LANDMARK BAPTIST COLLEGE

A DEFENSE OF TWENTY VERSES ERASED FROM THE NIV & NASV

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO

DR. PHIL STRINGER

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

BI-300

INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE I

BY

EDWARD G. RICE

9511 W. WANETA LAKE ROAD

HAMMONDSPORT NY 14840

HAINES CITY, FLORIDA

DECEMBER 2007

A DEFENSE OF TWENTY VERSES ERASED FROM THE NIV & NASV

Textual critics that follow the leadings of Westcott and Hort, and delete twenty verses from the Holy Bible use faulty textual critical methods and are wholly lacking in the Biblical doctrine of verbal, plenary, inerrant, infallible inspiration of Scripture.

1. Introduction 2

2. The Bible Doctrine That Textual Critics Abandoned 3

3. The Twenty Verses Textual Critics Ripped Out 8

   Table 1 Twenty Scripture Comparisons 9

4. Their Apparatus Shows Their Error 11

   1. NOTES on the designations of the manuscript evidences referenced 12

   2. Table 2 Retention Evidences for the Twenty Verses 14

5. Conclusion 20

A DEFENSE OF TENTY VERSES ERASED FROM THE NIV

Introduction

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried

in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6)

It is proven by scholars and accepted by liberals, cultists, modernists and now even by the popular evangelicals and some fundamentalists, that Matt 17:21 is not supposed to be in my Bible. Should one take a pen knife and cut it out? Would they? They would have to also cut Matt 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, and 46; 11:26; 15:28. So too Luke 17:36; 23:17 and John 5:4. They would have to trash Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24; and of course I John 5:7. They would also have to rip out most of Matt 5:44 and Luke 9:56 and in Col 1:14 cut out the phrase "Through His Blood." Why have leading fundamentalists and their Bible colleges, like Bob Jones University, accepted this anarchy and taken up their pen knives to cut verses out of the their Bible? What forces are in place that would cause leading fundamentalists to follow after the liberals and cultists to cut out and discard Scripture verses that honest believers copied and held as sacredly inspired by God for the previous 1900 years? They have followed after modernists and liberals with a flawed method of textual criticism. The tracking of this audacity back to it's diabolic source is strikingly easy.

At first glance it is often unbelievable that this list of deleted verses got here without an outcry from Christianity. The lukewarmness that would cause such apathy toward the very words of God spewed into the world through the veins of Westcott and Hort (W&H).

Dr. Sam Gipp, a prominent fundamental evangelist, describes these two men well when he writes:

“Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian¹ Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that 'there is no perfect Bible', they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus.”²

Their misplaced loyalty to a family of corrupted texts was passed on to Nestle-Aland, who published several editions of “The Greek New Testament³” The scholarly Nestle-Aland and the textual criticism behind their work became trusted by the leading evangelicals and even some fundamentalists of Christianity. All this trust was given with little examination of what these textual critics believed about verbal inspiration. One can easily examine the the work of these textual critics and determine that their position on the Bible doctrine of verbal, plenary, inerrant, infallible, inspiration was sorely lacking and theologically dangerous. Their work has so much errant presupposition that fundamentalist should swiftly abandon their methods and their results. Their lax and unBiblical method of textual criticism is thus exposed as their reasons for eliminating these 20 verses from God's Holy Word are examined.

The Bible Doctrine That Textual Critics Abandoned

De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

New Testament textual criticism is most simply defined as 'recovery of the text of the New Testament.' Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813 -1891) justifies its necessity with the following observation:

“No one who has taken the trouble to examine any two editions of the Greek New Testament needs be told that this supposed complete resemblance in various copies of the holy books is not founded on fact. Even several impressions derived from the same standard edition, and professing to exhibit a text positively the same, differ from their archetype and from each other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence has yet been able to get rid of. If we extend our research to the manuscript copies of Scripture or of its versions which abound in every great library in Christendom, we see in the very best of them variations which we must at once impute to the fault of the scribe, together with many others of a graver and more perplexing nature, regarding which we can form no probable judgment without calling to our aid the resources of critical learning. The more numerous and venerable the documents within our reach, the more extensive is the view we obtain of the variation (or VARIOUS READINGS as they are called) that prevail in manuscripts. If the number of these variations was rightly computed at thirty thousand in Mill's time, a century and a half ago, they must at present amount to at least fourfold that quantity.⁴”

