own work.
Apparently there are powers in this world with the intention and the ability to slander a man beyond recognition if it serves their purposes. After spending some time with Chris Pinto's work it's hard to avoid the impression that there really are true conspiracies in this world, one in particular for certain, or at least many emanating from one source in particular, the Vatican, in the service of their Antichrist project to bring down the true Church of Jesus Christ.
I would like to present more of the facts from the film here and Lord willing I may yet, but let's put it this way: I have some of the principalities and powers on my own case these days to such an extent that it's hard for me to get anything done at all.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Testimony of Constantine Simonides who claimed to be the author of Codex Sinaiticus
I haven't seen Tares Among the Wheat yet, it must be in my mailbox, hope to get out there soon, but meanwhile Chris Pinto is doing some radio shows giving information about one of the most interesting parts of the film for some of us: the claim by Greek paleographer Constantine Simonides that he was the actual maker of the manuscript Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the "Alexandrian" texts used by Westcott and Hort in their revision of the Bible in 1881.
On today's show Chris reads from a letter Simonides wrote to the British newspaper The Guardian explaining how he came to create the manuscript: The First Letter of Simonides. There was a lengthy exchange of letters and discussion in other publications on this subject that lasted a few years starting in 1862. Chris reads from a book that contains the whole exchange, titled Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair. Unfortunately the book is not available online and is extremely expensive to buy outright.
Codex Sinaiticus had been presented as an authentic ancient manuscript by Constantine von Tischendorf, and when Simonides saw it publicized he came forward to tell his story. He wasn't believed and the Codex is today revered as authentic and is used in the critical texts that underlie our modern Bibles.
Simonides is usually represented as a professional forger and his testimony about this manuscript is treated as fraudulent but from the sound of it, as Chris Pinto reads his letter on his show, the man is quite credible. He gives all sorts of particular circumstances connected with his claim -- names, dates, specifics concerning events, even the fact that he had to write around a worm hole in the parchment.
The worm hole is particularly telling it seems to me, since if the manuscript is really as ancient as is claimed by the textual critics, it would originally have been written on fresh parchment and the hole would have eaten into the writing itself later, but apparently it is quite clear that the writing was done around the hole, showing that the parchment was already old when the writing was done, which is consistent with Simonides' testimony.
There will be more on this subject on Chris Pinto's radio show on Monday, so I plan to keep adding to this information.
On today's show Chris reads from a letter Simonides wrote to the British newspaper The Guardian explaining how he came to create the manuscript: The First Letter of Simonides. There was a lengthy exchange of letters and discussion in other publications on this subject that lasted a few years starting in 1862. Chris reads from a book that contains the whole exchange, titled Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair. Unfortunately the book is not available online and is extremely expensive to buy outright.
Codex Sinaiticus had been presented as an authentic ancient manuscript by Constantine von Tischendorf, and when Simonides saw it publicized he came forward to tell his story. He wasn't believed and the Codex is today revered as authentic and is used in the critical texts that underlie our modern Bibles.
Simonides is usually represented as a professional forger and his testimony about this manuscript is treated as fraudulent but from the sound of it, as Chris Pinto reads his letter on his show, the man is quite credible. He gives all sorts of particular circumstances connected with his claim -- names, dates, specifics concerning events, even the fact that he had to write around a worm hole in the parchment.
The worm hole is particularly telling it seems to me, since if the manuscript is really as ancient as is claimed by the textual critics, it would originally have been written on fresh parchment and the hole would have eaten into the writing itself later, but apparently it is quite clear that the writing was done around the hole, showing that the parchment was already old when the writing was done, which is consistent with Simonides' testimony.
There will be more on this subject on Chris Pinto's radio show on Monday, so I plan to keep adding to this information.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Codex Sinaiticus likely the creation of paleographer Constantine Simonides, not an authentic old manuscript at all
Wow, a paleographer called Constantine Simonides may turn out to be the linchpin to the whole controversy about the authenticity of the Alexandrian Greek Bible texts.
Chris Pinto brings out amazing information on this subject in two radio shows. He says Simonides is always characterized as a forger but Pinto gives evidence that this is just a smear because Simonides has knowledge that would overthrow the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus, claiming to have been the actual maker of that manuscript. It wasn't a forgery but made to be a gift to the Czar (? I think he said Czar). A series of letters in a British newspaper at the time, that apparently researchers into this subject usually overlook, exposes the likely truth. And once again we see the dirty hands of Rome here in their campaign to discredit Simonides and undermine the true Bible.
Here's Part Two
And I'm sure there's still plenty more to be revealed in his forthcoming film Tares Among The Wheat.
Chris Pinto brings out amazing information on this subject in two radio shows. He says Simonides is always characterized as a forger but Pinto gives evidence that this is just a smear because Simonides has knowledge that would overthrow the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus, claiming to have been the actual maker of that manuscript. It wasn't a forgery but made to be a gift to the Czar (? I think he said Czar). A series of letters in a British newspaper at the time, that apparently researchers into this subject usually overlook, exposes the likely truth. And once again we see the dirty hands of Rome here in their campaign to discredit Simonides and undermine the true Bible.
