BATTLE OF THE BIBLES

Chapter Twenty-Seven
Fruits of Anti Christ

The story of the Battle of the Bibles would remain little more than one of historical interest unless its relevance to present day Christianity can be demonstrated. There are those who love to assure us that textual variations have little or no bearing on basic Christian doctrine. If this be so, then we can only conclude that the leading contenders for the revision of the King James Version failed miserably in their expectations; for the leading agitator for revision, who also became chairman of the New Testament Committee of Revision, made no secret of his desire for change, meaning doctrinal change. Said Bishop Ellicott:

Accordingly, we shall here offer some comparisons of texts from five Bible versions "against" that of the King James Version. In the process, it will be noticed that Ellicott's expectations have been realised - not only in the Revised Version, but progressively more so in subsequent versions.

The five versions chosen are representative of changes in translations approximating the period between the publication of the Douay and Jerusalem Versions, both of which are Roman Catholic Bibles. This is the period covering roughly the era of the development of Protestantism until its virtual demise following Vatican II Council (1962 to 1965). The reader may compare other versions with this fairly representative selection.

The versions selected for this exercise of comparison with the KJ V are:

1. The Douay Version (1914 Edition) published and revised from the Rheims (1582) and the Douay (1609) version.

2. The Revised Version (RV 1897).

3. The Revised Standard Version (RSV published by Thomas Nelson 1957).

4. The Jerusalem Bible (JB 1971).

5. The New International Version (NIV 1978).

It is here pertinent to note some ways in which attacks on Scripture are launched. By injecting seeds of doubt by means of marginal or foot notes; by changes which effect the meaning either subtly or by outright contradictions; or by omission of words, phrases, sentences and whole verses.

We shall group these attacks on the Received Text under broad doctrinal headings and list the Scriptural comparisons in the order in which they appear in the Bible. This is by no means an attempt at a detailed analysis, but it will be sufficient to demonstrate that important doctrines are effected. When any of these five versions do not appear in our analysis, it is because it is in thought-agreement with the KJV.

The doctrines with which we will be here concerned are:

1. Messianic Prophecies.

2. Christ's divinity and Creatorship.

3. Christ's miraculous birth.

4. Christ's incarnation into true humanity.

5. The gospel of salvation.

6. Christ's resurrection, ascension and second advent.

Undoubtedly the greatest attacks on the Holy Scriptures have been directed against Jesus Christ as the eternal, uncreated Son of God Who was incarnated in our flesh that He might triumph over sin in our nature and conquer death.

The record of this world shattering achievement is known as the 'Gospel" or the "Good News". Like it or not, the civilised world honours this event every time the date is recorded, by relating it to the year of our Lord - Anno Domini (AD).

Yet, it has never been in the interests of the Satan-led Gnostics and the Jewish hierarchy that the Biblical predictions of Christ's first advent be obscured in order that Christ be not identified as the Messiah. (The first quotation for each Scripture considered will be from the KJV).

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed".

We see that this blessing would come through the lineage of Abraham and be made available to all people. Protestants and Roman Catholics have traditionally seen this text as a promise of the Messiah.

RSV "And by you all the families of the earth will bless themselves ".

Here we are given a useless self-blessing (as epitomised in the history of Israel during the Christian era).

JB "Bless themselves by you"

A senseless rendition!

"The sceptre shall not pass from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shilo come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be"

Douay "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that he is to be sent: and he shall be the expectation of the nations".

RV Note "Till he come to Shilo, having the obedience of the peoples ".

RSV, JB and NIV "Until he comes to whom it belongs ".

In ancient times, the sceptre was a sign of authority. When on the throne, monarchs would rest it between their knees. Here we are told that Judah would retain leadership among the tribes until the coming of Shilo who would take over the leadership of Israel. Hence we here have a Messianic prophecy which has been progressively blunted and garbled from the time of the appearance of the Douay onward.

"Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel".

RV Note and RSV "Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son... ".

JB "the maiden is with child".

Notice how the ambiguous, doubt fostering note which was inserted into the RV to placate the Unitarian, Dr Vance Smith, is developed into a textual omission of the virgin birth in the RSV.

"For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man".

RSV "For the Lord has created a new thing on the earth; a woman protects a man ".

JB "For Yahweh is creating something new on earth: the Woman sets out to find her husband again".

NIV Note "A woman will go about [seeking]; or will protect a man ".

Early Christian expositors, (and Augustine) are almost unanimous in attributing this "new thing" to Jesus being encompassed in Mary's womb. Notice that while the Douay did not tamper with this text, yet Rome's interconfessional Jerusalem Bible joins in with the modern versions in postulating a ridiculous concept. What is new about a woman seeking or protecting a man? Even Rahab did that!

'Behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass".

Here we have the forecast of Christ, the Saviour, triumphantly entering Jerusalem while humbly riding on an ass (Matthew 21:5-9). Now, note the progressive elimination of Christ's role as Saviour, as introduced by the doubtful note in the RV, which eventually is adopted by the JB

RV Note "He is just and having 'saved' or 'victory"'.

RSV "Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he ".

JB "See now, your king comes to you; he is victorious, he is triumphant, humble and riding on a donkey". This prophecy of a coming Saviour is missing.

"And they crucified him and parted his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet" (See Psalm 22:18).

RV "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, by casting lots ".

RSV "They divided his garments among them by casting lots".

JB "They shared out his clothing by casting lots ".

NIV "They divided up his cloths by casting lots".

Only the Douay agrees with the KJV by referring to the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.

"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors".

RV and RSV This verse is omitted but recorded in a note.

JB and NIV The entire verse is omitted.

"Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God".

RV "and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods".

RSV "and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods ".

JB and NIV "and the fourth looks like a son of the gods".

The translators of the KJV and the Douay reflect the early Christian view that the fourth person was the second person of the Godhead. In doing so, they are acknowledging Christ's preexistence. The above four versions which fail to make this point ignore the context where Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the superiority of Israel's God (Daniel 3:26-29; 4:2). They are in line with Origenism.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting".

RV Note "whose goings forth are from of old, or from ancient days ".

RSV "whose origin is from of old, from ancient days ".

JB "His origin goes back to the distant past, to the days of old ".

NIV "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times".

It will be noted that there is an eternity of difference between the terms: 'from everlasting" and from: "ancient of days" or "times ". Again, the progression of error from the note in the RV to the later versions is obvious. Christ's everlasting coexistence in the Godhead is denigrated.

"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God"

RV Note and RSV "Truly this was a son of God".

JB "In truth, this was a son of God".

"A son of God" does not equate with "the Son of God". All believing Christians may become sons of God: "Beloved now are we the sons of God" (1 John 3:2).

NIV Note "a Son of God".

"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God".

RV "Thou art the Holy One of God".

RSV, JB and NIV "You are the Holy One of God".

The translators of these four versions all avoid Peter's declaration that Jesus is "that Christ", the Son of the living God. The term "Christ" or "anointed one" is synonymous with the Hebrew "Messiah". Neither translation makes the sense specific (or plainer as most publishers of modern versions claim) because such titles as the "Holy One of God" have been bestowed upon a variety of religious leaders, such as gurus, lamas, mullahs and popes.

"And he [Philip] answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God".

RV This verse is missing, but a note tells us that some ancient authorities "insert" verse 27.

RSV, JB and NIV All omit verse 27.

Note that this important declaration on the divinity of Christ in the KJV is upheld by Rome in the Douay but not in her later Jerusalem Bible.

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ".

Douay "And to enlighten all men that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things".

We have noticed the inclination on the part of Rome to uphold the divinity of Christ in the Douay version. However, this admirable trait is subservient to the opportunity of appearing to support dogma - in this case, the priestly dispensing of the Mass and the "re-creation" of Christ in the form of a wafer.

RV "hath been hid in God who created all things".

RSV "hidden for ages in God, who created all things".

JB "but also of explaining how the mystery is to be dispensed. Trough all the ages, this has been kept hidden in God, the creator of everything".

NIV "was kept hidden in God, who created all things".

None of the five versions attributes creatorship to Jesus Christ. If Christ is not the Creator, how can He be expected to create new hearts within us?

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

RV and RSV "I bow my knees unto the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named".

JB "This, then, is what I pray, kneeling before the Father, from whom every family, whether spiritual or natural, takes its name ".

NIV "For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name".

Once again we see the overriding desire of the modern translators to eliminate reference to the Sonship of Christ - even the Roman Jerusalem Bible, though the Douay got it right!

"[God], Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;"

RV Note "hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in a Son ... through whom also He made the ages ".

RSV "He has spoken to us by a Son through whom He created the world".

Notice how Gnosticism comes through in the revised versions. Paul's declaration of Christ's divine Sonship is missing, while the RV presents Christ as the creator of something intangible.

Isaiah 7:14 has been cited in the section dealing with Messianic passages of Scripture and it is also applicable here. Now look at some attacks in the New Testament. Predicably, we should not expect the Douay Version to join in these attacks, yet, in keeping with Vatican II Council, Rome's interconfessional plans are evident in her Jerusalem Bible.

"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

RV "and knew her not till she had brought forth a son ".

RSV "But knew her not until she had borne a son ".

JB "and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son".

NIV "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son ".