The frustration of dealing with today's textual criticism is that the battles for truth were fought so eloquently in the last two centuries that the straight and narrow path should be more fully occupied than it is today. Indeed the wide gate and the broad path following after W&H's folly has invaded every avenue of evangelical circles. Today, men mindlessly reject the Received Text (TR) and pursue textual criticism with 'older is better' blinders on. Michael W. Holms, a well degreed Professor of Biblical studies at Bethel College in Saint Paul Minnesota, nods at Erasmus of Rotterdam's excellent analytic tools for textual criticism, but then dismisses Erasmus' effort with this slanderous accusation: “Consequently his (Erasmus) text ended up representing in printed form a late corrupt form of the Byzantine text-type.⁵” He goes on to point out that this 'late corrupt form' called the 'Textus Receptus' ... “was the basis of all the major European Protestant translations prior to 1881, including especially the King James of 1611, and (the TR) unwarrantedly dominated the scholarly scene for over three hundred years.”⁶ Thus Holms, required reading at our evangelical seminaries, calls W&H's extreme bias toward corrupted Sinaicus and Vaticanus⁷ manuscripts, scholarly, while he calls those who would use the traditional text as having a 'superstitious reverence accorded to the TR.' ⁸

The error that Holms, Black, and Dockery are influentially passing on, saying that the TR is recent and corrupted, while the W&H is the pure text based on older and better manuscripts, was birthed in the extreme textualism of Lachmann and Buttmann in 1842! Lachman's

“first principle, at which he had hinted in a small edition eleven years before, was to discard the readings of the 'Received Text,' as being in his opinion only about two centuries old; whereas they conflicted with what he conceived to be better authority.⁹”

On this false premise, regurgitated by Michael Holms 149 years later, Lachmann errantly discarded the 'recent TR' and would only use “the guidance of the Alexandrian (A), the Vatican (B), the Parisian ( C ), and four fragments, (P, Q, T, Z) besides an occasional use of the Cambridge manuscript (D), the old Italian manuscript in Latin; and the quotation of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Origen, Lucifer, and Hilary.”¹⁰ Lachmann, however, had only one manuscript, Vatican B, that reached back to the fourth century. When Tischendorf discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript four years later, it was found to collaborate the massive deviations of the Vatican B. All the excitement of having two collaborating manuscripts from the fourth century completely overthrew all the proper rules of textual criticism. From that time on the broad gate and wide path which discarded the TR as 'recent and corrupted' and blindly accepted that 'older is better' was paved and well trodden.

Little research is needed to discover the truth of the matter. There is a straight and narrow path that shows that the TR is not recent nor corrupted. The clear and proven contention is that the Sinaicus a and the Vatican B are the corrupted text. Dean Burgon (1813-1888 AD) demonstrates over and over that the TR was not edited together in the 1500's as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort continually contend. He states:

“The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, compounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon which controversy has gathered. On one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled: on the other stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the advantage possessed by that group, as regards numerous students who do not look beneath the surface, in the general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination. The claim for the Text in them made at the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manuscripts have been traced to a local source in the library of Caesarea. And on the other hand ... the Traditional Text ... has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth century before and during the employment of vellum in the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city.”¹¹ (emphasis added)

The rash assumption that an older manuscript like the Sinaicus a and the Vatican B are free from corruption is likewise wholly unfounded, and more so, illogical. How long does it take to corrupt a manuscript? Especially with the corruptions prevalent throughout the Sinaicus a and the Vatican B wherein they continually drop the title 'Lord' and his position description 'Christ' from the name of the 'Lord Jesus Christ.' Dropping out the stuff one does not like is not new. The early church leaders warned about these Bible corrupters in the 2^nd century!.

“Eusebius cites the indignation of Dionysius, bishop in Corinth (c. 170 AD), for the heretics; tampering with his personal correspondence as well as the Scriptures: “As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote them, and these the apostles of the devil have illed with tares, exchanging some things, and adding others, for whom there is word reserved. It is not, therefore a matter o wonder, if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these.¹²”

“Ireneaus, a disciple of Polycarp, said of Marcion (150 AD): “he (Marcion) mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father ... In like manner, too, he dismembered the epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also, those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.¹³”

Anyone who takes a text from Alexandria Egypt as pure, and the text that has stood solid for 1900 years as corrupt is camping with mislead fools. Indeed the Alexandrian family of texts, that is unduly weighted as pure by W&H of old, and Nestle Aland of late, is the corrupted text and these men have called good - evil and evil – good.¹⁴ This is the brazen error of modern textual criticism and there is no excuse for it's abiding with thinking, researching Christians, especially not with fundamentalists, more so still, not with Baptist's of any stripe.

Before taking up a new Bible translation that has torn out and added words to God's Words one should investigate where its authors stand on the textual criticism found in W&H's Greek NT which is mimicked in Nestles Aland's Greek NT. For 1,979¹⁵ years now, Baptist have taken a solid position on verbal, plenary inspiration which would prevent the demise of these 20 verses. Such a position is well worded by J.B. Tidwell, a stalwart of Southern Baptists:

“ These writers certainly claimed that what they say is of God. To them the inspiration is not just plenary but verbal. They were not left to choose their words promiscuously. Their individuality was preserved, but the words used were given them of God. Not just the thought came from God, but every word with every inflection. Every verse and line, and even upon the tense of the verb, every number of the noun, and every little particle they regarded as coming from God and demanded in the pain of grave disaster that we should preserve it in its entirety.¹⁶”

Armed with their faulty textual criticism methodology well intended scholars have reeked havoc with the Greek text. Their presumptuous error can be noted by looking at the manuscript evidences for the retention of these 20 verses, and contrasting it with the slim and presumed corrupted evidences for their removal. The unfortunate truth is that all modern English translations, and most foreign language translations (those sponsored by the Bible Societies) are based on the defective methodology, and the defective Greek contained in the Nestle Aland critical text.

The Twenty Verses Textual Critics Ripped Out

And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD,

and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice,

and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. (Exodus 24:3)

In most of the instances for these 20 verses, the whole verse has been ripped out of each version herein illustrated. For some of the verses they have been ripped up, rather than ripped out. Below is a table of how each verse reads in the Holy Bible, then in the W&H Greek NT, both the New International Version (NIV¹⁷) and the American Standard Version (ASV¹⁸), and then the New American Standard Version (NASV¹⁹).

De 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it:

thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Table 1a Twenty Scripture Comparisons

Table 1b Twenty Scripture Comparisons (cont)

Table 1c Twenty Scripture Comparisons (cont)

It is obvious in the table above that 16 of the verses have been completely eliminated by the shoddy and bias textual criticism of Westcott and Hort. Four of the verses have been butchered and gutted by their penknife. These two were scribes like Jehudi²⁰ was scribe for Jehoiakim. They are very quick with a penknife and the fire of their hearth. They are eager to rip out and destroy God's Words. They are esteemed and verbally mimicked by Nestles and Aland who gave us the corrupted Greek text that is used in ALL modern English translations. It is diabolical that every Bible Society has welcomed this corrupted Greek text for every Bible translation effort undertaken. At first glance it looks like a tremendous Satanic victory party for the corruption of God's Words. Nestle and Alan compel people of all stripes to pass through the wide gate and traverse the broad path to holding up a gutted Bible and saying “The bibles say, ... perhaps it says, ... we think it should say ... which is better interpreted.” There is, however, a narrow gate and straight path wherein a few still stand and say “Thus saith the Lord!” Do not leave that path. And if one already has left it 'labor to enter into that narrow gate' until one can once more open a true Bible and say “Thus saith the Lord.”

Their Apparatus Shows Their Error

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

Nestle and Aland applied an apparatus to justify their elimination and gutting of these verses from your Bible. They thereby attempt to legitimize the faulty assumptions made by Lachman and swallowed by Westcott and Hort. Even in trusting their manuscript work it is clear they retained the bias toward the corrupted texts of Origin from Alexandria Egypt. The table below shows each verse's manuscript evidence for retention and deletion. This data is taken directly from The Greek New Testament Nestle-Aland 4^th revised edition.²¹ If it were to be weighed without knowledge of the corruption in the Alexandrian line of texts nor the bias against the Byzantine family of texts, it would still be obvious that they had no business nor justification for ripping God's Words from the Holy Bible.

Take a moment to understand the various designations of manuscript evidences before perusing the table.

NOTES on the designations of the manuscript evidences referenced²²:

1) Papyri - The 97 fragile papyri sheets that they accessed are designated as P^{1,2,3,... 97} Here they call upon evidence from six of these: P⁷⁵ containing just the gospels and dated early III century, P⁶⁶ containing just the gospels and dated about 200, P⁴⁵ containing just the Gospels and Acts and dated III century, P⁷⁴ containing just the Acts and General Epistles and dated VII century, P⁴⁶ containing just the Pauline Epistles and dated about 200 AD, P⁶¹ containing just the Pauline Epistles and dated about 700 AD.

2) Unicals - The 300 Unical manuscripts are designated by numbers 01 through 0300 with the leading zero, or with the capital letter of the old designation. The Greek capital letters of D (delta), Q (theta), X (chi), S (sigma), Y (phi) are also used, and the Hebrew letter a (alph) is used to designate Unical 01, the corrupted Sinaiticus rescued from the trash can by Tischendorf in 1844. The letter B (03) designates the infamous but corrupted Vaticanus unical manuscript.

3) Minuscules - The over 2,800 minuscules manuscripts are designated 1-2818 without the leading zero. Nestle and Aland separated out two families of designated f1, f13, in these instances I included the family lists. Nestle and Aland also designated the vast majority of minuscules as category III, i.e. having a “considerable Byzantine influence.”²³ These they designated as “Byz” and considered them corrupted by that influence.²⁴

4) Lectionaries – The over 2,000 lectionaries available were pared down to 70 'representative' ones by Nestle and Aland. This paring down, again showed the bias against the Byzantine influence mentioned for the minuscules.²⁵

5) Early Versions – The early versions are important witnesses for the Greek texts and are designated as follows:

- Latin Itala, designated 'it'. The Old Latin version used and proliferated by the Waldenses²⁶. with 63 of the over 80 manuscripts included by Nestle and Aland.

- Latin Vulgate designated 'vg'. The Catholic revised version of Jeromes (born 340 A.D.) Latin Bible. Jeromes Vulgate was first commissioned by Pope Damasus I (366-389 A.D.) as the new official Catholic Latin translation to replace the Itala and several other Latin translations then in existence²⁷. It is tainted with corruptions and Catholic revisions and Nestle and Aland referenced 3 of the fifth century versions.

- Syriac designated as 'syr'. Eight versions of the Syria language versions were referenced. The s and c of the 3rd/4^th cent., the p and ph of the 5^th cent. the h, hmg and hgr, of the 6^th cent. and the palestinian, pal, of the 6^th cent.

- Copic designated as 'cop'. Eight versions of the Copic language versions of the 3^rd cent. were referenced. These are the sa, bo, pho, meg, mf, fay, ach, ach2 manuscripts.

- Armenian designated 'arm' from the 5^th cent.

- Georgian designated 'geo' from the 5^th cent. Two revisions are referenced as 1 and 2. The A and B manuscripts are cited as two lines of the latter when they differ.

- Ethiopic designated 'eth' from about 500 A.D. There are 4 versions of the Ethiopic language translation referenced and listed as ro, pp, TH, and ms. The latter having only Matt 1-10.

- Slavonic designated 'slav' from the 9^th cent.

6) Greek Church Fathers – There were 116 Greek Church Leaders referenced and these are designated herein by name in alphabetical order. Parentheses, ( ) indicate a deviation in minor detail. Superscripts indicate some statistic, language deviation or variant not in their quotation. When both present the Greek Leaders are separated from the Latin with a semicolon.

7) Latin Greek Fathers – There were 61 Latin Church Leaders referenced and these are designated herein by name in alphabetical order. Parentheses, ( ) indicate a deviation in minor detail. Superscripts indicate some statistic, language deviation or variant not in their quotation.”

With this working knowledge of the apparatus that Nestle-Aland used, the following chart is disturbingly revealing of their inept blunder in textual criticism.

Table 2 Retention Evidences for the Twenty Verses

There are 1486 references listed for the retention of these 20 verses and 687 references listed for their deletion. This overwhelming numerical imbalance is evident despite the Nestle and Aland twisted bias about the 'considerable Byzantine influence' covered in the notes above. Easily over twice as many manuscripts attesting that these 20 verses should be completely in our Holy Bible, although they are not in Westcott and Hort's bible, not in Nestle and Aland's bible, and, consequently not in the NIV, ASV, NASV nor other modernist, cultist and Catholic bibles. Shame on them for believing these 'textual critics' with corrupted bibles. Shame on evangelicals for following after their misleading. And shame shame on the fundamentalists who left the straight and narrow path for this broad path of diabolical deception.