Here's Part Two
And I'm sure there's still plenty more to be revealed in his forthcoming film Tares Among The Wheat.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Clips from TARES
Here are a few clips from Chris Pinto's new film, Tares Among the Wheat, about to be released -- by the end of next week he said on a recent radio show.
I'm eagerly looking forward to this film because I believe it's going to reveal some previously suppressed information about intentional tampering with the Greek manuscripts that now underlie our modern Bibles.
He's already said quite a bit about the film in a recent interview by Brannon Howse at Worldview Weekend, some interesting information. The interview is dated September 20th and as always it will be free only for two weeks from that date.
(I only have one complaint about Pinto's films in general and this one as well: the acting is sometimes not very good. In this case Tischendorf is way overacted. Oh well. It's the information I'm interested in).
I'm eagerly looking forward to this film because I believe it's going to reveal some previously suppressed information about intentional tampering with the Greek manuscripts that now underlie our modern Bibles.
He's already said quite a bit about the film in a recent interview by Brannon Howse at Worldview Weekend, some interesting information. The interview is dated September 20th and as always it will be free only for two weeks from that date.
(I only have one complaint about Pinto's films in general and this one as well: the acting is sometimes not very good. In this case Tischendorf is way overacted. Oh well. It's the information I'm interested in).
Monday, September 3, 2012
INTENTIONAL attacks on the Bible in the new versions. Yup, Conspiracy.
Chris Pinto's radio show today is Ian Paisley and The Bible of Antichrist about a Bible that came out in the 70s designed to undermine the Deity of Christ and faith in the Bible. A production of Rome of course. How they intentionally mistranslated parts of the Bible to create contradictions between one part and another, such as between Old Testament passages and the New Testament passages that refer to them.
Pinto says his new film Tares Among the Wheat shows how this attack on the Bible came about slowly over the centuries.
Many of today's Bibles continue the same practice, making many the Bibles of Antichrist.
Pinto says his new film Tares Among the Wheat shows how this attack on the Bible came about slowly over the centuries.
Many of today's Bibles continue the same practice, making many the Bibles of Antichrist.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Chris Pinto's new film "Tares Among the Wheat" is available for pre-sale, out in September
The following is from the ad for Chris Pinto's new film Tares Among the Wheat
An Adullam Films ProductionAND: Chris Pinto’s Radio Show for today is about the new film.
Written and Directed by Christian J. Pinto
Running Time: Approx 2.5 hours
DVD $24.95
- The sequel to "A Lamp in the Dark".
- “Tares Among the Wheat” will likely challenge what most scholars believe about Bible history, and the origins of the current wave of new translations that have flooded churches around the world.
- Enter a mysterious world of ancient manuscripts, assailed by forgeries, fakes, and theological intrigue of the highest order.
DESCRIPTION
In the 19th century, a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a never-before-seen manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus. The work was allegedly “discovered” by a German scholar named Constantine von Tischendorf, who declared this to be the oldest Bible ever found. Tischendorf said he found the work in a rubbish basket at a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt. While many in the academic world did not fully believe his story, they were willing to accept his claims about the antiquity of the codex.
Yet shortly after his discovery was published, a renowned Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that the manuscript was no ancient text at all, but had been created by him in 1840. The controversy surrounding these events is, perhaps, the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history. It involves Jesuits, the Pope, a high-minded German, a committee of Anglo Romanists, and a mysterious Greek patriot. It is a story that (while quite true and well documented) a vast majority of modern academics know nothing about. Yet the subject matter dramatically impacts the world of biblical scholarship, even to this present hour. Most of what today’s scholars believe about manuscript evidence is based on the events of this era, and the footnotes in your Bible are the proof of it.
Topics discussed in this documentary:
1) New details about the Counter Reformation and its origins
2) Answers arguments concerning the Waldenses, Albigenses, Paulicans -- and the accusation that they were “Manichean heretics.”
3) History of how the Papacy was established in 606 A.D.
4) Italian missionary explains Rome’s works gospel vs. the gospel of grace
5) The Jesuit plan to seize control of the Bible.
6) The Oxford Movement and its use of “Protestants” as secret agents for Rome.
7) The Jesuit origins of higher criticism as a weapon against the Bible.
8) Rome’s history of creating forged manuscripts and fake relics.
9) The never-before-told history of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
10) Westcott, Hort and the Revision of 1881.
Featured experts: Dr. David Brown, Dr. Henry Hudson, Dr. Ronald Cooke, Dr. Alan O’Reilly, Les Garrett, Roger Oakland, Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. H.D. Williams.
Friday, August 24, 2012
The Roman Connection: Jesuitical plots to destroy faith in the Bible
Another Chris Pinto radio show, this one on the history of the Higher Biblical Criticism. Yes, there IS a Roman connection. The higher criticism was invented by Jesuits, the intention being to destroy the Bible which is the basis of Protestantism. They also had their hands in evolutionism, also helping to undermine faith in the Bible by falsifying the dating of the Bible, by for instance coming up with very old dates for human skulls, dates they pulled out of a hat. He says he's going to cover all this in a lot more detail in his forthcoming film Tares Among the Wheat.
