How pure is Erasmus the Roman Catholic’s Greek text (the mother of subsequent TRs)?

How pure is Erasmus the Roman Catholic’s Greek text (the mother of subsequent TRs)?

Erasmus being a Roman Catholic humanistic scholar would naturally use all available materials, including the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, Lorenzo Valla’s (another humanist) Annotations on the New Testament and the writings of church fathers.

He produced two sets of New Testaments: Greek and Latin. In so doing, he was hoping that a closer attention to the Bible would produce some healthy moral reform (as against spiritual reform of the Reformers) in the Church. But he never thought it would do any harm to Rome. He even dedicated it to the Pope, who gratefully sent him a letter of thanks and commended it.

Of course there are areas that he did correctly, for eg. Matthew 4:17. The Vulgate had Jesus say ‘do penance’, he rendered it as ‘be penitent’, and later ‘change your mind’. The Unquenchable Flame, Michael Reeves, pg 27,28

See below what he had done:

I. Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round:

II. edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version.

III. Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek.eg last six verses of Revelation.

IV. translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up,

^V. simply preferred the Vulgate’s reading to the Greek text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus

In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus "synchronized" or "unified" the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated (he would say: "purified") version of either simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually presenting the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions "compatible". This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek. Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, or where he simply preferred the Vulgate’s reading to the Greek text.

Hills wrote on the stand of Dean Burgon and Scrivener : “…looked askance at the TR and declined to defend it except in so far as it agreed with the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek NT manuscripts.” The KJV Defended, pg 192.

Now we can begin to understand why the Byzantine text (upheld by Dean Burgon of baptismal regeneration mode) and Erasmus text are different and tampered with.

May God help us to understand and reconcile.

Paul Cheong

Jun 2011

3 prominent TR men we will not meet in heaven but God is pleased to use them for His glory

3 prominent TR men we will not meet in heaven but God is pleased to use them for His glory

a. Dean John William Burgon – strenuously upholding the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

b. Lancelot Andrews - the leading KJV translator listed in Defending the King James Bible, DA Waite, pg 68 - He was Roman Catholic in doctrine pledging his allegiance to the king and not the Pope.

c. Desiderius Erasmus – stranger to grace, died a Roman Catholic and was never ex-communicated by Rome.

a. Dean Burgon

In theology he was a High-church Anglican, strenuously upholding the doctrine of baptismal regeneration but opposing the ritualism into which even in his day the High-church movement had begun to decline. The Magnificient Burgon, Edward F. Hills in Which Bible?, David Otis Fuller, pg87

b. Lancelot Andrews

It should be clear that Lancelot Andrews was not just Romish in the outward, symbolic sense, he was thoroughly Roman Catholic in his doctrine as well. It is also clear that this Catholic doctrinal perspective, articulated by Andrews, represented the view of all but a handful of the translators, and represented the official theology of the Anglican Church in general. Indeed, the Anglican Church of the early Seventeenth Century was a church which embraced this doctrine. The King James Version in History, Kenneth L. Bradstreet. Pg 116. See below for more proof, pg 113 – 118 . Suggest you read the book. You may purchase from Chistianbook.com

c. Desiderius Erasmus

Because Erasmus failed to rely entirely upon God’s grace, Luther concluded sadly that Erasmus must be a stranger to it. With his Greek New Testament, he had, like Moses, led many out of slavery; yet like Moses he never entered the Promised Land. The stark difference between them showed that reform of abuses and the Reformation were two completely distinct projects. The former was a call for man to do better; the latter was an admission that he cannot, and hence must rely on the all-sufficient grace of God that the moralizers implicitly denied. The Unquenchable Flame, Michael Reeves, pg56

Whenever we quote them, we must put them in the correct place : ie as unsaved men used by God and not pretend otherwise or keep quiet…

May God help us to understand and reconcile.

Paul Cheong

FEBC and their mentor, Dr DA Waite mishandling of Greek texts

FEBC and their mentor, Dr DA Waite mishandling of Greek texts
– A short proof based on 8,000 Differences between the NT Greek Words of the KJB and the Modern Versions by Dr J A Moorman

Because this is a free blog, I could not copy and paste the Greek words but typed the differences in English. The texts used are Scrivener Text (TR) and Nestle-Aland Text (WH).

Dr DA Waite wrote in Defending The King James Bible:
“TR has 100% of the Greek wds.”
“You can see that the additions, subtractions, or changes include almost 10,000 Greek words!”
“This represents the total number of Received Text Greek Words that have either been added to God’s Words, subtracted from God’s Words, or changed from God’s Words by the Westcott and Hort Greek text. I think you will agree with me that there is much at stake in this BATTLE for our Bible! Isn’t it time to CONTEND for the Book?”

