James White Begins the Debate a Week Early

So today Chris Pinto's radio show. The Character of Tischendorf is an answer to a radio show done by James White objecting to how Pinto portrayed Constantine Tischendorf in his film Tares Among the Wheat. Pinto and White are scheduled to debate the issues covered in the film on December 11, though no details as to where and what time have been given, and unfortunately we probably already get a glimpse of how the debate may go from White's objections at this point. As Pinto points out, he doesn't address any of the facts presented about Tischendorf in the film, just makes the general accusation that the film's characterization of Tischendorf is "grossly unfair."

I guess it's silly of me to think it might be possible for a debate to address the important questions and do it with facts well appreciated from both sides, since the usual debate is a morass of miscommunications (Did White really watch the film carefully?) and biased reactions.

I'd really like to hear the Simonides question fairly and thoroughly addressed.

Oh well. We can keep praying for the debate nevertheless.

The Success of the Vatican and the Jesuits against the English Bible

Stumbled on this concise and well done history of the Bible at You Tube, put out by what is apparently a King-James-Only ministry called King James Video Ministries. Although I'm not King James Only in the same sense they are, since I believe the KJV still needs some updating, nevertheless I share their basic view of the history of the Bible and the huge superiority of the King James over all the modern versions.

This video is valuable for its exposure of the Roman Catholic influence on the Bible versions of today and in various movements within the no-longer-very Protestant churches. It covers the history of the English Bible from Tyndale's through the modern revisions. It quotes from the writings of Westcott and Hort demonstrating their disdain for the Word of God and their attraction to Roman Catholicism.   It presents the Greek texts that underlie the modern versions, that Westcott and Hort introduced into the revision against the instructions given to the revising committee, as Roman Catholic texts.

It touches on some of the modern translations and how they were brought about, such as the NIV and the NASB and their relation to the corrupted Greek texts favored by Westcott and Hort. Mentions the fact that Rupert Murdoch publishes the NIV as well as Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible, and that Murdoch was knighted into a Catholic order by the Pope. Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, who worked on the Nestlé's edition of the corrupted Greek texts, are also shown to have connections with the Vatican. There's also a connection between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which I hadn't been aware of. AND we get the fact that a JESUIT PRIEST, Carlo Martini, was on the Nestlé's committee as well.

All this is in the service of ecumenism or bringing all the "Christian" churches together under one head, who of course will be the Pope.

The New World Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses is also based on a selection of the corrupted texts.

ALL Bibles produced since 1881 can be traced back to the Nestlé's text.

Video shows Catholic publications endorsing the NIV and criticizing the King James Bible. Also supposedly Protestant booksellers that sell openly Catholic publications while refusing to sell books defending the King James version.

Then leaders of supposedly Protestant congregations in the US are shown being presented to Pope Benedict. Evangelical Lutheran, United Methodist, The Reformed Church in America, The Presbyterian Church in the United States, The National Baptist Convention, International Pentecost Holiness Church, National Association of Evangelicals, even a district of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which I'd always thought was reliably orthodox.

Then we hear about the Catholic leanings of the Emergent Church, with quotes from Brian MacLaren and Tony Jones specifically repudiating the Protestant Reformation and even specifically supporting the Jesuits, the engineers of the Counter Reformation.

Sola Scriptura is aggressively under attack. Phyllis Tickle of the Emergent Church repeatedly asks, "Where is the authority" because to her mind scripture is no longer THE authority, so the Church is seeking an authority. Hey, Phyllis, there's always the Pope you know, but I suspect you have him in mind, you just aren't saying so yet. She's quite favorably disposed toward Loyola's Jesuits and the Counter Reformation, though. She signs off with her desire that we have "A new form of Christianity to serve a new Culture." Um, Phyllis, Christianity doesn't serve Culture, but it has been known to CREATE Culture. Too bad we weren't alert enough to battle off the wolves who eventually brought it down. You being one of them, Phyllis.

See how far it has gone? Did you know how far it has gone? Straight into the arms of the Antichrist.

