New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)

[SovereignGrace]

Is the NASB trustworthy? Can you trust every word to be true? If you can't...throw it out. If you can't trust every word to be true, then you end up trusting in your own scholarship. You become your own final authority.

 

[MattforJesus]

The other versions are not new world order if they claim a personal God,and Jesus is Lord and Savior,against homosexuality,and the basic Christian doctrines,for the coming unified religious system will not acknowledge that.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The new age movement will be the standard format of the unified religious system,and the world will not want to endure the truth of the Bible,but go by their fables,or imaginations of people,spiritual evolution through nature,and Jesus is not Lord and Savior,but a good teacher,and ascended master,and avatar.

The falling away is the condition of the world in response to the Gospel,and Christianity will rapidly decline in spreading the truth,and its beliefs.

The new age movement has an interpretation of the Bible based on spiritual evolution through nature,and the man of sin will support it,and claim to be God through the power of nature.

Forbid to marry,population reduction,command to abstain from meats,nature worshippers.

They are the future for this sinful world.

The esoteric meaning of Lucifer,lucistrust.org.Alice Bailey,biggest prophet of the new age movement,wrote many books.A Christian turned occult,and interpreted the Bible as such,married to a freemason that agreed with her occult interpretation of the Bible.

There are comments on the World Wide Web claiming that the Lucis Trust was once called the Lucifer Trust. Such was never the case. However, for a brief period of two or three years in the early 1920’s, when Alice and Foster Bailey were beginning to publish the books published under her name, they named their fledgling publishing company “Lucifer Publishing Company”. By 1925 the name was changed to Lucis Publishing Company and has remained so ever since.Both “Lucifer” and “Lucis” come from the same word root, lucis being the Latin generative case meaning of light. The Baileys' reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they, like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer. Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.

They look at Lucifer as the helper of this world,and the New Age Christ will appear when the nations come together as one to try to achieve peace on earth.

The man of sin will establish peace in the Middle East,and the Gentile nations will come together and say,Peace and safety,and try achieve peace on earth.

Which will be the time they will not endure sound doctrine,but according to their own lusts,power through nature,and the man of sin will appear as the New Age Christ in the future claiming to be God.

The new age movement is the future,and they want to set up a kingdom for Lucifer.

Does the other Bibles acknowledge a personal God,Jesus as Lord and Savior,say that Lucifer fell from heaven,and will be punished,to repent of sins,and receive the Holy Spirit,and mention nothing about nature worship,and the occult,claim that homosexuality is wrong.

I suspect they do.

For the new world order,new age movement,will not claim Jesus as Lord and Savior,be in to witchcraft,and spiritual evolution through nature,promote homosexuality,look at God as the force of nature,would not have sins to repent of to a personal God.

But maybe the other translations will change slowly,but I doubt it for time is too short for them to take that drastic of a change,for a deception like that has to go on for quite a while.

I use the KJV Bible,but the other translations are not compatible with the new world order,but they appear to say basic Bible principles,and doctrines,like the KJV.

If they were new world order material they would not acknowledge a personal God,but the force of nature would be their God,would not claim Jesus as Lord and Savior,would not stress repenting of sins,and if you confess Christ depart from iniquity,would not be against homosexuality,and if they do not err in the big things,why would they err in the little things,for if they are wrong in translation it would appear that it would be a deception on purpose.

It seems like the biggest problem people have is that they omit words,and add words,is what people say,some even saying that it gives a different meaning in some areas,and that the other translations are prone to the interpretations of people,what they believe it means,instead of what it really believes,and some say concerning NIV that it is biased,and favors Calvinism.

The Roman Catholic Church has many errors that the Bible points them out plainly,but they say king James was a heathen king,so some do not trust the KJV Bible,but how come their falsehood was pointed out in the Bible,and they could not see to change it so it did not appear that way.

Why would they translate the Bible thusly,and it speak against them,and their folly,for that does not make sense,which makes it appear like they translated it correctly,for if they translated in a biased fashion to favor them,why does it not show,but goes against them.

In the KJV the Bible warns us of the new age movement,but the other translations also do,and since the new age movement,is the new world order,why would they speak against themselves,and point out their folly,and the other translations are against the occult,and witchcraft,which is the future.

But of course there is no power,but that is what they think,and that is why the Bible says they will give heed to fables,the imaginations of people,which to them makes sense,and logical,for that culprit evolution,for mankind evolved physically,became greater over time,and they are still evolving,and will become greater through nature in a spiritual sense.

The new age movement will make sense to the world,for it is about evolution through nature,which that is the way it has been ever since the big bang,and it will be logical,and reality to them.

The KJV points out the folly of the Catholic Church,and the new age movement,and the other translations do to.

God can use anybody He wants to do His will,whether saint,or heathen,like in the case of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon,that proclaimed throughout his kingdom to acknowledge the God of Israel.

There should be a study done between those that go by the KJV,and the NIV,Bible,for a public display,and see who upholds holiness standards,acts more Christlike,and believes it matters in their relationship with God.

I tend to believe that those who go by the later translations might be a little more relaxed in their walk with God than those that adhere to the KJV,and if that is the case then there is something amiss,and some scriptures not giving the correct meaning,so their intention is not necessarily going against Jesus is Lord,and a personal God,but they have some kind of agenda they want to change about the Bible.

 

[Paisley_buddie]

this is the conversation ive been striving for

 

[KJV1611]

Which bible version is correct? NIV an abomination is set up in the temple, KJV no abomination and no temple.

Daniel 9:27King James Version (KJV)

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Daniel 9:27New International Version (NIV)

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[a] In the middle of the ‘seven’[b] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[c] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[d]”[e]

 

[trofimus]

Not at all. "Only begotten God" is a CORRUPTION.

By Gnostics, I suppose? The same people who were so eager to destroy and undermine the position of Christ so that they carefully taken out "Lord" etc, they just added "God" there.

Hm, ok, your "corruption" theory makes sense.

The majority of manuscripts have "only begotten Son"

Numbers is not what is decisive. This "majority" is a majority because it is of a late date and therefore better preserved.
Manuscripts from the first centuries will always be a "minority", but having more authority.

which is not only theologically correct, but corresponds to every instance of the use of "only begotten" (Gk. monogenes) in relation to Christ.

This is the way how the "only begotten Son" got to the text. Copyist just assumed (as you did) that it is an error and tried to align it with other places.

There were only three manuscripts with this corruption, but to the critics that was good enough to throw out the true reading.

The following manuscripts support hyos (son):

Greek witnesses
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
Codex C3 - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
f1, 13 - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
majority Byzantine text
Versions
Old Latin
Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)
Heraclean Syriac (18th C. edition)

----

The following manuscripts support theos (God):

Greek witnesses
Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
Codex C* - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800)
Versions
Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
Diatessaron ("Out of Four") of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)

 

[Bogadile]

Why is older necessarily better? Paul said people were forging his letters at that time.
I personally would go for the "majority text" regardless if its newer, there are more copies of it.

Everyone will decide it on their own but I have many bibles at home, and the ones I read regularly from are worn out already, but the ones I do not use are still in peak condition.
Same could be the deal here.

 

[trofimus]

Why is older necessarily better?

Not necessarily, but rather naturally and logically.

There must be some serious evidence that something is really wrong with the older ones.

If not, its natural that the 5th hand-made copy has less errors than the 50th hand-made copy.

 

[RamahDesjardin]

I've never bought the theory that a "copy of a copy of a copy" cannot be accurate. Unbelievers use that to attack the Bible constantly. Either God can preserve His word through the centuries, or He can't.

 

[trofimus]

I've never bought the theory that a "copy of a copy of a copy" cannot be accurate. Unbelievers use that to attack the Bible constantly. Either God can preserve His word through the centuries, or He can't.

This is a logical fallacy.

You are looking at it from the late perspective, from your perspective. "God can preserve text for me, to my time".

But what about people in the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th century? Not for them? Or why are bible manuscripts "good, orthodox and reliable" suddenly from the 9th-15th century and not before? Why this jump?

 

[RamahDesjardin]

I said no such thing as preserving it for me and my time. Don't put words in my mouth. We can't say what reliable copies people were using in the 2nd century because much of it is lost. You can't assume that the few scraps we have from 2nd or 3rd century were all they had -- and you have zero proof that 15th century scribes wrote it down wrong. You see differences between texts and you assume that the later guys were just too incompetent to get it right. You assume that surviving texts from the early years represent what all of their texts said.

Atheists tell us that even by the 2nd century the church was using a copy of a copy, so no one knows what the apostles really wrote. You can split hairs over 5 or 50, but it's still a copy of a copy.

That's why the majority rule makes more sense.

I'm no KJO fanatic, but I don't like seeing any translation attacked with secular weapons.

 

[trofimus]

I said no such thing as preserving it for me and my time. Don't put words in my mouth. We can't say what reliable copies people were using in the 2nd century because much of it is lost. You can't assume that the few scraps we have from 2nd or 3rd century were all they had -- and you have zero proof that 15th century scribes wrote it down wrong. You see differences between texts and you assume that the later guys were just too incompetent to get it right. You assume that surviving texts from the early years represent what all of their texts said.

Atheists tell us that even by the 2nd century the church was using a copy of a copy, so no one knows what the apostles really wrote. You can split hairs over 5 or 50, but it's still a copy of a copy.

That's why the majority rule makes more sense.

I'm no KJO fanatic, but I don't like seeing any translation attacked with secular weapons.

I do not get what you are trying to say. Again - why is the 15th century copy better than the 4th century copy?

The majority rule does not make much sense because the majority was different in the 4th century and in 15th and again in the 21st etc.

Who has "more productive copy making" has also the majority. It says nothing about reliability.

Most of the majority text is from the Byzantine empire and its quite logical because they used Greek. The West used Latin so Greek manuscripts from the West and South will always be minority. Count also Latin manuscripts and situation is different suddenly.

 

[Bogadile]

Not necessarily, but rather naturally and logically.

There must be some serious evidence that something is really wrong with the older ones.

If not, its natural that the 5th hand-made copy has less errors than the 50th hand-made copy.

I see. In Finland we have a 1992 translation that says in Deuteronomy 32:8 that the Most High gave nations their own gods and Jacob's inheritance was the LORD (Yahweh)
I cannot find this in any other translation, yet they claim it is from the septuagint, or was the qumran text, cant remember. Needless to say I do not read that translation ever.

I read the 33/38 translation by the lutheran church. We now have a new one called "the people's bible" which I have not checked out yet, but it seems to be mostly translated by the pentecostals and baptists.

 

[RamahDesjardin]

I don't understand why my words are so difficult to understand. Either God can preserve His word from the second copy to the hundredth copy, or He can't. It is unbiblical to say that later copies will "naturally" have errors. Unless we find an original document in Luke's own handwriting, all of these documents are copies of copies. Either God preserved His word or He didn't.

What sources did scribes use to make those copies in later centuries? You assume that they used "correct" versions but they were too incompetent to get it right. It doesn't occur to you that they may have actually copied their sources exactly.

It's not a question of whether a scribe can copy something exactly -- they trained for years on it -- but whether their source was a forgery or not. The apostles warned about forged documents even from the start. A scribe can copy a forgery word for word and it will still be a forgery.

I am sure that this will be twisted and misunderstood like everything else.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There must be some serious evidence that something is really wrong with the older ones.

Serious evidence for the corruption of "the oldest" manuscripts was presented clearly over 100 years ago by John William Burgon inThe Revision Revised but was consciously and studiously ignored by the ones promoting corrupt Bibles. Let it be clearly understood that ALL modern versions (beginning in 1881) are based on the assumption that "the oldest manuscripts are the best" when in fact they are THE WORST as explained below:

"What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph B C D,—especially of B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD"...

For we resolutely maintain, that external Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of every other known Codex—every other Version—every other available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices Aleph B or or D; the IXth-century codex L, and such cursives 50 as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions:..

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [F.H. A. Scrivener], “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener?Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?...

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of Aleph B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as
yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because
the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished...

It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the external evidence which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word...

More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the “Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—from whatever cause proceeding—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at all events have appeared capable
of being removed without manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of
the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that
thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully; but often that is all. Sometimes, however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in a high degree...But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words, omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text...

Fully to dispose of all these multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—then we are right in all. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the “new Greek Text” depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,— then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”

 

[John146]

I don't understand why my words are so difficult to understand. Either God can preserve His word from the second copy to the hundredth copy, or He can't. It is unbiblical to say that later copies will "naturally" have errors. Unless we find an original document in Luke's own handwriting, all of these documents are copies of copies. Either God preserved His word or He didn't.

