N.I.V. AND THE GREAT COVER-UP.

On the Thames Embankment in London stands the monument of William Tyndale, Bible translator and martyr. I have gone out of my way on more than one occasion to see it. Before Tyndale was burned for his translation of the Scriptures he wrote:

"I call God to record against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus that I never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my conscience, nor would do this day, if all that is in earth, or riches, might be given me."

Martin Luther wrote:

"No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God’s Word taken from them or falsified so that they no longer have it pure and clean."

Now here is an interesting statement from the pen of inspiration:

"Satan’s manner of working against God and His Word has not changed; he is still as much opposed to the Scriptures." G.C. 204.

Satan in his hatred of the Bible has not only burned the Bible and its followers, he has not only forbidden people to read it, but he has aimed at corrupting, "altering," and falsifying it. He has also cut out parts of it, changed words and added words.

Inspiration states regarding the Bible:

"I saw... learned men had in some instances changed the words." E.W. 220-221.

Not a few have attempted to interfere with God’s sacred Book.

"Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they have themselves shortened." Ante-Nicene Fathers (Scribner’s) Vol. 1, pp. 434,435.

Origen (184-254 A.D.) of Alexandria is probably credited at being foremost in this Satanic work. He freely stated:

"The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." McClintock and Strong, Art. Origen.

His devotion to pagan philosophy and especially "Plato, (a pagan philosopher) led him in to many grand and fascinating errors." Dr. Schaff’s Church History, Vol. II, 791.

Origen "who did most to create and give direction to the forces of apostacy." Yet despite that record in the Encyclical Letter by Pope Leo XIII, in the front to the Douay Version, are these words:

"In the Eastern Church, the greatest name of all is Origen—a man of remarkable alike for penetration of genius and for persevering labour." P.XIII.

Again from Inspiration I read:

"Ancient writings were forged by monks .... And a church that had rejected the truth, greedily accepted these deceptions." G.C. 56.

Did you notice that Sister White stated that Satan’s method against the Bible has not changed. G.C. 204.

He uses his agents to change the teachings of the Bible. So it is very apparent that the aim of the revisers was not to remove a few old-fashioned words and make truth clearer, but it was a deliberate attempt to change, and cut down the Scriptures of Truth. "If you can’t refute it, distort it." The hundreds of omissions of vital verses, phrases. and words and the changing of other passages reveals the truth of this conclusion. Many have detected this tragic fact. For instance:

"The Revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few changes and removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorized Version the most acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished ruthlessly to meddle. Some of them wanted to change doctrine.. Some of them did not know good English literature when they saw it... There were enough modernists among the Revisers to change the words of Scripture itself so as to throw doubt on the Scripture." Herald and Presbyter, July 16, 1924, p.10

We certainly do not need to be surprised. The sure word of prophecy has revealed that there would be the attempts by the Man of Sin.

DAN.8:25 "through his policy also he shall cause craft to propser in his hand." It would:

DAN.8:12 "cast down truth to the ground." Jesus said: JOHN 17:17 "Thy word is truth."

What a wonderful guide book our Lord has given to us. In the prophecies of the Bible we have light for these last days when:

ISA.60:2 "darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the people."

2 PETER 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place."

In the gathering darkness and confusion the light of Scripture has revealed the sinister hand that would "cast down" the word of Truth, that our precious Lord has preserved for us. How accurately it has foretold. How accurately have the facts confirmed that forecast and revealed the crafty cover-up of truth.

In the year 1870 the Pope was offically declared Infallible. In the same year the Papacy lost all her territories and was limited to the Vatican. The soldiers of the Papacy—the Jesuits—were called to restore the power and influence of Rome. They rejoiced in the fact that the Reformation was waning. Now was their chance. They planned well. They must break the influence of the King James Version. So they selected two of their main agents. In all probability these two were fellow Jesuits. Their work and writings make it appear they were undercover Jesuits. These men were Westcott and Hort. They both hated and despised the multitude of manuscripts that give us the Received Text the King James Version. This they both aimed at down­grading. They were the tools of the power that Bible prophecy had declared would "cast down the truth to the ground." Their own words betray them.