On the radio show he has a clip of Bart Ehrman talking about the dating of manuscripts. This is the Bart Ehrman who fell away from his Christian faith by exposure to Higher Criticism under Bruce Metzger who was far from believing the Bible is the Word of God, and apparently also, naturally, had some kind of connection to Rome.
WE NEED A NEW PROTESTANT REFORMATION. PRAY AGAINST THE ROMAN ANTICHRIST, PRAY THAT WE CHRISTIAN DUPES LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THESE THINGS.
On the radio show he has a clip of Bart Ehrman talking about the dating of manuscripts. This is the Bart Ehrman who fell away from his Christian faith by exposure to Higher Criticism under Bruce Metzger who was far from believing the Bible is the Word of God, and apparently also, naturally, had some kind of connection to Rome.
WE NEED A NEW PROTESTANT REFORMATION. PRAY AGAINST THE ROMAN ANTICHRIST, PRAY THAT WE CHRISTIAN DUPES LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THESE THINGS.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The Roman Connection: Kurt Aland
A lady in England who likes this blog and likes doing some research into these things on her own sent me this picture, a heads-up about Kurt Aland, along with some interesting information about Hort's Catholic influences as well. Hope I have time to get to the latter eventually.Seems to me I'd heard that Kurt Aland has some Catholic connections although I haven't been able to spend much time researching these things lately. That's Aland of the Nestle-Aland Greek Critical Text that underlies so many of today's English Bible versions, and that preserves the execrable Alexandrian texts so favored by Westcott and Hort. His credentials as shown at Wikipedia are pretty strictly Protestant, although I've been learning that Protestant affiliations do not always guarantee a truly Protestant background or mindset, as I'd suggest the picture demonstrates.
Besides the picture, the Wikipedia article suggests a less-than-pure Protestant worldview with this comment:
Among experts Aland proved himself to be an important ecumenist who has left the small range of German Protestantism far behind.Chris Pinto's latest film on the history of the Bible, Tares Among the Wheat, is due out soon, and is promised to touch on the Catholic connection in the Bible versions issue. Go Chris Pinto! Pray for Chris Pinto!
We need this stuff. Let's pray for a new Protestant Reformation, pray against the Roman Antichrist, pray for more revelation of the truth about all these things.
Hey, Church: check out my Catholicism blog and read some of the stuff I've listed there in the right hand margin. If I can I'll try to come back and put the links here as well.
[Just a little side note: I've got a ton of stuff I'd love to get to for this blog and other blogs, and other projects on top of that, the Lord willing, AND I'm physically in bad shape which is contributing to the lag, having to get medical tests done and hoping for a hip replacement in the near future that might make a huge difference in my "quality of life," again Lord willing. So if anyone is inclined to pray for me PLEASE DO SO. Thank you!]
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Encounter with the assertion that all the texts we have are God's word
Is there something wrong with the attitude that ALL the Bibles we have are from God? This is the mainstream idea, and it's presented as a matter of faith in God's preservation of His word. Yes, they'll say there are some "translations" that are to be avoided because they are designed to give a liberal spin on certain concepts and thereby deviate from the true word of God, but we have thousands of Bible texts and can trust that they are God's preserved revelation to us.
What is not recognized in all this is that the Greek texts themselves are not all trustworthy. This ought to be pretty well known by now, but apparently it's overcome by the propaganda that treats the Alexandrian texts as just other valid texts among the collection of texts. The small percentage of differences among the many texts of the Bible is always noted, as if in proof that they're basically all the word of God, but this overlooks that the KIND of differences in some cases has an effect beyond their proportion.
Here's a common scenario: A whole passage familiar from the King James is left out of a Greek text regarded as among the oldest. Its supposed age of course raises doubt about the other manuscripts that contain the passage, that were the basis for the King James. These texts are in the great majority but they are more recent. It is assumed that the older text is more authentic because closer to the autographs or original writings. It is then logically explained that the passage must have been added by a scribe somewhere along the line and copied into the majority manuscripts although it didn't really belong to the originals or autographs. It continues to be included in some of today's Bibles nevertheless simply because it's familiar and traditional although not authentic. So anyone who is aware of this supposed history of the passage has now been infected with doubt about its authenticity, and whether it is admitted or not, with doubt about the authenticity of the word of God itself.
Simply taking the stance that all of the texts are God's word sounds on the surface like an admirable attitude of faith. We simply trust that God has provided us what we need in His word. But this has the effect of obscuring the fact that knowledge about some kinds of differences among the texts leads to undermining that very trust that they are God's word. It amounts to a denial of a real problem and has the effect of facilitating what is being denied, as others do study the differences and learn from them to distrust God's word.*
And anyone who tries to show that the supposedly earlier texts are not authentic but were corrupted in the early years -- as John Burgon does -- is dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist." Well, what if there WAS a conspiracy and its aim was to accomplish exactly what has happened, undermining trust in the word of God? The evidence does in fact point in that direction.
==================================
*Bart Ehrman was a victim of this kind of scholarship, and he's been very vocal in spreading his own destroyed trust in the word of God to the church at large. If there is a conspiracy here -- Jesuits? -- they must be very pleased with their work.