So here is the video itself:

 

"Sprinkle" or "startle?" --Just Another Bit of Translational Skulduggery from Westcott and Hort

Heard a great message on Christian radio this afternoon on Isaiah 53, which really starts back in Isaiah 52.  When the preacher got to Isaiah 52:15 he commented that the Hebrew word nazah, which is translated in the KJV as "sprinkle," is best translated "startle." 

The KJV has:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

But supposedly it would be better as "So shall he "startle" many nations?" 

For me these days it's an unavoidable irritation to hear sermons where the preacher favors the Westcott and Hort-inspired translations over the KJV, and this one is especially irritating because "startle" just isn't anything like "sprinkle," so I wanted to find out what lay behind it.  It's not irritating, by the way,  because I think the KJV is perfect, which I don't, but because I know the KJV translators knew their languages and this felt like just another slap in their worthy God-fearing faces by the revisers who hated the KJV, I mean HATED it, which they even said in so many words, being closet Catholics.  So I have to suspect it's probably another one of those 36,000 unnecessary corrections made in Westcott and Hort's 1881 "revision"  (See Bishop Wordsworth quote Change for Change's Sake in right margin).

I decided to find out.

So I did a little research. 

The list of Bible versions at Blue Letter Bible for that verse shows that nine of the twelve English versions have "sprinkle" while only two of them, the New Living and the Revised Standard, have "startle" and one, Darby, has "astonish."

The Revised Standard Version IS Westcott and Hort's Revision.  ONLY theirs and the New Living Translation have "startle."  Interesting that all the other modern versions stuck with the KJV on "sprinkle" instead of following the lead of the RSV from which they're all textually descended.   Should that perhaps be explained as their recognizing that "sprinkle" is the better rendering, or is there some other explanation?

The Hebrew word nazah  according to Strong's Concordance, occurs 24 times in the Hebrew Bible. 
It is translated in the KJV 24 times as "sprinkle."  That is, it is never translated by any other English word than "sprinkle" any place it occurs in the text.

Strong's gives "sprinkle" as the main meaning in English but also notes a secondary meaning, "leap," from which "startle" is deduced. 

I've discovered that this is a typical pattern for the Westcott and Hort revision.  That is, it's as if they checked the Concordance for the English meanings of a particular word in Greek or Hebrew, and chose a meaning that is on the list but far from the most common rendering, in a way that looks like they had no other interest than to find a rendering that is as different from the KJV as they could get but still within the ballpark as it were. 

People who favor the new versions will argue, of course, that a particular word is simply a "better translation" than the word found in the KJV, although they have no expertise in the language themselves and in most cases there's really nothing to justify that opinion except the fact that it's in a particular translation and not in the KJV.  The argument becomes silly in those cases where there are many different words in the many different translations, which is often the case.  Which of those many words is the "better translation" is a matter of subjective judgment.  And often a word choice was made simply to meet the requirement to have a certain number of differences from other translations in order to qualify for copyright.  That is another reason for the babelous cacophony of the translations besides Westcott and Hort's basic motive of vandalism of the KJV.  

So, yes, it looks like this is one of those 36,000 unnecessary changes, and maybe because it occurs in the Revision itself it's accepted by even the best of preachers as "more accurate" than whatever the KJV has:

• despite the fact that nine of the twelve versions at BLB give "sprinkle" in agreement with the KJV
• and despite the fact that "sprinkle" is the most common rendering.

I suppose Darby got "astonish" from "leap" too, but his is an oddball translation anyway.

The New Living Translation gives "cleanse" as an alternative in a footnote, which is odd since "cleanse" isn't exactly a synonym of "startle," although it is of "sprinkle."  But this is an oddball translation too. 

The translation that counts in this context is the RSV, because I wanted to know if this particular change can be traced to Westcott and Hort's devious schemes, and it looks like it certainly can.

I also looked up the English word "startle" in Strong's.  The word does not occur in the KJV at all.

And the English word "astonish:"  It occurs in various forms in the KJV ("astonied" and "astonished"), not one of which translates a Hebrew word even remotely similar to nazah.