What sources did scribes use to make those copies in later centuries? You assume that they used "correct" versions but they were too incompetent to get it right. It doesn't occur to you that they may have actually copied their sources exactly.

It's not a question of whether a scribe can copy something exactly -- they trained for years on it -- but whether their source was a forgery or not. The apostles warned about forged documents even from the start. A scribe can copy a forgery word for word and it will still be a forgery.

I am sure that this will be twisted and misunderstood like everything else.

Yes, the original Ten Commandments (that were written by God's own finger mind you) were destroyed by Moses. Did God panic? No. God simply had Moses make a copy of the original. Later, Moses would make a copy of the copy and preserve it in the ark. How about that for double inspiration.

The Lord Jesus read out of the holy scriptures. Was Jesus reading out of the originals? Of course not, but copies of copies of copies, and yet Jesus called them holy scriptures.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The following manuscripts support theos (God):

Greek witnesses
Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
Codex C* - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800)...

You will note from my previous post that these are the little group of demonstrably CORRUPT manuscripts. So you have to decide for yourself is you prefer corruption to purity. The majority of translations rejected this corruption, which speaks for itself.

 

[trofimus]

I see. In Finland we have a 1992 translation that says in Deuteronomy 32:8 that the Most High gave nations their own gods and Jacob's inheritance was the LORD (Yahweh)
I cannot find this in any other translation, yet they claim it is from the septuagint, or was the qumran text, cant remember. Needless to say I do not read that translation ever.

I read the 33/38 translation by the lutheran church. We now have a new one called "the people's bible" which I have not checked out yet, but it seems to be mostly translated by the pentecostals and baptists.

Learning Greek is not so difficult, so if you have doubts when reading Finnish translations, you can always start to read in Greek

 

[trofimus]

You will note from my previous post that these are the little group of demonstrably CORRUPT manuscripts. So you have to decide for yourself is you prefer corruption to purity. The majority of translations rejected this corruption, which speaks for itself.

So, AD 100, AD 200, AD 300 - corrupt

AD 900, AD 1400 - perfectly preserved.

Yeah, makes sense.

 

[trofimus]

I don't understand why my words are so difficult to understand. Either God can preserve His word from the second copy to the hundredth copy, or He can't. It is unbiblical to say that later copies will "naturally" have errors. Unless we find an original document in Luke's own handwriting, all of these documents are copies of copies. Either God preserved His word or He didn't.

What sources did scribes use to make those copies in later centuries? You assume that they used "correct" versions but they were too incompetent to get it right. It doesn't occur to you that they may have actually copied their sources exactly.

It's not a question of whether a scribe can copy something exactly -- they trained for years on it -- but whether their source was a forgery or not. The apostles warned about forged documents even from the start. A scribe can copy a forgery word for word and it will still be a forgery.

I am sure that this will be twisted and misunderstood like everything else.

You are probably not oriented in the issue.

We have manuscripts from early centuries and then we have manuscripts from later centuries. If we take the majority of the early manuscripts and compare them with the majority of the later manuscripts, they differ on many places.

Now the question is which of them is more and better preserved and which of them is more corrupt.

When you say "God can preserve His word" you are actually saying nothing to the issue, Thats probably why I have problem understanding what you are trying to say.

 

[trofimus]

Serious evidence for the corruption of "the oldest" manuscripts was presented clearly over 100 years ago by John William Burgon inThe Revision Revised but was consciously and studiously ignored by the ones promoting corrupt Bibles. Let it be clearly understood that ALL modern versions (beginning in 1881) are based on the assumption that "the oldest manuscripts are the best" when in fact they are THE WORST as explained below:

"What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph B C D,—especially of B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD"...

For we resolutely maintain, that external Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of every other known Codex—every other Version—every other available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices Aleph B or or D; the IXth-century codex L, and such cursives 50 as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions:..

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [F.H. A. Scrivener], “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener?Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?...

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of Aleph B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as
yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because
the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished...

It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the external evidence which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word...

More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the “Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—from whatever cause proceeding—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at all events have appeared capable
of being removed without manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of
the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that
thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully; but often that is all. Sometimes, however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in a high degree...But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words, omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text...

Fully to dispose of all these multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—then we are right in all. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the “new Greek Text” depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,— then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”

I have noticed that Burgon is taken by the KJVO like some kind of God's Word. I am not sure why?

Have you checked his statements?