What is not recognized in all this is that the Greek texts themselves are not all trustworthy. This ought to be pretty well known by now, but apparently it's overcome by the propaganda that treats the Alexandrian texts as just other valid texts among the collection of texts. The small percentage of differences among the many texts of the Bible is always noted, as if in proof that they're basically all the word of God, but this overlooks that the KIND of differences in some cases has an effect beyond their proportion.
Here's a common scenario: A whole passage familiar from the King James is left out of a Greek text regarded as among the oldest. Its supposed age of course raises doubt about the other manuscripts that contain the passage, that were the basis for the King James. These texts are in the great majority but they are more recent. It is assumed that the older text is more authentic because closer to the autographs or original writings. It is then logically explained that the passage must have been added by a scribe somewhere along the line and copied into the majority manuscripts although it didn't really belong to the originals or autographs. It continues to be included in some of today's Bibles nevertheless simply because it's familiar and traditional although not authentic. So anyone who is aware of this supposed history of the passage has now been infected with doubt about its authenticity, and whether it is admitted or not, with doubt about the authenticity of the word of God itself.
Simply taking the stance that all of the texts are God's word sounds on the surface like an admirable attitude of faith. We simply trust that God has provided us what we need in His word. But this has the effect of obscuring the fact that knowledge about some kinds of differences among the texts leads to undermining that very trust that they are God's word. It amounts to a denial of a real problem and has the effect of facilitating what is being denied, as others do study the differences and learn from them to distrust God's word.*
And anyone who tries to show that the supposedly earlier texts are not authentic but were corrupted in the early years -- as John Burgon does -- is dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist." Well, what if there WAS a conspiracy and its aim was to accomplish exactly what has happened, undermining trust in the word of God? The evidence does in fact point in that direction.
==================================
*Bart Ehrman was a victim of this kind of scholarship, and he's been very vocal in spreading his own destroyed trust in the word of God to the church at large. If there is a conspiracy here -- Jesuits? -- they must be very pleased with their work.
Monday, May 21, 2012
The King James Bible a production of Rome???
Brief note on Chris Pinto radio show today (5/21/12):
He discusses a recent claim in a Catholic publication that Rome supposedly had a hand in the making of the King James Bible. What a laugh, a sardonic laugh I'm afraid. They said it was the product of Catholic priests! Ha!
Yes, many of the Protestant Reformers had been Catholic priests -- who LEFT the Roman Church when they discovered its false teachings which included its denial of the Bible's primary authority.
For centuries the King James Bible was regarded as the pinnacle of the achievements of the Protestant Reformation and the enemy of Rome. Now all of a sudden they want to claim it as their own work.
He discusses a recent claim in a Catholic publication that Rome supposedly had a hand in the making of the King James Bible. What a laugh, a sardonic laugh I'm afraid. They said it was the product of Catholic priests! Ha!
Yes, many of the Protestant Reformers had been Catholic priests -- who LEFT the Roman Church when they discovered its false teachings which included its denial of the Bible's primary authority.
For centuries the King James Bible was regarded as the pinnacle of the achievements of the Protestant Reformation and the enemy of Rome. Now all of a sudden they want to claim it as their own work.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Pinto on the King James Bible: Rome again, out to kill the Protestant Reformation
Chris Pinto has yet to take a position I object to and rarely fails to teach me something important as well. I know my blogs are becoming something like a Chris Pinto fan club, but that's because I believe what he has to offer Christians is crucially needed -- and on the very subjects some of my different blogs are intended to address.
Here he is on The King James Bible. This radio show was on July 4, 2011, and you may have to look a a page or two ahead of the linked page to find it since the page numbers keep changing as new shows are added. [Later: Must recommend the next radio show as well, on the same page, Rome vs. the Bible].
His defense of the King James is excellent. He calls himself "King James Mostly" which could describe me too, except that he's Textus Receptus Only, which I could also call myself, except that I want a label that indicates that I'm against the English translation of the Revision of 1881 as much as I'm against the corrupted Greek texts they used. So I'm really anti-Westcott and Hort. Nevertheless, in this radio show he makes a fine case for the English of the King James as well. [I gather that the main reason he's "King James Mostly" is that he's against the fanatical King James Only camp, as I also am, accepting that other translations are also the word of God, while believing that the King James is the best translation we have.]
He does believe that the Bibles that have come out since the Revision of 1881 are being pushed by Rome, no surprise since he has uncovered all kinds of influences of the hand of Rome in other areas including political movements, wars, secret societies and all the other religions of the world. Rome's influence on the Bible Revision is something I would never have discovered if it weren't for his work.
I read enough of Westcott and Hort to recognize that they hated the King James Bible with an irrational hatred, which Pinto of course shows to be the attitude of Rome as well, since the King James represents the Protestant Reformation which is her greatest enemy. I had also noted some remarks by Westcott and Hort that showed them to be favorable to Rome, but nothing like a smoking gun that would demonstrate with any certainty that their destructive 1881 Revision had the same intention as Rome's behind it, quite simply to destroy the word of God. Pinto makes this a far more likely possibility than I could have guessed.
You also have to see his film A Lamp in the Dark which you can find at Noise of Thunder dot com, and I'm looking forward to his next film on the Bible, Tares Among the Wheat which I understand will be out in a few weeks.
As usual, I believe Pinto's work should be known by all Christians.
Here he is on The King James Bible. This radio show was on July 4, 2011, and you may have to look a a page or two ahead of the linked page to find it since the page numbers keep changing as new shows are added. [Later: Must recommend the next radio show as well, on the same page, Rome vs. the Bible].
His defense of the King James is excellent. He calls himself "King James Mostly" which could describe me too, except that he's Textus Receptus Only, which I could also call myself, except that I want a label that indicates that I'm against the English translation of the Revision of 1881 as much as I'm against the corrupted Greek texts they used. So I'm really anti-Westcott and Hort. Nevertheless, in this radio show he makes a fine case for the English of the King James as well. [I gather that the main reason he's "King James Mostly" is that he's against the fanatical King James Only camp, as I also am, accepting that other translations are also the word of God, while believing that the King James is the best translation we have.]
He does believe that the Bibles that have come out since the Revision of 1881 are being pushed by Rome, no surprise since he has uncovered all kinds of influences of the hand of Rome in other areas including political movements, wars, secret societies and all the other religions of the world. Rome's influence on the Bible Revision is something I would never have discovered if it weren't for his work.
I read enough of Westcott and Hort to recognize that they hated the King James Bible with an irrational hatred, which Pinto of course shows to be the attitude of Rome as well, since the King James represents the Protestant Reformation which is her greatest enemy. I had also noted some remarks by Westcott and Hort that showed them to be favorable to Rome, but nothing like a smoking gun that would demonstrate with any certainty that their destructive 1881 Revision had the same intention as Rome's behind it, quite simply to destroy the word of God. Pinto makes this a far more likely possibility than I could have guessed.
You also have to see his film A Lamp in the Dark which you can find at Noise of Thunder dot com, and I'm looking forward to his next film on the Bible, Tares Among the Wheat which I understand will be out in a few weeks.
As usual, I believe Pinto's work should be known by all Christians.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The English translation itself is a horror equal to the corrupt Alexandrian texts
There are two different kinds of problems with the Bibles that have come down from Westcott and Hort's revisionist mistreatment of 1881. The best-known problem is that they substituted corrupted Greek documents, known as the Alexandrians, for the Greek documents that the King James version was based on, known as the Textus Receptus.
However, the English "translation" they also produced at the same time was just as evil as the evil Greek manuscripts, and unfortunately the pattern of that translation laid the groundwork for future changes in the Bibles since then.
I could call myself Textus Receptus Only but it may be clearer just to call myself anti-Westcott and Hort, or as I say at the top of the blog, a Burgonian. Dean J W Burgon's The Revision Revised was originally published as three separate articles documenting the errors of the Westcott and Hort revision: 1) The errors in the corrupted Greek texts which were imposed by them on the revision although the agreement assumed they'd base the revision on the Textus Receptus, 2) their horrifically bad translation into English which also violated their original agreement, making some 36,000 mostly unnecessary changes in the English, and 3) the ridiculous "theory" by which they justified their vandalism of the King James translation.
Not only the Greek texts they used were bad, but the translation itself was bad, and a violation of their agreement as well. Their objective seems to have been to destroy the Bible by one means or another.
The King James needed some changes to bring it up to date, but it did not need even a 50th of the changes made by the revising committee, as testified by Bishop Wordsworth whose comment on this I've linked in the margin and quoted elsewhere in this blog, and others. The ENGLISH word substitutions are just as destructive to the text, even where -- or really, especially where-- they don't really alter the meaning but simply make it impossible for Christians holding different translations to read along. None of this was corrected. Changes were made in their translation, but most of their own changes were retained, and what they established was itself the habit of making changes in the text, so that the problem has only increased down the decades since then.
However, the English "translation" they also produced at the same time was just as evil as the evil Greek manuscripts, and unfortunately the pattern of that translation laid the groundwork for future changes in the Bibles since then.
I could call myself Textus Receptus Only but it may be clearer just to call myself anti-Westcott and Hort, or as I say at the top of the blog, a Burgonian. Dean J W Burgon's The Revision Revised was originally published as three separate articles documenting the errors of the Westcott and Hort revision: 1) The errors in the corrupted Greek texts which were imposed by them on the revision although the agreement assumed they'd base the revision on the Textus Receptus, 2) their horrifically bad translation into English which also violated their original agreement, making some 36,000 mostly unnecessary changes in the English, and 3) the ridiculous "theory" by which they justified their vandalism of the King James translation.
Not only the Greek texts they used were bad, but the translation itself was bad, and a violation of their agreement as well. Their objective seems to have been to destroy the Bible by one means or another.
The King James needed some changes to bring it up to date, but it did not need even a 50th of the changes made by the revising committee, as testified by Bishop Wordsworth whose comment on this I've linked in the margin and quoted elsewhere in this blog, and others. The ENGLISH word substitutions are just as destructive to the text, even where -- or really, especially where-- they don't really alter the meaning but simply make it impossible for Christians holding different translations to read along. None of this was corrected. Changes were made in their translation, but most of their own changes were retained, and what they established was itself the habit of making changes in the text, so that the problem has only increased down the decades since then.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
A pedantic overconcern with the Hebrew Name of God is just another way of undermining the English Bible
An article arguing that "Jehovah" is not the true Name of God has been published at Brannon Howse's Worldview Weekend website, and even with the disclaimer that not all opinions expressed there are shared by the web hosts it seems to me that this is the sort of material that a watchman ministry like Howse's should be watching instead of giving it publicity.
This article about the name "Jehovah" has all the same earmarks as the "scholarship" behind all the new Bibles since Westcott and Hort: an implicit denigration of the work of the King James translators and an appeal to "scholarship" -- in most cases a highly questionable standard of scholarship too -- as of far greater concern than the needs of the Christian who reads the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with "Jehovah." The article denigrates the name as a "nonsense" word but in fact it is simply the original Hebrew four-letter name, or Tetragrammaton ("JHVH"), with vowels added to make it pronounceable, and the argument that the vowels used in the English Bibles were the wrong ones is just pedantic and inconsequential. Nobody KNOWS what the original vowels were and there is a decent argument in favor of those chosen for "Jehovah."
But primarily the problem is that this pursuit of the "authentic" Name of God is a conceit of modern scholarship that feeds all the wrong concerns. The Name "Jesus" is also not "authentic" if what you will only accept as authentic is the original Hebrew Name, Yeshua, nor are any of the English names for the disciples or other famous characters of the Bible. When you translate a term from one language to another it necessarily changes. If you move to a foreign country your own name is likely to be changed for the sake of the native speakers' ears.
And here's an important point: The article notes that the traditional pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was lost after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That fact ought to be a heads-up that God Himself was not concerned to preserve any supposedly "accurate" pronunciation of His Name: it was God Himself who brought about the destruction of the Temple to mark the reign of the Messiah who had come and replaced it.
It might also be noted that God's Name is really a MEANING, not a Hebrew term: It means "I AM that I AM." That can be said in English as well as in Hebrew.
We've had enough of "scholarly" disruptions of our English Bible since Westcott and Hort who were possibly influenced by Jesuits and in any case did their utmost to make the text less accessible to English-speaking people, or as Chris Pinto puts it, unrecognizable. Fiddling around with the Name of God really has no other objective than that. There is no need for all this prissy superstitious "accuracy" and all it does is introduce unnecessary difficulties into learning the Bible which the ordinary reader cannot benefit from. This is just one of the many wearisome ways the legacy of Westcott and Hort has interfered with God's word and the peace of God's people.
It also may be relevant to note that a concern with this sort of "accuracy" underlies the Hebrew Roots heresy.
This article about the name "Jehovah" has all the same earmarks as the "scholarship" behind all the new Bibles since Westcott and Hort: an implicit denigration of the work of the King James translators and an appeal to "scholarship" -- in most cases a highly questionable standard of scholarship too -- as of far greater concern than the needs of the Christian who reads the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with "Jehovah." The article denigrates the name as a "nonsense" word but in fact it is simply the original Hebrew four-letter name, or Tetragrammaton ("JHVH"), with vowels added to make it pronounceable, and the argument that the vowels used in the English Bibles were the wrong ones is just pedantic and inconsequential. Nobody KNOWS what the original vowels were and there is a decent argument in favor of those chosen for "Jehovah."
But primarily the problem is that this pursuit of the "authentic" Name of God is a conceit of modern scholarship that feeds all the wrong concerns. The Name "Jesus" is also not "authentic" if what you will only accept as authentic is the original Hebrew Name, Yeshua, nor are any of the English names for the disciples or other famous characters of the Bible. When you translate a term from one language to another it necessarily changes. If you move to a foreign country your own name is likely to be changed for the sake of the native speakers' ears.
And here's an important point: The article notes that the traditional pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was lost after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That fact ought to be a heads-up that God Himself was not concerned to preserve any supposedly "accurate" pronunciation of His Name: it was God Himself who brought about the destruction of the Temple to mark the reign of the Messiah who had come and replaced it.
It might also be noted that God's Name is really a MEANING, not a Hebrew term: It means "I AM that I AM." That can be said in English as well as in Hebrew.
We've had enough of "scholarly" disruptions of our English Bible since Westcott and Hort who were possibly influenced by Jesuits and in any case did their utmost to make the text less accessible to English-speaking people, or as Chris Pinto puts it, unrecognizable. Fiddling around with the Name of God really has no other objective than that. There is no need for all this prissy superstitious "accuracy" and all it does is introduce unnecessary difficulties into learning the Bible which the ordinary reader cannot benefit from. This is just one of the many wearisome ways the legacy of Westcott and Hort has interfered with God's word and the peace of God's people.
It also may be relevant to note that a concern with this sort of "accuracy" underlies the Hebrew Roots heresy.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Westcott and Hort tools of the Jesuit Conspiracy to destroy the Bible?
Chris Pinto's films have turned out to be an incredibly inspiring and informative experience for me, first about the history of America, which also brought out the role of secret societies in world affairs -- pointing toward the world government and world religion of the last days as prophesied in the Bible.