If one does not go into the evidences himself he will be misled as I will demonstrate below. He only showed evidences that supported his ideas and pretended that there are no evidences that are against his ideas. By such words, he rallied FEBC and FEBC in turn influence others to his side, causing much pain to God’s people.

I will only show that TR is not perfected as asserted and suggest that it would be better for both sides of the coin to combine the TR/WH texts and come out with a fuller and better text instead of quarrelling over the texts as both texts have their strengths and weaknesses, and God has used both mightily.

Translation issue is a separate one – for eg, virgin or young woman in Isa 7:14.

Example of a combined text: before the Lord God.
2 Tim 2:14
(TR) Before the Lord – (WH) before God

Samples of Types of differences
Mark 10:29 – (TR) or father, or mother – (WH) or mother, or father

Matt 1:6 – and David TR and WH - the same in English but in Greek there is 1 different letter. If Noah (OT) and Noe (NT) refer to the same person in KJV, then what’s the problem? This happens so often in KJV. If you use many KJVs over the years, you will notice that there are spelling differences of names and titles of God for eg LORD and Lord.

Now the crust of the differences: God’s name missing in TR
Mat 17:8 – (TR) save Jesus only – (WH) save Jesus himself only
Acts 4:25 – (TR) Who by the mouth of thy servant David has said – (WH) Who by the Holy Spirit by the mouth of thy servant, our father David has said
Jude 25 – through Jesus Christ our Lord is missing in TR
Rev 1:8 – God is missing in TR
1 Peter 5:2 – according to God are missing in TR

Sample of Different God’s name/title
Luke 10:39 – (TR) Jesus’ feet – (WH) the Lord’s feet
Acts 3:20 – (TR) Jesus Christ – (WH) Christ Jesus
Acts 18:25 – (TR) of the Lord – (WH) of Jesus
2 Thes 2:2 – (TR) day of Christ – (WH) day of the Lord
James 3:9 – (TR) bless we God – (WH) bless we the Lord

Pertinent Question: To ask the question that VPPers asked : How can we be sure of our salvation if God can’t even protect HIS NAME!

Answer: God’s Word is not perfected in the TR but in the big body of texts.

Please note that the issue is Perfected Bible and not Perfect Bible because the TRs are collated texts but the VPPers called it Perfect Bible, causing confusion.

Personally I am not impressed with conspiracy theories (subjective) from both sides of the coin. I only look at evidence.

May God helps us to understand

Prepared by: Paul Cheong

FEBC and The Chinese Union Version

FEBC and The Chinese Union Version

Dr Jeffrey Khoo wrote: “The Chinese Union Version (CUV) is the “Word of God” for the Chinese people today since it is the best, most faithful, most reliable, and most accurate version among the Chinese versions presently available. Great care ought to be taken not to undermine our Chinese brethren’s confidence in the CUV. Nevertheless, versions or translations are never superior to the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures; thus there is a need to consult these original language Scriptures for clarity and fulness of meaning, and to compare Scripture with Scripture.”

This is twisting, turning, bending the rules to cover the inadequacies and forcing the issue by trying to connect to FEBC’s brand of underlying texts. CUV is based on ERV/WH text. Put it another way, translate back CUV to the original language and what will happen now? Recall the missing 8 cardinal words (through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages) in Jude 25, it will show that the TR is not perfect. Which will they place their faith in: CUV or FEBC’s brand of texts?
1:25
愿 荣 耀 ， 威 严 ， 能 力 ， 权 柄 ， 因 我 们 的 主 耶 稣 基 督 ， 归 与 他 ， 从 万 古 以 前 ， 并 现 在 ， 直 到 永 永 远 远 。 阿 们 。
May I ask how many Chinese speaking people will go back to FEBC’s brand of texts to check? Practically - none.

Such rhetoric only undermines the faith of the Chinese people. One cannot try to fit round nut to square hole; it does not work! It was the bible of John Sung and Wang Min Dao who had full faith in it. The Chinese has it since 1890. God has been using WH text (underlying) though overall inferior to TR. (There are areas that WH text is superior to TR). There’s no problem.

"The truth however is that the CUV, like most other translations in other languages, was not based on the same Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek texts used by the 1611 KJV translators. This 1919 publication, which is today’s most widely used Chinese Bible, was translated in 1890 by a panel of missionaries from the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Congregationalist churches and from the China Inland Mission, using the 1885 English Revised Version as its source text supplemented by the original manuscripts for crosschecking." From www.Truth.sg

Please note that VPPers are English speaking and evangelize the English speaking and do not directly involved, if any, with the non-English speaking. They do not really understand that God’s purpose is to save and build up all man/race/countries whose bibles are not based on KJV/TR. VPPers have to do some gymnastic to cover their short-comings as we have seen above. VPPers have shaken their faith so badly.

Paul Cheong

FEBC and Missing facts on VPP

FEBC and important missing facts on Textual Criticism

Ps 12:7 refers to the preservation of the Righteous/Godly and not Word
a. Westminster Confession of Faith Chap1:8
Only Matt 5:18 is cited out of 8 original citations that FEBC adduced in support of their case. Conspicuously not cited is Ps 12:7. In the Annotations on the Scriptures, published in 1645, the divines said that it referred to the righteous/the godly man. Our original BP WCF also does not have this verse. It has one other verse, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." (Ps 119:89). Please note that it is settled in heaven and NOT earth.

b. John Calvin
“Thou, O Jehovah. Some think that the language of the Psalmist here is that of renewed prayer; and they, therefore, understand the words as expressive of his desire, and translate them in the optative mood, thus, Do thou, O Jehovah, keep them. But I am rather of opinion that David, animated with holy confidence, boasts of the certain safety of all the godly, of whom God, who neither can deceive nor lie, avows himself to be the guardian. At the same time, I do not altogether disapprove of the interpretation which views David as renewing his supplications at the throne of grace. Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable.”

c. Matthew Henry
“That God will secure his chosen remnant to himself, how bad soever the times are (v. 7): Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan. vii. 25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom.”

d. KJV translators- English Edition (1611)
In the margin: “him: that is, every one of them.” The American Edition had the margins replaced.

e. Geneva Bible (1560) – translators include John Knox, Coverdale, William Whittingham
“Thou wilt keep them, O LORD: thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever.” And in the margin: “That is, thine, though he were but one man.”

f. C H Spurgeon
“…in verse 5, Jehovah himself thunders out his wrath against oppressors; hearing this, the Chief Musician sings sweetly of the faithfulness of God and his care of his people in verses 6 and 7.” The Treasury of David, Vol.1, pg141

Classic example of tempering the truth
“The words of the Lord are pure words,” says the Psalmist, “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve every one of them (margin) from this generation for ever.” Which Bible? David Otis. Pg313. Compare with the actual margin reading – “him” is missing - “him: that is, every one of them.” By doing this Otis has reduced God to a weakling needing him to help Him by deception. This is heresy.

GI Williamson
GI Williamson believed in perfect preservation of the big body of texts (photocopies) and not any particular printed Masoretic Text or variant TR. The WCF, Pg16,17. And also 2 Tim 3:16 refers to the original texts. FEBC’s Preservation Statement conveniently removed the verse and the material explanation. He uses the NIV and NKJV. Also Dr John Whitcomb holds to this view and uses NASB.

Masoretic Text - Is this the exact copy of the original OT?
“They introduced vowel-points (Hebrew has no vowels), fixed accents (to ensure correct pronunciation), explained the meaning of words (where ambiguity existed), and marked intended pauses (which often affect the meaning).” The Lord gave the Word, Malcolm Watts, TBS, pg10

“…The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorised Version of 1611 as published by The Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976.” Position Statement of FEBC. – Is this correct?
Hills said in The KJV Defended, pg223: “This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949. In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society.” Note that it’s another edition and not 9th reprint. There are changes. KJV was published in 1611 and Scrivener’s text was published in 1881. Scrivener did a reverse-engineering job. Now, which underlies which???

No two TRs are alike
- Erasmus – 5 editions
- Robert Stephanus – 4 editions
- Theodore Beza – 10 editions
- Elzevir Bros – 2 editions
- Scrivener – 2 editions
This means the NT is substantially restored and is still work-in-progress otherwise FEBC/VPPers would be able to pinpoint which TR is perfected with absolute certainty.

Dean Burgon’s Oath* – what is this bible?
He wrote in pg21, Revision Revised : “Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the textus receptus needs correction.” Hills wrote on the stand of Dean Burgon and Scrivener : “…looked askance at the TR and declined to defend it except in so far as it agreed with the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek NT manuscripts.” The KJV Defended, pg 192. The bible is the big body of texts known as the Byzantine family of texts.

Ps 22:16 - “they pierced my hands and my feet” (KJV) or “like a lion my hands and my feet” (Hebrew) ?
a. EF Hills in The KJV Defended, pg223 :
“And in Ps 22:16 the KJV reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ.”

b. Calvin: “They have pierced my hands and my feet. The original word, which we have translated they have pierced, is yrak, caari, which literally rendered is, like a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews.”

c. Matthew Henry: “He is here crucified. The very manner of his death is described, though never in use among the Jews: They pierced my hands and my feet (v. 16), which were nailed to the accursed tree, and the whole body left so to hang, the effect of which must needs be the most exquisite pain and torture. There is no one passage in all the Old Testament which the Jews have so industriously corrupted as this, because it is such an eminent prediction of the death of Christ and was so exactly fulfilled.”

d. The Complete Word Study Old Testament, KJV by Strong's Hebrew dictionary, reads Lion (Masoretic text, main), pierce in the margin (variant). pg17.
Please search the web for what the Rabbis say.