Here are a few extracts from the pen of Dr. F. J. A. Hort.

F. J. A. Hort (1828-1892)

Hort writes to Westcott, October 17,1865: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus­worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." Life of Hort Vol.11, p. 50.

Hort writes to Westcott: "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry." Life of Hort, Vol.11, p. 49.

Hort writes to Westcott: "But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." Life of Hort, Vol.11, p. 51.

Hort writes to Dr. Lightfoot, October 26, 1867: "But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist." Life of Hort, Vol.11, p. 86.

Hort writes to Westcott, September 23, 1864: "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that ‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary." "Perfect Catholicity has been nowhere since the Reformation." Life of Hort, Vol.11, p. 30,32.

Hort writes to Mr. John Filerton: "I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues." Life of Hort, Vol.1, p. 78.

Hort "Think of that vile Textus Receptus." Life of Hort, Vo . 1, p. 214.

Hort writes to Rev. John Ellerton, April 3, 1860: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with....My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period." Life of Hort, Vol. 1, p. 416.

B.F. Westcott (1825-1901)

Westcott writes from France to his fiancée, 1847: "After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill. Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ) .... Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." Life of Westcott, Vol-1, p. 81.

Westcott writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did." Life of Westcott, Vol. 11, p. 69.

Westcott writes to Archbishop Benson, November 17, 1865: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." Life of Westcott, Vol.11, p. 50.

There is no doubt that both Westcott and Hort were very pro-catholic, and pro-evolution. They hated Protestantism and especially the King James Version. They were devoted to the Latin Vulgate and close friends of John Henry Cardinal Newman and Dr. Pusey, the leader of the Anglo-catholic movement, the man that. aimed at bringing the Church of England back to Rome. These men were all members of the revision committee. Dr. Moulton, a devotee of the Vulgate and Dr. G. V. Smith, a Unitarian were also members.

The result of their work was a big lift in the Rome-ward and modernist movement that upheld the two papal manuscripts.

They "caused craft to prosper". This is seen in their attempted cover-up. The many omissions are largely covered by the numbers of the verses, printed in very small numbers and scattered across the page so that the omitted numbers are hardly noticeable and hence the reader fails to notice the missing verses.

Their use of the two Catholic manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is also largely covered.

For instance:

The N.I.V. has a line across the page after Mark 16:8 and this statement:

"The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.

Why do they not tell the full facts? Why did they not state that their so-called "two most reliable early manuscripts" are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus? Why did they not also state that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus include such writings as the Apocrypha, Bel and the Dragon and the epistle of Barnabas?

Why did not the authors of the N.I.V. tell you these facts?

To give you some idea of the nonsense. I will give you a paragraph from the epistle of Barnabas:

"But he adds, neither shalt thou eat the hare. To what end? To signify this to us: Thou shalt not be an adulterer; nor liken thyself to such persons. For the hare every year multiplies the places of its conception; and so many years it lives, so many it has. Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena; that is again, be not an adulterer, nor a corrupter of others; neither be like such. And wherefore so? because this creature every year changes its kind and it is sometimes male and sometimes female." Epist. of Barnabas 8:7-8.

Pardon me for quoting such rubbish. I do so that you may see the kind of nonsense that is in what the N.I.V. refers to as "the two most reliable early manuscripts."

Why did they not also state that every uncial manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20. That is every uncial manuscript except these two corrupt Catholic manuscripts. Why did not the N.I.V. state that Mark 16:9-20 is contained in over six hundred cursive manuscripts. Why do they hide this overwhelming evidence. Do we see again the hand of Rome?

Bible prophecy clearly stated of Rome that "Through his policy also he would cause craft to prosper." Dan.8:25. Why did they not come out and openly state that their "two most reliable early manuscripts" are the two Roman Catholic manuscripts? Is this a cover-up?

Sinaiticus "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers." Scrivener, p. 93, Vol. 1.