And now I just finished watching the first part of his film on the history of the Bible, A Lamp in the Dark. I wasn't in a hurry to see that film because I figured I know a lot about Bible history, but I should have known better. Yes I know quite a bit but trust Pinto to show me connections that I never would have guessed. Here I've had the idea the one I would want to see is the next on this subject that he is working on now, Tares Among the Wheat, where I expect him to get more into the issues of the modern Bibles that this blog is about, but toward the end of Lamp he suggested enough unexpected connections to knock me for a loop already.
Is it possible the horrific mess this blog is about, the disastrous Revision of 1881 and all the disastrous translations that have fed off it ever since, IS THE RESULT OF A JESUIT CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY THE BIBLE? It really looks like that could be so.
The Antichrist nature of the Roman Catholic Church is Pinto's main theme. It's all coming together for the last of the last days.
All Christians should see this film.
Here's the link to Chris Pinto's Adullam FIlms where you can get the DVDs.
And I see that his latest two radio broadcasts are on the Bible too. They weren't up earlier when I looked so I'll have to hear them tomorrow: LINK
And now I just finished watching the first part of his film on the history of the Bible, A Lamp in the Dark. I wasn't in a hurry to see that film because I figured I know a lot about Bible history, but I should have known better. Yes I know quite a bit but trust Pinto to show me connections that I never would have guessed. Here I've had the idea the one I would want to see is the next on this subject that he is working on now, Tares Among the Wheat, where I expect him to get more into the issues of the modern Bibles that this blog is about, but toward the end of Lamp he suggested enough unexpected connections to knock me for a loop already.
Is it possible the horrific mess this blog is about, the disastrous Revision of 1881 and all the disastrous translations that have fed off it ever since, IS THE RESULT OF A JESUIT CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY THE BIBLE? It really looks like that could be so.
The Antichrist nature of the Roman Catholic Church is Pinto's main theme. It's all coming together for the last of the last days.
All Christians should see this film.
Here's the link to Chris Pinto's Adullam FIlms where you can get the DVDs.
And I see that his latest two radio broadcasts are on the Bible too. They weren't up earlier when I looked so I'll have to hear them tomorrow: LINK
Update on Chris Pinto's soon-to-be-released film, "Tares Among the Wheat."
Signed up for notices from Adullam Films and just got this one. I get the impression that the revelations about the new Bible versions are going to be more startling than I had any idea. Sinaiticus not an ancient manuscript after all? Hm.
Anyway, here's what the update says:
Anyway, here's what the update says:
“Tares Among the Wheat” is likely going to challenge what most believers in the Christian community think about Bible history, and the origin of the current wave of new translations that have flooded churches around the world. As we showed in “Lamp,” the true culprit in corrupting the Bible is Rome and her Jesuit priests who are determined to darken the words of Holy Scripture, so that they will not be properly understood. We remind our brethren that this was something the King James committee warned of in their introduction to the 1611 translation. The progression of paraphrased bibles has opened the door to all sorts of apostate translations, including a gay bible, a gender neutral bible, a bible that omits the word “Son” (so as not to offend Muslims), and even one that has removed the word “antichrist” (we suppose, in order to help him overtake the world).He refers to the earlier film on this same subject, A Lamp in the Dark, and here's a link to it.
In the 19th century, a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a never-before-seen manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus. The work was allegedly “discovered” by a German scholar named Constantine von Tischendorf, who declared this to be the oldest Bible ever found. Tischendorf said he found the work in a trash bin at a Greek Orthodox monastery. While many in the academic world did not fully believe him, they were willing to accept his claims. But shortly after his discovery was published, a renowned Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that the manuscript was no ancient text at all, but had been created in 1840. The controversy that followed is, perhaps, the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history. It involves Jesuits, the Pope, a high-minded German, a committee of Anglo Romanists, and a mysterious Greek patriot. It is a story that (while quite true and well documented) a vast majority of modern academics know nothing about. Yet the subject matter dramatically impacts the world of biblical scholarship, even to this present hour.
Please continue to pray for this work, as we believe it is greatly needed in our time. And when will it be finished? We are hoping to have it completed in the next six weeks, but will continue to labor as the Lord leads us.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Chris Pinto's new film "Tares Among the Wheat" is where he will investigate the 1881 disaster
So I'm happy to report -- and grateful too -- that today's (March 21) broadcast of Chris Pinto's radio show Noise of Thunder is on Bible History, and he did talk about the work he's currently involved in that should reveal some behind-the-scenes influences on our modern Bibles. This will be part of his film now in production titled Tares Among the Wheat.
Today's broadcast includes a lot of good information on the trustworthiness of the Bible documents. I gather he believes that the Alexandrian texts really were influenced by heretics in the early church, as did J W Burgon, and that will no doubt be covered in more detail in the film.
He puts much emphasis on Catholic -- Jesuit -- influence on the modern Bibles. Westcott and Hort revealed quite a bit of sympathy with the Roman Church themselves, not enough to suggest a Roman Catholic conspiracy behind their destructive work on the Bible Revision of 1881, but I would guess that Chris Pinto has unearthed some connections along those lines.
Chris Pinto's documentary films are really inspiring and informative productions and I'm particularly looking forward to this one.
Today's broadcast includes a lot of good information on the trustworthiness of the Bible documents. I gather he believes that the Alexandrian texts really were influenced by heretics in the early church, as did J W Burgon, and that will no doubt be covered in more detail in the film.
He puts much emphasis on Catholic -- Jesuit -- influence on the modern Bibles. Westcott and Hort revealed quite a bit of sympathy with the Roman Church themselves, not enough to suggest a Roman Catholic conspiracy behind their destructive work on the Bible Revision of 1881, but I would guess that Chris Pinto has unearthed some connections along those lines.
Chris Pinto's documentary films are really inspiring and informative productions and I'm particularly looking forward to this one.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Vatican behind the proliferation of Bibles?
Haven't seen any more about new revelations about the modern Bibles from Chris Pinto but on his radio show for March 19th he remarks that he believes all the new Bibles are part of a plan to make the true Bible unrecognizable (he says this in a short section of the program from about 2:40 to about 7:30). He attributes the plan to the Vatican. If he has specific evidence about efforts in this direction I'd love to hear it, but I'm already convinced something destructive of the Bible and of the Church is going on -- although I usually don't attribute it to a conspiracy.
It may well be the case, however: Pinto has recently convinced me of other conspiracies that are certainly taking us to a New World Order and the rule of Antichrist, so why not this too?
Some think the aim of the new Bibles is to deceive people with particular New Age translations. He on the other hand thinks the plan is to progressively make the Bible more and more a paraphrase. That may be so but it seems to me that the simple fact of having so many different Bibles has already achieved the aim of destroying the Bible for many, because already we have a babel of tongues created in the churches by the use of many different "translations" even in one congregation.
Beyond that, some of the translations do insinuate an altered message into the minds of readers. Where did I recently see the statistic that 34% of Christians use the NIV, probably the worst of the false Bibles out there, so bad that almost every church I've been in has warned against it, even though they have no problem with many of the other translations.
So I was glad to hear this from Chris Pinto and I hope he does have some inside information on the creation of these bogus Bibles that I'll eventually get to hear.
It may well be the case, however: Pinto has recently convinced me of other conspiracies that are certainly taking us to a New World Order and the rule of Antichrist, so why not this too?
Some think the aim of the new Bibles is to deceive people with particular New Age translations. He on the other hand thinks the plan is to progressively make the Bible more and more a paraphrase. That may be so but it seems to me that the simple fact of having so many different Bibles has already achieved the aim of destroying the Bible for many, because already we have a babel of tongues created in the churches by the use of many different "translations" even in one congregation.
Beyond that, some of the translations do insinuate an altered message into the minds of readers. Where did I recently see the statistic that 34% of Christians use the NIV, probably the worst of the false Bibles out there, so bad that almost every church I've been in has warned against it, even though they have no problem with many of the other translations.
So I was glad to hear this from Chris Pinto and I hope he does have some inside information on the creation of these bogus Bibles that I'll eventually get to hear.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Upcoming Revelations about Westcott and Hort from Chris Pinto?
Chris Pinto, whose revelations of the -- organized intentional sophisticated -- satanic/pagan underpinnings of just about everything in the world have been knocking the wind out of me for a few weeks now, gave a hint recently that one of his upcoming projects is going to cast the same kind of light on our Bibles. Westcott and Hort I'm guessing. I keep away from the usual accusations of W&H as occultists and so on because I just don't have access to the necessary evidence (and neither do some who don't let that bother them but make the accusation anyway). I'm content to point out what W&H did to the Bible, which is indictment enough of evil intentions.
But when Pinto does research his research sticks. He leaves no stone unturned. It appears that he actually reads through voluminous documents that most just wouldn't take the time for, being content to find a few relevant quotes here and there instead. He gets questions answered that it hadn't even occurred to you to ask. He gets deeply into the lives of the people involved, tracks down any likely affiliation. He finds connections that take him all over the world and far down history. He musters representatives of both sides of the argument and you end up with NO doubt that all kinds of stuff you felt uneasy about but couldn't really pin down has literal intentional Satanic roots. Satan truly is the "prince of this world" in a far more literal sense than we usually let ourselves suspect, and just about ubiquitous too, with his hand in just about *everything.* So if Pinto calls out Westcott and Hort for such affiliations I won't be a bit surprised and I'm looking forward to the revelations.
But when Pinto does research his research sticks. He leaves no stone unturned. It appears that he actually reads through voluminous documents that most just wouldn't take the time for, being content to find a few relevant quotes here and there instead. He gets questions answered that it hadn't even occurred to you to ask. He gets deeply into the lives of the people involved, tracks down any likely affiliation. He finds connections that take him all over the world and far down history. He musters representatives of both sides of the argument and you end up with NO doubt that all kinds of stuff you felt uneasy about but couldn't really pin down has literal intentional Satanic roots. Satan truly is the "prince of this world" in a far more literal sense than we usually let ourselves suspect, and just about ubiquitous too, with his hand in just about *everything.* So if Pinto calls out Westcott and Hort for such affiliations I won't be a bit surprised and I'm looking forward to the revelations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