As a virgin, Mary's child must of necessity be a first-born, and the KJV and the Douay make this point. But the best the revisionists can do is to indicate that Joseph was not the father, thus leaving the possibility that some other man might have been the boy's father! Notice the emerging pattern of resemblance between the post-Vatican II Bibles - JB and NIV.

"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him".

We note how the King James Version translators were careful to avoid naming Joseph as Jesus' father. Not so the following versions.

Douay "And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him".

It would appear that Rome has here made a surprising mistake. It is explained by B.G. Wilkinson who says: "In preparing the Latin Bible, Jerome would gladly have gone all the way in transmitting to us the corruptions in the text of Eusebius, but he did not dare" ("Our Authorised Version Vindicated", p 48).

But in this case, Jerome must have been determined to support Origen and his Gnosticism, for Wilkinson cites "Jerome against Helvidius" to say that Helvidius accused Jerome of translating Luke 2:33 from corrupt Greek manuscripts (ibid p 48).

RV and RSV "And his father and mother".

JB "As the child's father and mother stood there wondering at the things that were being said about him ".

NIV "The child's father and mother marvelled".

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

RSV "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son... "

The omission of the term: "begotten" is entirely consistent with the Gnostic philosophy of the RSV revisers who shunned the supernatural. "Only begotten" comes from two Greek words meaning "alone" and "I am born", thus signifying Christ's lack of an earthly father. That the omission is deliberate, there can be no doubt, as witness John 1:14,18; John 3:18 and 1 John 4:9.

JB "God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son".

NIV "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son ".

Again, we see the Jerusalem Bible and the NIV pairing up, except that a note in the NIV admits the omission: "Or God's only begotten Son ".

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God hath sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne"

Here we have Peter reminding the believers that Christ's incarnation through the flesh (of David's line) had been both promised and fulfilled (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

In 1 John 4:3 God has warned that: "every spirit that confesseth not that Christ is come in the flesh is not of God". Notice how the following versions fail to identify the "One" who came in the flesh as Christ.

Douay "that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne ".

RV "that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne ".

RSV "he would set one of his descendants upon his throne ".

JB "to make one of his descendants succeed him on the throne ".

NIV "he would place one of his descendants upon his throne ".

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory".

Douay "great is the mystery of Godliness, which was manifest in the flesh, was justified in the spirit... ".

RV "He who was manifested in the flesh... ".

RSV "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh... ".

JB "Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed. He was made visible in the flesh... ".

NIV "He appeared in a body... ".

All five versions fail to identify who or what appeared in the flesh. The NIV demolishes the doctrine of the incarnation by saying: "He appeared in a body ". We may well ask, who appeared in a body? Don't we all! But how many gods have been "manifest in the flesh"?

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham".

It will be noted in the KJV that the words: "him the nature" have been supplied, indicating a problem with the Greek text. But whereas this translation makes sense within the context of verse seventeen, which outlines the credentials of a high priest, other translators have succeeded in making it meaningless.

Douay "For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold".

RV "For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham ".

RSV "For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham ".

NIV "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants ".

Notice the progressive degeneration of the text.

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now is already in the world".

Douay "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God".

Here we have further evidence of Rome tampering with Holy Scripture - in this case, a senseless rendition designed to avoid evidence that could implicate her as the antichrist. Bishop Simpson in his "Yale Lectures on Preaching", says: "The Romanists have been trying to get the human nature of Christ as far away from our humanity as possible and hence have taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary ".

With such teaching, Christ could not have inherited any sinful tendencies from Mary and hence did not come in the flesh of fallen humanity.

RV "and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist".

RSV "and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This spirit is of the antichrist ".

NIV "but every spirit which does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. this is the spirit of antichrist".

Not one of these four renditions confess that "Jesus is come in the flesh".

"I will have mercy and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

Here, Christ enunciates a basic pre-requisite to salvation - first an acknowledgment of our sinful state, and then a repentance that turns us away from sin. This process of repentance does not seem to be understood by Rome.

Douay "For I am not come to call the just, but sinners".

RV and RSV "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners".

JB "I did not come to call the virtuous, but sinners ".

NIV "I came not to call the righteous but sinners ".

Not one of these renditions speak of repentance.

"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven".

RV "Except ye turn, and become as little children ".

RSV "Except you turn and become like children".

JB "Except you change and become like little children ".

NIV "Unless you change and become like little children ".

"Conversion" holds not only the thought of turning about, forsaking a present course, but has religious and spiritual connotations which these versions all choose to ignore.

"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost".

RV, RSV, JB and NIV The whole verse is missing because Westcott and Hort rejected it, but the Douay having preceded them got it right.