Information on the RSV at Blue Letter Bible:

Transcribed from: The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the original tongues: being the version set forth A.D. 1611, revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901: compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1946-52. — 2nd ed. of New Testament A.D. 1971. There should be enough in the rest of the description to identify the text.

Excuse me if my lip curls in a sneer as I read this.  I'm sniffing sulfur from the pit of Hell, knowing that the RSV was produced by people who hated the KJV, who ignored the instructions to keep the revision to a minimum of changes by making 36,000 UNNECESSARY changes in the English (I assume a few were necessary), AND by palming off as "older and better" a few corrupted Greek texts which happen to have been approved by the Vatican, in the place of the KJV's Textus Receptus on which all the previous English translations had been based.  So to claim that it has anything whatever to do with the "version set forth A.D. 1611" except to mutilate it, is a big fat lie.  "Compared with the most ancient authorities" is just another piece of the Antichrist lie about the corrupted texts they've reinvented to be the oldest and best.  More Vatican inspired forgeries and deceptions.   Go watch Chris Pinto's films and listen to his radio shows.

Burning of the Bibles

Chris Pinto's radio show of August 15th is a good one, The Burning of the Bibles

He covers many topics concerning the corrupt Greek manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, taking off from historian John Dowling's writings on a historical burning of Bibles.  

Having problems with my eyes so it's hard to stay online very long these days.  I'm hoping to have a solution to this soon.  Just want to post something good that's relevant to the Bible versions discussion.

Chris Pinto answers a typical accusation of Constantine Simonides who claimed to have created Codex Sinaiticus

I got an anonymous comment on one of my earlier posts on the Constantine Simonides Controversy, just a quote from Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Frederic G. Kenyon, written in 1939, in which Kenyon passes on the accepted understanding of the Simonides affair, which makes Simonides out to be the villain in the story and Tischendorf his victim.  I sent it on to Chris Pinto and got back the following comment from him:

[Kenyon]  “The romance of the Codex Sinaiaticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity, - such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries." 

[Chris Pinto:]  This first part of the quote has to do with the MSS. unrolled by Simonides in the Mayer Museum in Liverpool.  The MSS. belonged to the museum and had been purchased by Joseph Mayer years before he ever met Simonides.  Furthermore, they were opened in the presence of Mr. Mayer and the curator, John Eliot Hodgkin.  Hodgkin knew that these papyri were genuine, and could not have been forged by Simonides.  This, I believe, was part of the reason why Hodgkin defended Simonides to the end, because he knew that he had been falsely accused. 

In 1907, James Farrer wrote about about these scrolls.  Though he was not entirely in the camp of Simonides, Farrer defended him on this point and said: "It is almost impossible to believe in his manufacture of these papyri.  They correspond in writing and appearance with numberless other papyri which have of recent years been discovered and published ... If these are forgeries, they can hardly be forgeries by Simonides; and if he was guiltless in respect of these, he was presumably guiltless in respect of the others." (James Farrer, "Literary Forgeries," p. 56)

"Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humourous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written *one* manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiaticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time that he professed to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.

  Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.), Kenyon, Frederick G. (1939), Pages 123-124"

The "time" issue in terms of how long it would take to complete the MS. has been confronted by at least one other scholar, who says the argument is unsustainable.  Farrer also says Simonides could have certainly done it in the time he claimed.  Furthermore, the argument about "revenge" against Tischendorf doesn't work either.  The reason is that they claim Simonides wanted revenge because Tischendorf had supposedly "exposed" his copy of the Shepherd of Hermas as a forgery in 1856 at the University of Leipzig.  What most researchers don't realize is that as a result of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf would eventually retract his objections to that codex, and admitted that it was genuine in 1863.  Why?  Because included in Cod. Sinaiticus was a copy of the Shepherd of Hermas, that apparently matched the copy presented by Simonides at Leipzig.  See below:"The Greek text (brought from Mt. Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called Cod. Lipsiensis) was first published by R. Anger, with a preface by G. Dindorf (Lips. 1856); then by Tischendorf, in Dressel’s Patres  Apost., Lips 1857 (p. 572–637); again in the second ed. 1863, where Tischenderf, (sic) in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin" (Source: History of the Christian Church, by P. Schaff)