To say that the Masoretic text is perfect is a serious attack on the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ. The bible says: “…without shedding of blood is no remission.” Heb 9:22. This is very serious and at the very heart of God’s salvation plan.

(Ben Chayyim first printed his collated Massoretic text in 1524/25 during Calvin’s time.)

Easter or Passover ? – Acts 12:4 – Pg 247, Defending The KJV
Waite wrote : The rendering there is from the Greek text to pascha which is “Passover” but that particular Passover was at the same time as the Easter festival. The KJB followed Tyndale and many other translations in rendering the “Easter” in Acts 12:4.
This is Dynamic Equivalence. In Ex 12:14, “And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.”
1. That Passover is a fact.
2. That the Jews obeyed God in keeping the ordinance.
By changing it to Easter, a pagan festival then, is seriously wrong. We celebrate our National Day on 9 Aug every year because we gained independence on 9 Aug 65. It is evidence of the fact. Furthermore, we are not to change God’s Word.

Wescott and Hort were not saved but what about Dean Burgon and Erasmus ?
a. Dean Burgon
In Theology he was a High-church Anglican, strenuously upholding the doctrine of baptismal regeneration but opposing the ritualism into which even in his day the High-church movement had begun to decline. E.F. Hills in Which Bible? Edited by David Otis Fuller, Pg87

b. Erasmus
Erasmus wrote of Mary as "my salvation" and "my refuge." Furthermore, he wished for "salvation through Jesus, but not without his Mother." Dan and Cheryl Corner at http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/

Gail Riplinger – Authoress of New Age Bible Versions & highly esteemed by FEBC and Rev DA Waite is living in sin: twice divorced and thrice married. She is a friend of Rev DA Waite. See http://www.truth.sg/ or www.truth.tc/information/gail-riplinger.html

One example of missing words in KJV – Jude 25 – New Age Bible?
"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (NIV).
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen" (KJV).
Comment: Please note that the KJV left out the words, "through Jesus Christ our Lord." If I were to turn the tables on your camp, I could say from Jude 25 (and also John 14:14 which we'll soon examine) that the KJV must be part of a New Age conspiracy or that the KJV's Textus Receptus (TR) is corrupted and contaminated since it conceals the mediatorship (and deity) of the Lord Jesus Christ! But to argue in this fashion would be extreme and unfair, even though many who hold to your position apparently don't think. Dan and Cheryl Corner at http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/
Mine: It also left out “before all ages”. Our God is from everlasting to everlasting. This truth is weakened by limiting God to “now and for ever”.

REMEMBER THIS: Whenever the benediction, “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling…” from KJV, Jude 24 – 25 is pronounced/read, 8 CARDINAL WORDS ARE MISSING as against 1. One cannot pretend that they do not exist!

Despite the difficulties in the so-called perfect/imperfect underlying texts, Calvinists such as Calvin; Matthew Henry; the Westminster Divines; Trinitarian Bible Society; Hill; John Knox; Spurgeon and Williamson taught the sufficiency of the scriptures and the 5 points of Calvinism and in particular the 5th point of Calvinism: “Perseverance of the Saints”. They had no doubt that the elects of God can have full assurance of salvation and will ultimately reach heaven. Amen.

Hills said: “God’s preservation of the NT was not miraculous but providential… Hence if we believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures and make this the leading principle of our biblical textual criticism, we obtain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need.” …Pg 224

Bottom-line -
A host of divines vs Small (but growing) group of VPPers
Handed-down view vs New view
Big body of texts/substantially restored texts/work-in-progress collated texts vs Printed collated perfected texts


My bible has mistakes. Do you believe me? I mean my Defined KJV by the Waites has books missing…and this is with modern technology… Amazing? Yes. How can I be sure of my salvation then? You’ll get the point now? FEBC has yet to define what is their Bible in no uncertain terms? It has shifted it’s position for the NT many times from …to Beza 5th Edition to Scrivener’s text to Reformation Text to…and use the word, Bible so interchangeably…

For the record: I use only KJV. May God help us to reconcile.
A true-blue BP., Paul Cheong

*Dean Burgons oath
“the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.”

NB: We are concerned with FEBC’s brand of VPP only.
Related web : http://www.truth.sg/