"They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

Douay "For I came not to call the just, but sinners".

RV and RSV "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners ".

JB "I did not come to call the virtuous, but sinners ".

NIV "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners ".

Again, as in Matthew 9:13, all versions avoid mentioning "repentance ".

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men".

The heavenly host announced to the world the beautiful news of salvation to men - a generic term encompassing the whole human race, without exception. But in the following renditions, this universal message of hope has been prostituted with a restricted application to a favoured class.

Douay "Glory to God in the highest: and on earth peace to men of good will".

Over the centuries, the Roman Church has made it painfully clear whom she regards as not meriting good will.

RV "And on earth peace among men in whom He is well Pleased ".

RSV "and on earth peace among men with whom He is Pleased ".

JB "and peace to men who enjoy His favour".

NIV "peace to men on whom His favour rests".

Such sentiments expressed in the modern versions could encourage the predestination philosophy of Calvin on which "Apartheid" is predicated.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life".

RV "He that believeth hath eternal life".

RSV "he who believes has eternal life ".

JB "everybody who believes has eternal life ".

NIV "he who believes has everlasting life ".

According to the above versions, belief in something unspecified will ensure eternal life! Like Hinduism or Buddhism?

"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us".

Douay "For Christ our pasch is sacrificed".

RV "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ ".

RSV "For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed".

JB "Christ, our, passover, has been sacrificed".

NIV "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed".

For those who are inclined to minimise the importance of the two missing words: 'for us", it is here pertinent to quote B.G. Wilkinson: "That Christ was sacrificed is an historical fact; that He was sacrificed 'for us" is a doctrine and the very basis of which the Gospel rests. Take away the fact that he died for us, as the Revisers did in this text, and there is no Gospel left. The leading Revisers, in particular, Westcott and Hort, rejected the idea that Christ was our substitute and sacrifice" ("Our Authorised Bible Vindicated", p 193).

If there is one thing the Gnostics and Rationalists cannot stomach, it is the fact of Christ's resurrection and ascension. It follows then that the doctrine of His second advent must be a nonsense to such unbelievers.

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?"

Douay "And what shall be the sign of They coming and of the consummation of the world?'

RV Note "And what shall be the sign of Thy presence and of the consummation of the age?'

RSV "and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

NIV "and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?'

Not that all the above (except the Revised Version which relies on a note to inject uncertainty) are indefinite as to the precise nature of the event. "The end of the age" could refer to any of earth's historical periods, such as the age of Roman rule, the supremacy of an empire, or a social era.

"Now, when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...After that he appeared in another form unto two of them ... Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat ... So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God".

RV Note "The two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse nine to the end".

RSV Note The chapter ends with verse eight and verses nine to twenty are recorded in note .

NIV "The translators preface verses nine to twenty with the observation,: "The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20-.

If "the most reliable manuscripts" do not include these verses, then why include them in a note? The manuscripts which the revisers incorrectly describe are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which, as we have seen, have at times been rejected by Rome as inferior to the Itala; hence it is fairly predictable that both the Douay and the Jerusalem Bibles should include these verses.

"He is not here but is risen; remember how he spake unto you when he was in Galilee".

RSV Note "He is not here but is risen" is confined to the footnote.

This omission reflects the belief of some members of the National Council of Churches, as epitomised by H.E. Fosdick who was against the resurrection (see page 148).

"And it came to pass, while he blessed them he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven".

RV Note "Some ancient authorities omit "and was carried up into heaven ".

RSV "While he blessed them he parted from them".

Again, we have the RSV building on the doubts introduced by Westcott and Hort in the Revised Version.

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".

Douay "Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".

In this and following renditions of the text, nothing is said of Christ's expected literal return.

RV and RSV "and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ".

JB "while we are waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the Appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ".

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between they seed and her seed; it shall bruise they head, and thou shall bruise his heel".

This text has ever been recognised by Christians as the first Biblical promise of the Messiah. Here our first parents were told that the "seed" would feel the enmity of the serpent (Satan) who would inflict a non-lethal wound. But in contrast, the "seed" (Christ) would inflict a mortal wound to Satan's head.

The Mariolaters have corrupted this text by deflecting the credit for this victory away from Christ to Mary.

Douay "she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel ".

"And saying, Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

Douay "Do penance for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

Here, and in most other passages of Scripture where repentance is mentioned, the Douay Version advocates penance in an endeavour to support the dogma of "salvation by works" (See in Douay, Ezekiel 18:30; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 12:41; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3, 5; Luke 16:30; Acts 2:38; Revelation 3:3).

This is one of the corruptions that caused emerging Protestant England to look on the Rheims Douay Bible with revulsion.