As such, it doesn't make sense that Simonides would want revenge in this way.  The discovery of Codex Sinaiticus actually vindicated him, and proved that Tischendorf had been wrong and Simonides had been right.  Furthermore, when Simonides presented his "Shepherd" in 1855, it was the only known copy of that MS. in Greek.  Western scholars had only seen it in Latin beforehand.  This was a major point in favor of Simonides' story, and was considered proof in favor of the possibility that he had created Codex Sinaiticus.  CJP

Chris Pinto challenged to debate with James White on Codex Sinaiticus Validity

Chris Pinto mentioned in passing on today's radio show [runs from about 18:22 to 20.00] that he is going to debate James White (who wrote The King James Controversy) in December, about the validity of Codex Sinaiticus.  Gotta pray that Pinto will be sharp and on target, and not easily derailed by any attempts to make him out to be KJV-only, although that may not even come up I suppose.  More likely he'll be characterized as a conspiracy thinker with the usual implication that it's all in his imagination and imposed on the facts.   That shouldn't be too hard to dispel, though,-- if White is an honest debater and I expect that of him -- because Chris has mustered his facts well on this subject .

But this is exciting news to me since Pinto has been convincing me for some time now that Sinaiticus was the work of paleographer Constantine Simonides and not an ancient manuscript at all, and I very much hope he will succeed in persuading James White and Daniel Wallace and many others. 

If it's the truth of course, but as I said, I believe it is.

On his site he has an article about a video of Daniel Wallace speaking on Tischendorf's find of Sinaiticus that James White had posted on his website as his argument against Pinto's claims, about which he comments: 

The video below was posted on James White's Alpha and Omega ministry website, as an alleged refutation of the claims of Constantine Simonides.  The headline for the article appears thus: "Evangelical Textual Scholar Debunks Chris Pinto's Conspiracy Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was a Forgery."  It is worth noting that the scholar in question (Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary) does not mention Chris Pinto, or the film Tares Among the Wheat.  Had Dr. Wallace actually seen the film, his comments would most likely have been orchestrated differently, and he might have even been convinced to change his mind.  

Dr. Wallace is obviously unfamiliar with certain particulars surrounding the Simonides affair, and we believe this is not entirely his fault, since this history has been largely buried for more than a century. The purpose of Tares is to show the untold history surrounding the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and to draw attention to the fact that this single manuscript has been used to destroy confidence in the Bible as the inspired Word of God.  As such, whether or not this codex is genuine becomes very significant.

A few things: Dr. Wallace says that Tischendorf had "exposed" Simonides as a forger years earlier, which is untrue....

Furthermore, Dr. Wallace mentions Henry Bradshaw's testimony as if it were conclusive proof that Codex Sinaiticus was genuine.  Yet (as we document in Tares) Bradshaw's argument was not based on any scientific evidence or analysis, which he openly admitted.  His argument was that he didn't know why he believed it, but that his "senses" told him it was real.  That's it.  There was no deep scientific argument.  Just his senses.  This is further proof that he and the other men who confirmed Codex Sinaiticus as a genuine fourth century MS. were themselves of provably limited abilities, and they based their conclusions on analysis that was, at best, doubtful.

What is the Majority Text of the Bible?

Here's today's radio show from Chris Pinto, The Majority Texts of the Bible in which he covers reasons not to trust the so-called Majority Texts, or the latest Bible manuscript finds such as the Bodmer papyri.  The suspicious circumstances of the finding of the Bodmer papyri raises the very real possibility of forgery.

I'm very grateful for Chris Pinto who keeps opening up new avenues of investigation into these things.

The show was prompted by his receiving an email about a man who said he was giving up on the King James Bible because it doesn't represent the Majority Texts as well as some of the modern versions do.  Chris answers that this is a mistake, as the Textus Receptus on which the King James is based does represent the Majority Texts far better than the modern versions do.   Also the Majority Texts really only make use of some 414 manuscripts out of the over five thousand Byzantine type texts we have, and of course they also include the bogus corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts.