Why Modern Text Critics can not be trusted to change your Bible or your Children's Bible in the Future!

First and Foremost - they DO NOT believe that God has Inspired his Word and also Preserved it until today. This is in direct opposition to Jesus Words: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Peter said: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. This mighty point alone is reason enough to avoid them completely. Their word against the word of the Holy Spirit. We are being asked to believe in the inspiration of the "originals", which all of them are lost, without believing in the preservation of the text of the Scriptures. It is a statement of unbelief when we say that we only believe that the original autographs were inspired. Taking this position of the modern Text Critics, what we really are saying is that we do not believe that we have the infallible Word of God in our hands!

Their Cult-like obsession with Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as well as the Papyri. The Church has already confronted this and rejected these counterfeits. The majority of the Papyri come from either a Garbage Mount or a Gnostic Compound. Codex Vaticanus was almost completely overwritten in the 15th Century, has no historical usage in the Church and was rejected by our Reformation Leaders in the 16th Century. Codex Sinaiticus has so many corrections in it, almost certain to be a 19th Century forgery and it can easily be proven with a simple Chemical analysis. This of course will never happen. That would destroy the entire falsehood of Modern Text Criticism. Let's not forget that all these false witnesses do not agree with each other much!

This childlike repeating in all arguments that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the "oldest and best". So, by now if you read through this website, you are very familiar knowing that both Codices are the most corrupt and mutilated in existence. But what about the age? Sinaiticus is a recent forgery, what about Vaticanus from the 4th Century? Age alone is not a good indicator. Consider this: When a Manuscript is copied, then there arises the possibilities of differences to creep in because of Human inaccuracy. 4th Century Vaticanus could have been the 9th time it was copied.. Yet, there could be a late 10th Century Manuscript but it was only copied the 5th time in a professional Scriptorium. In that case the 10th Century Manuscript would likely contain less differences and would be closer to the Original Autographs and therefore much preferred than (supposedly) the 4th Century Vaticanus. Click here to read a more detailed Analysis.

In addition, the Alexandrian Line is copied very sloppily! - they greatly disagree with each other and the Traditional Text. On the other Hand, the Church copied their manuscripts very carefully! Thats why the Traditional Text with over 5000 manuscripts agrees with each other over 99%. Surely, this is much closer to the Original Autographs and outweighs the argument of "Age" only.

Ownership of the biblical Text belongs to the Church and NOT to unbelieving Academia. Nobody gave Modern Text Critics the authority to change our Bible based on the Traditional Text. Most Churches unfortunately fall prey to this major but silent falsification. These changed Bibles are now gaining acceptance in Churches at an alarming rate.

Claim that it does not affect Doctrine. That of course is another major Lie. Interestingly enough, most Christians just accept this without really checking if it is true. Let's just look at one example from Matthew 5:22. Jesus was angry many times, yet never without a cause. According to the Modern Text, Jesus, while he was angry, would be committing a Sin. This destroys the Doctrine of the Sinlessness of Christ!

Modern Text (NIV): But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

Traditional Text (KJB): But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment

Modern Text Criticism is NOT a SCIENCE. It is no more than an arbitrary selection by a very small group of so called "Experts". A simple yet powerful example is the history and usage of Manuscript 2427, also called Archaic Mark - a modern FAKE. This clearly shows their deceptive methods. Go to "Archaic Mark" to get a full description of what happened.

Grouping of Manuscripts into "Families" or "Areas" like Alexandrian Text or Byzantine Text. This is still in use today, although it has been proven to be incorrect. But why did they do this to begin with? Well, by numbers alone, the corrupt Alexandrian Line only represents less then 1% of all Manuscripts. That does not look good to them. So, an easy solution, group them in Families. Now it appears as 2 Families and lo and behold, it appears at least as 50/50 now. Much better than 1%. Also the argument was made that all those 99% of Byzantine Manuscripts really do agree with each other it was assumed it came from one source, therefore it is just one "Family of Manuscripts". As it turns out, all those 99% of Byzantine Manuscripts are INDEPENDENT and DO NOT share a common ancestor as they originally claimed!

The NA/UBS editors, such as Bruce Metzger, gave the age of manuscripts the utmost importance at the near exclusion of all other factors, such as the evidence of patristic quotes, early translations, and the majority of manuscripts. This is still in use today, although it has been proven to be incorrect. Today, this same preoccupation with the age of manuscripts is shared by an entire generation of Christian leaders who learned textual criticism through Bruce Metzger's primer, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. However, the theory that the purest Greek New Testament text can be found in the oldest extant manuscripts does not stand up to scrutiny.