By the time Rome adopted the ecumenical mode - some three and a half centuries later (Vatican II Council), she discontinued such abominations, as witness the Knox and Jerusalem Bibles. Rome will yield only if she perceives a greater gain.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body".

RV "For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body ".

RSV "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself".

JB "a person who eats and drinks without recognising the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation ".

NIV "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself".

In all these versions here cited, not one uses the expression: "unworthily ". The inclusion of this word in the KJV (and Douay) indicates that there could be any number of causes other than "not discerning the Lord's body". In fact, various causes could impair spiritual discernment of the emblem. The countless number of people burned at the Roman stakes accentuates the importance which Rome attaches to the dogma of "Transubstantiation". The recognition of the wafer as the literal body of Christ is the only concern shown in these renditions.

Note also the substitution of 'judgment" for "damnation ".

"Confess you faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed".

Douay "Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved".

RV "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray for one another, that you may be saved".

JB "So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, and this will cure you ".

NIV "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed".

Faults and sins are not the same. In the KJV, verse 15, "sins" is used correctly in the context of God forgiving sins. But in verse 16, 'faults" is used in connection with human relationships. The Douay blatantly tries to justify the priestly confessional by introducing "salvation" into verse 16. Notice that the interconfessional Jerusalem Bible agrees with the modern versions by omitting "salvation".

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished'.

RV "and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment".

RSV "and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment ".

NIV "and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment".

It seems strange that the Roman Douay and Jerusalem Bibles do not go this far in upholding an intermediate state of punishment such as purgatory. Rather, they seem content to leave it to the so-called Protestant versions. However, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) has yielded to interconfessional desires as has the New King James Version!

"Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man; and the number is Six hundred three score and six".

It has been a source of strength among Waldenses and other Christians who have been persecuted by the Church of Rome, and later among early Protestants, to know that God has identified their persecutor as the "beast" of Revelation. The martyrs would not be impressed by the doubt-fostering revisionists whose cankerous suggestions infest some versions.

RV Note "Some ancient authorities read, Six hundred and sixteen ".

RSV Note "Other ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen ".

JB Note "Some commentators have claimed that 666 is the total of the number values of Nero Caesar".

Dean Burgon has some pertinent and telling comments on this perversion. "Not one ancient version advocates this reading", but only one uncial and cursive copy. He claims that Iranaeus (170 AD) knew of these corruptions by rejected them saying that 666 is, "Found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face" ("The Revision revised", pp 135, 136).

It is hoped that all fair-minded readers will, after studying the foregoing brief analysis of Scriptural deviations, realise that important Christian doctrines have been seriously undermined. We have not attempted to examine the many seemingly minor alterations to Scripture that, on their own, do not appear to be important. But let us not be complacent, for Drs Westcott and Hort, on whose critical method of translation most of the modern translators rely, realised the importance of the cumulative impact of even seemingly innocuous changes in translation. Commenting on the work of the 1881 revisionists, Westcott declared:

Such an insight into the thoroughness of the "scheme" entered into by Westcott, Hort and Ellicott, designed to tamper with articles of accepted faith, reflects on the probity of all those who engineered the fraud of "revision". Truly, it is axiomatic that dishonest enterprises must employ dishonest means. Despite the fact that the charter handed to the revisers stipulated that changes were to be limited to "plain and clear" errors, the finished revision brought forth a staggering 36,000 changes in the English of the KJV and close to 6,000 in the Greek Text.

Canon Cook had no doubts as to the origin of those changes:

It should be a matter of great concern for all honest Christians that the vast majority of succeeding revisers have enthusiastically followed the fraudulent example of Westcott and Hort.

A quick glance over the foregoing analysis shows a decided trend on the part of modern versions to emulate and build upon the doubt fostering suggestions and depravations of the Revised Version.

Yet, another very significant observation is pertinent. Glancing back over the foregoing comparison of Scripture, one is struck by the frequent absence of conflict between the Douay and the King James Version, especially in those texts which deal with the divinity of Christ and His incarnation. Why is it that the Douay stays closer to the KJV than most later versions? Is it, as claimed by the Roman Church, because the translators of the KJV relied heavily on the Catholic Vulgate? The short answer is no! And, here are two reasons. First, let us hark back to the times of Constantine, Eusebius and Jerome, that have been discussed in Section two, Chapter fourteen.

Both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus manuscripts are thought to be surviving copies of the fifty Bibles, which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to produce. Being written on vellum (animal skins), and later being made redundant with the official adoption by Rome of Jerome's Latin Bible, it is not surprising that they have survived in isolation.