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book

of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,

and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Conclusion

Briefly examining the retention evidence for these 20 verses results in the exposure of a faulty textual criticism and degenerated doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration that is diabolical. Verses from the Holy Bible that believing Christians have copied and accepted as Holy Scripture since the time they were received from the pen's of the apostles should not be subject to the penknives of any believing Christians today. Nestle and Aland may be heralded as scholars and critics of the New Testament, but their trek down the trail of Westcott and Hort who followed after the degenerate path of Lachman and his cronies should be immediately abandoned by believers who will do their homework and put away their penknives. Indeed it is found that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2Tim 3:16-17)

NOTES

1 The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in Dr. Gipp's work entitled “An Understandable History of the Bible”, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464

2 Gipp, Dr. Samuel C. Th.D. “The Answer Book” Question Number 44, Internett http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp accessed 10/16/07

3 Aland, Kurt, Aland, Barbara “The Greek New Testament” Fourth Revised Edition, United Bible Society, @ 1966, 1968, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1994, 1998,

4 Scrivener, Frederick Henry “Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Vol 1”, Oxford, London, George Bell & Sons, Your Street Covent Garden and New York , 1894, 4th Edition edited by Rev. Edward Millar, M.A. p B2

5 Black, David Alan, & Dockery, David S., “New Testament Criticism and Interpretation” Zibdervan Publishing Housem, @1991, pg 109 Textual Criticism essay by Michael Holms, (This compromising book on NT criticism was required reading at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Landsdale Pa, after Dr. Jordon's control was overthrown by an influx of Bob Jones graduates.)

6 ibid Black, pg 109

7 Aleph (a) and B manuscripts are the Greek Uncial manuscripts (mss) called Sinaicus and Vaticanus. Sinaicus was discovered and purchased by Constantine Tischendorf . In 1844 in the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, Tischendorf found monks lighting their stove with a discarded Greek unical manuscript now nomenclatured Aleph ( a ). Both are thought to date back to the 4^th century and come from Alexandria Egypt .

8 ibid Black, pg 109

9 Miller, Edward, “A Guide to Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, Dean Burgon Society Press, Collingswood NJ, 1886, pg 20 Chapter III “History of Textual Criticism.”

10 Ibid Miller, p 21

11 Burgon, John William, “The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels” Burgon, John William (1813-1888), Miller, Edward (1825-1901) (Editor),Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Publication History: Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1896, Rights: Public Domain,Date Created: 2006-05-13 accessed at http://www.ccel.org 11/07/07

12 Eusebiu Pamphilus, “The Ecclesiastical Histor of Euseius Pamphilus”, pp160 as quoted in Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL, BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus pp60

13 Alexander Roberts and James Donalsdon, eds., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers”, Vol 1, pp352 as quoted in Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL, BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus pp60

14 Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

15 For demonstration that Baptist are not a denomination and have been in existence for 1,979 years since Christ's resurrection see Baptist perpetuity in Mason, Ron, “The Church that Jesus Built” also Carroll, J.M., “The Trail of Blood”, Christian, John T. “A History of the Baptists Volume I” , and/or Stringer, Phil, “The Faithful Baptist Witness”

16 Tidwell J.B., Chairman, Bible Department, Baylor University, (1910-1946),“Thinking Straight About the Bible, or Is the Bible the Word of God” (1935), from Southern Baptists Site http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/heritage/tidwell.asp accessed 11/01/07

17 The New International Version, Copyright © 1978, by New York International Bible Society.

18 The American Standard Version, Online Bible Foundation, 12 Birkfield Place, Carluke, Lanarkshire, Scotland, M184PZ, © 15-2006

19 New American Standard Version (NASV), 1973 Revision, copyright by The Lockman Foundation, 1960,1962,1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, and 19732, La Habra, Calif, with all rights reserved.

20 Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

21 Aland, Kurt, Aland, Barbara “The Greek New Testament” Fourth Revised Edition, United Bible Society, @ 1966, 1968, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1994, 1998

22 Rice, Edward G., “The 357 Magnum Errors of of the Modernist's Critical Texts”, published GSBaptistChurch.com, © 2006 (pending), Information for the notes is taken from Aland, ibid pp 1*-37*

23 Aland, ibid pp 5*

24 They followed the unsupported reasoning of Lachmann and then W&H that there was a man made 2nd and 3rd century conspiracy to unify the Scriptures and exclude the deviants that they favored. One would contend that no such man made conspiracy is evidenced and any unification was Supernatural not man made.

25 Aland, Ibid pp 20*-21*

26 Wilkinson, Benjamin G., “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated”, 1930, (Wilkinson was SDA who wrote an excellent poplar history of the textual lines.) as quoted in BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture Syllabus pp 81-82 “Since Italy, France, and Great Britain were once provinces of the Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible by the early Christians in these parts were made into Latin. The early Latin translations were very dear to the hearts of those primitive churches, and as Rome did not send any missionaries toward the West before A.D. 350, the early Latin Bibles were well-established long before those churches came into conflict with Rome. Not only were such translations in existence and well-established long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy, but the people for centuries refused to supplant their Old Latin Bibles with the Vlgate. God in His wisdom invested these Latin versions by His Providence with a charm that outweighed the learned artifiiality of Jerome's Vulate. For nine hundred years, one is told, the Old Latin held its own after the Vulgate appeared. The critical version of Jerome never displaced it, and only repleced it when the Latin ceased to be a living language.”

27 Stringer, Phil, Dr. “BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus”, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL 33844 pp 81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Bible

New American Standard Version (NASV), 1973 Revision, copyright by The Lockman Foundation, 1960,1962,1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, and 19732, La Habra, Calif, with all rights reserved.

The New King James Version, Copyright © 1982, by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

The New International Version, Copyright © 1978, by New York International Bible Society.

The American Standard Version, Online Bible Foundation, 12 Birkfield Place, Carluke, Lanarkshire, Scotland, M184PZ, © 15-2006

Greek Bible, 1550- Textus Receptus, Online Bible Foundation, 12 Birkfield Place, Carluke, Lanarkshire, Scotland, M184PZ, © 15-2006

Greek Bible, 1881 Wescott Hort Greek Text, Online Bible Foundation, 12 Birkfield Place, Carluke, Lanarkshire, Scotland, M184PZ, © 15-2006

Aland, Kurt, Aland, Barbara “The Greek New Testament” Fourth Revised Edition, United Bible Society, @ 1966, 1968, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1994, 1998,

Alexander Roberts and James Donalsdon, eds., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers”, Vol 1, pp352 as quoted in Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL, BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus pp60

Black, David Alan, & Dockery, David S., “New Testament Criticism and Interpretation” Zibdervan Publishing Housem, @1991, (This compromising book on NT criticism was required reading at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Landsdale Pa, after Dr. Jordon's control was overthrown by an influx of Bob Jones graduates.)

Burgon, John William, “The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels” Burgon, John William (1813-1888 AD), Miller, Edward (1825-1901 AD) (Editor),Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Publication History: Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1896 AD, Rights: Public Domain,Date Created: 2006-05-13 accessed at http://www.ccel.org 11/07/07

Eusebiu Pamphilus, “The Ecclesiastical Histor of Euseius Pamphilus”, pp160 as quoted in BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL, pp60

Gipp, Dr. Samuel C. Th.D., “An Understandable History of the Bible”, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464

______ “The Answer Book” Question Number 44, Internett http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp accessed 10/16/07

Miller, Edward, “A Guide to Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, Dean Burgon Society Press, Collingswood NJ, 1886 AD

Rice, Edward G., “The 357 Magnum Errors of of the Modernist's Critical Texts”, published GSBaptistChurch.com, © 2006 (pending)

Scrivener, Frederick Henry “Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Vol 1”, Oxford, London, George Bell & Sons, Your Street Covent Garden and New York , 1894, 4th Edition edited by Rev. Edward Millar, M.A. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Public Domain, accessed at http://www.ccel.org 11/07/07

Stringer, Phil, Dr. “BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus”, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL 33844

Tidwell J.B., Chairman, Bible Department, Baylor University, (1910-1946), “Thinking Straight About the Bible, or Is the Bible the Word of God” (1935), from Southern Baptists Site http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/heritage/tidwell.asp accessed 11/01/07

Wilkinson, Benjamin G., “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated”, 1930, (Wilkinson was SDA who wrote an excellent poplar history of the textual lines.) as quoted in BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL 33844