We have noted how Jerome was sensitive to the criticism of the Milan (Waldensian) scholars who used the Itala type Bible (later branded by Rome as the Waldensian Bible). This early Bible was known as the Latin Vulgate or popular Bible. As a measure of the esteem in which the Itala (Vulgate) was held, even by the Roman clergy, let us be reminded of what the celebrated Augustine (354-430 AD) had to say:

As noted in chapter fourteen, in the interests of professional credibility Jerome also consulted early Greek manuscripts (such as would have been available to Lucian), and so ended up with a Bible that was closer to the Itala than Constantine's Bible produced by Eusebius. This is not to say that Jerome's Bible did not contain error. It did, for it was a compromise! Today, his Bible could be described as an ecumenical version in the language of the common people.

However, it took centuries for Jerome's Bible to gain popularity and eventually it assumed the name first given to the Itala, "the Vulgate". Even so, a full millennium later, at a time when the return of Greek literature and learning were dispelling the gloom of the Dark Ages, notable Catholic scholars were still denigrating Jerome's Catholic Vulgate.

In 1583, while writing to a Jesuit, Dr Fulke mentioned that Bishop Lindanus had written a whole book on how he longed to have the

He also quoted a monk, Isidarius Clarius, as saying that the Catholic Latin Vulgate was:

It was from this Latin Vulgate that the Douay Bible was translated into English (1609) in order to counter the English Protestant Bibles flowing from Tyndale's translation which relied on the Greek Testament of Erasmus. These Bibles were branded and burned by Rome as, "Waldensian Bibles" because they had a common pedigree. When in 1611 the King James Version appeared, it too had a pedigree similar to the "Waldensian Bibles" or the Itala, for they are all of the traditional Received Text line.

As the Rheims-Douay Bible (1582, 1609) was circulated in an attempt to counteract the "Waldensian Bibles", many differences were apparent. Yet, it did not contain the blatant discrepancies that would have existed had the Rheims Douay slavishly followed Constantine's Eusebius Bible.

But this is exactly what happened when in 1881 Westcott and Hort reverted to the Greek Text of Eusebius by using the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, for these are considered to be two surviving Constantine Bibles.

There is a second reason why the Douay Bible of today agrees more often with the KJ V than with many of the modern versions. Let the Roman Catholics explain why:

"The version now in use has been so seriously altered that it can be scarcely considered identical with that which went by the name of the Douay Bible ... Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly called; they are founded with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions by Bishop Challoner in 1749-1752 ... The changes introduced by him are so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'to call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. In nearly every case, Challoner's changes took the form approximating to the Authorised Version "' ("The Catholic Encyclopedia", Article Douay Bible).

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Here we have an implied admission by Rome that her Latin Vulgate is inferior to the Received Text. So, in an attempt to gain credibility in the English-speaking world, she was willing to modify what she has consistently claimed to be the true text!

We have noted the way in which revised versions have built on the doubts injected into the Revised Version by Westcott and Hort. Yet, amazingly, we later find the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible often adopting the errors of the RV and RSV thus placing itself at variance with the Douay!

To explain this, we must remember the crafty way in which the Roman Cardinals, Wiseman and Newman, brought about the so-called revision of the KJV. They let alleged Protestants do the odious work which they themselves, as open converts to Catholicism dare not undertake - namely, to insinuate the corrupt Bibles of Eusebius and Jerome into the Protestant Bible. Having achieved this goal, and having the satisfaction of seeing subsequent Revisions build upon those errors, it is only logical that in its own Bibles, Rome should eventually follow suit. This she has done at an appropriate time - shortly after the Vatican II Council (1962 to 1965) - in the form of the Jerusalem Bible. In this Bible we see the affinity between Rome and her brainchild, the Revised Version, and the similarity between it and the New International Version.

Both the JB and the NIV can be fairly described as interconfessional Bibles. Both made their debut following the ecumenical deliberations of the Vatican II Council. The translators of the NIV relied heavily on the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament in which there was Roman Catholic participation. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the Jerusalem Bible translators made use of the same UBS Greek text. Isn't this part of the scenario which Monsignor Alberto Ablondi has in mind when, in 1984, he saw the interconfessional Bibles as "One of the most important advancements of post Vatican II ecumenism - and important step towards unity"?

Amazing! Isn't it? When Rome's Bibles failed to replace the Protestant's Bible, she imitated it. Then she tricked Protestants into adopting what she had once abandoned and then pretended to follow them! Rome can be facile, but she is never docile.

The scenario of current papal global strategy is boldly outlined by the Jesuit Dr Malachi Martin in his book, "The Keys of This Blood". He speaks of a New World Order:

Which church? The church that for centuries sought to deprive the world of the written Word; the church which waged a relentless war against the custodians of the Word; the church which during the Protestant Reformation lost the "Battle of the Bibles", and now has re-equipped its forces with interconfessional Bibles; the church that has inveigled Protestants into abandoning their Mighty Fortress thus allowing the enemy to undermine the very foundation of their existence!

Does this mean the "Battle of the Bibles" is over? Not at all!

"What is truth?" exclaimed Pontius Pilate and then assuaged his ruffled conscience with the symbolic act of hand washing.

Since then, the history of Christianity has been a record of the struggle of Christ's followers who heeded and lived the prayer of their Master to His heavenly Father on their behalf "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth". (John 17:17).

Mountain fastnesses, catacombs, dungeon walls, the rack, gibbet and fiery stake have borne witness to the fidelity of God's people who "Loved not their lives unto the death" (Revelation 12:11). Thus was preserved for future generations the Word of God which sets men free.

It is all too easy and enticingly convenient for us whose liberty has been bought with the blood of the martyrs, to forget Rome's traditional hatred of God's living Word. We are all too inclined to indulge our wishful thinking, that such abhorrent behaviour was confined to the Dark Ages. On the contrary, within the lifetime of many who read this book, the sacrilege of Bible burning was still part of Rome's repertoire.

The September 13, 1913 London "Protestant Observer" published a report by Alfred Parcelli who recorded forty-three instances of Bible burning by Roman Catholics between the years 1851 and 1913 inclusive. (Source the SDA "Protestant Magazine", June 1915).

Again, in the same issue we read of Rome's activities in that papal stronghold, the Philippine Islands, where in 1914, "The burning of a large number of Bibles took place in Vegan, Ilocus Sur" (ibid p 44).

No wonder that amidst the present day prosperity enjoyed by South East Asian countries, the Philippines are distinguished by impoverishment akin to that found in the Latin countries of Central and South America!

Presumably, it was the futility of coping with the output of modern printing presses that eventually convinced Rome that a planned program of Bible corruption would be more productive. The growing complacency of Protestants would allow such a program to succeed. Even "the truly Protestant" church sent a favourable signal to Rome - the particular issue of the "Protestant Magazine", from which the above quotation is taken, proved to be its swan song. It just disappeared!

Creeping compromise, a growing characteristic of slothful beneficiaries of the Reformation, once allowed to pupate in a cocoon of "respectability", will finally emerge as a creature of "acceptability". So while Protestant institutions and their values quietly fade away, Rome, ever watchful, seizes every vantage point to strengthen her ramparts.

The development of such a scenario will inevitably tempt Rome to superintend a return to the Dark Ages. But this time there would be an important difference. In the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill they would return on the "The gleaming wings of science". Churchill thus gave expression to a nagging fear engendered by the suppressed knowledge that Adolph Hitler was a Vatican lackey. He, along with Benito Mussolini had entered into a Concordat with the Vatican in return for "a guarantee of political stability underwritten by the 'Vicar of Christ"' (See "The Inquisitive Christians", pp 89-92).

Now, both dictators would help carry out the Vatican's plans to finally crush Britain. The country that more than any was responsible for the spread of the Protestant Bible and became the bastion of Protestantism, the power that freed the Englishspeaking world from the yoke of the pope, would now be irreversibly humbled and the defeat of the papal-sponsored Spanish Armada avenged. Mussolini would restore the Holy Roman Empire, while Hitler's thousand year Reich would, in reality, be the pope's Millennium!

But, as history has once again testified, man's plans are as nothing if they are in conflict with God's divine program. The elements which once decided the fate of the Spanish Armada, now provided a protective cover for Britain's beleaguered armies. The very darkness of her hour of extremity only served to highlight the miracle of deliverance.

Once again, Rome was forced to turn to her weapons of political and spiritual subversion. The chief strategy in the new war would come to be known as "Ecumenism", while its chief weapon for the destruction of Protestantism would be the interconfessional Bibles.

We have seen how Rome's plan has been put into practice through the Vatican II Council and the interconfessional Bibles to which it gave birth. Gladly did the Protestant churches play the role of mid-wives and their offspring - the Bible Societies - as nursemaids to the re-born children of Eusebius and Origen.

So, once more, as in the days of Constantine, Rome has a Bible in place with which she hopes to reunite church and state, thereby obtaining global supremacy. Such a goal is by no means unattainable; rather, in the light of history and humanly speaking, it is a probability. This great counterfeit Christianity knows only too well that if she can destroy or neutralise the Bible which brought on and sustained the Protestant Reformation, then it is logical that Protestantism will crumble or, at the very least remain impotent.

Over and over again we hear the cry from professing Protestants that the language of the King James Version is so archaic that it can no longer be understood; therefore, by implication at least, we need the modern versions. In the opinion of the writer, this is nothing more than a red herring, and a very smelly one at that!

We have seen how proponents of the Revised Version (1881) used this excuse to "revise" the KJV and on these grounds also, the Southern Convocation of the Church of England gave permission for that revision. But we have also seen how Westcott and Hort, acting under the guidance of Cardinals Wiseman and Newman, used this occasion as a ploy to bring out a new Catholic Bible. The same ploy is still being successfully used today. In offering this excuse, the publishers of some modern versions are serving up a gross insult to the mentality of our generation. Suddenly, our young people appear intellectually inferior to their parents and grandparents! Yet we do not hear demands for Shakespear's works to be revised. Of course not; their artistry would surely be lost!

Over the last one hundred years we have had about as many Bible versions - all claiming to improve on the inadequacies of their predecessors. Presumably, there will be no end to this chicanery so long a gullible buyers are around to keep cash registers ringing.

The author has lived for a considerable time in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and the Fiji Islands. In his experience, the indigenous people of these countries evidenced no problems in understanding God's Word in the commonly used KJV. And this - in spite of the fact that, to these people, English is a foreign language!. Are these people intellectually superior to those of us living in Australia or New Zealand? Yet this is what such specious arguments would imply! It would be much nearer the truth to suggest that young people who have been exposed to the barrage of modern versions have come to lose confidence in God's Word because of all the meddling to which it has been subjected. Hence they do not have the thirst for a knowledge of God's will for man that our less privileged brothers have in what we are pleased to call "developing countries".

We have every reason to appropriate to those publishers who offer this argument as an excuse for their versions, this following statement concerning the revisers of 1881 and 1901:

Another specious claim made by modern revisers is that the translators of today have access to better manuscripts than those which were available to the KJV translators. Among the modern scholars who explode this myth is Theodore P. Letis. After methodically presenting both sides of the argument he concludes that:

Could we suggest to our readers that, when offered this red herring, they counter by asking a simple question: "Which manuscripts?"

We have already acquainted ourselves with the so-called better manuscripts on which most modern versions are based, They are held to be none other than the survivors of Constantine's Origen-impregnated Bible, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

We could further embarrass our proponents of Rome's tainted Bibles by asking why the KJV was allowed to reign for over two and a half centuries unchallenged by Protestantism until, in 1870, these two survivors of Constantine's Bible were suddenly exalted to a place of dictatorship in the work of revision? Says Dean Burgon:

Yet another question is pertinent. Why does the tide of modern revision flow relentlessly Romeward?

An appropriate answer is to be found in the Protestant New Brunswick review of August, 1954, which has turned out to be quite prophetic. Speaking of that traitor to the Church of England, Cardinal Newman who along with his co-traitor, Cardinal Wiseman, engineered the fraud of revision, we read:

And then, speaking of Dr Schaff, the American reviser, and his apostate position adopted in his "History of the Apostolic Church"

It is this phenomenon that caused Wilkinson to observe:

No wonder Cardinal Wiseman exulted over the way Rome had used Protestants to insinuate the Catholic Vulgate into their very own Bible!

Now that we have a clear insight into Rome's grand plan for the subversion of Protestantism, there is no need to consent with awesome wonderment to the learned scholars who tritely refer to the "original Greek text" in order to substantiate Bible renderings which are in conflict with the Received Text. Rather, we should ask them to identify their Greek text. Do not be surprised if they should reveal their ignorance of the fact that there have been two streams of New Testament texts throughout the history of post-apostolic Christendom - the uncorrupted Word of God and the philosophical corruptions of man. Do not be surprised if they have never heard of Dr Burgon and his devastating exposure of the fraud of revision. His "Revision Revised", is a monumental work which modern textual critics prefer to ignore rather than expose their ignorance while making a futile attempt to gainsay it. The mere mention of this book in the schools of Babylon would be to risk giving the show away.

And, lastly, would the proponents of Rome's interconfessional Bibles, please explain why, in an age of such a plethora of "better Bible versions", Christianity, generally has steadily been losing ground, while Protestantism, that generator of Western civilisation, has become a spent force! Does this give us a clue as to why Western society is itself in serious decline?

The issue is clear. If we accept the Bibles that contain Rome's input, then we are acknowledging Rome's claim that she has ever been the custodian of God's Holy Word. In that case, we must accept her as God's favoured true church. Therefore, the Reformation was a great mistake and we should all welcome back the Dark Ages.

On the other hand, if we accept the Bibles preserved from apostolic times by such people as the Waldenses and the Albigenses as handed on to the Reformers, then we must reaffirm the Protestant stand on God's Word alone and reject the apostles of ecumenism and their interconfessional Bibles.

Bible Battle TOC