VATICANUS "One marked feature is the great number of Omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." Scrivener, p. 120 Vol.1.

This explains why the modern versions have omitted so much of the scripture—a fact which is not always apparent due to the way the numbering of the verses has been made hard to read.

"These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence." Burgan "Revision Revised." p. 315,316.

These two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, both of Catholic origin form the foundation of the N.I.V. and the other revised versions. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the R.S.V., and all the other modern versions, and any that are based on the Westcott and Hort text. But the Catholic church still hates the King James Version and has waged constant warfare against this God given Book.

Another fact not generally known is that the Jehovah’s Witness movement is in the same situation. Deceived by the same cover up. Their so-called Scriptures have the same corrupt foundation. Here are photocopies of their own printed Scriptures.

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures

Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in "The New Testament in the Original Greek—Text Revised by Brooke Foss Wescott D.D. and Fenton John Anthon Hort D.D. (1948 Reprint) together with the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Revised Edition, a modern-language translation of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, first published by them in the year 1881, with which are included the valuable Foreword and the Appendix of the said translation, with numerous footnotes and an Explanation of the Symbols Used in the Marginal References New World Bible Translation Committee

On page 5 under the heading "By Way of Explanation.

Omitted Verses: Verse found in the Authorized or King James Version of 1611, C.E. but not found in the Westcott and Hort Greek text are omitted and are indicated by a verse number followed by a long dash.

And on page 9 in the "Foreword."

The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts , including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merek. Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading. We give some definiteness to the background for the renderings of our text by showing in our footnotes the most ancient manuscript, and versions upon which we call for support.

Thus their Scriptures are based on Westcott and Hort and other Jesuits.

How tragically true are the words of our God. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". "Ignorance has destroyed more than the sword."

HOSEA 4:6,7 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame."

There are many earnest devoted people in both the Catholic and Jehovah’s Witness congregations. They are both kept in ignorance.

They both hate the King James Version. They both have likewise "Forgotten the Law of thy God."

How they and "all people that on earth do dwell" need to come out of this Babel of confusion and into the company pointed out by the nailed scarred hand of Jesus.

REV.14:12 "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

Then think of the result, described in these beautiful words of Jesus - Words which have been corrupted and changed in both the Catholic and Jehovah’s Witness Versions.

REV. 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

(For more on the corrupting of Rev.22:14 see "N.I.V. and Revelation 22:14" No. 8 by G. Burnside.)

It is proudly claimed by N.I.V. defenders that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are two of the "oldest manuscripts." They date back to the fourth century of the Christian era. There is much truth in these claims, but what do they mean to us?

The evidence indicates that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were two of the fifty Bibles that Emperor Constantine asked Bishop Eusebius to produce. The evidence all points that way and is taken for granted. For instance a few days ago I read this statement from "the Scripture of Truth," by Sidney Collett. When dealing with the Sinaic manuscript, he wrote:

"Dr. Tischendorf believed that this and the Vatican manuscript were two of the fifty copies of the Bible which were made in Greek, by command of the Emperor Constantine, about the year A.D. 331, under supervision of Bishop Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea." p. 28.

These Bibles for Constantine, contained the Apocrypha which are uninspired books, that were rejected by Christ, His Apostles and even the Jewish Church. The liberals amongst us do not like to admit to this. The reason for this is all too apparent. But the evidence and witnesses are abundant.

As Constantine wanted to unite the pagan philosophers with apostate Christians, he would naturally choose a Bible corrupted by Origen.

Eusebius, as admitted by all historians, was an admirer and close follower of Origen. Note this statement by Dr. F. C. Cook. Dr. Cook was invited to be on the New Testament Revision Committee, but he declined.

"That Eusebius was an enthusiastic admirer, a devoted adherent of Origen, no one need to be reminded who knows aught of the history of that age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of the early church; that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the authority of Origen, especially in questions of criticism, is almost equally undeniable; nor do I hesitate to state my immovable conviction that in that influence is to be found the true solution of the principal phenomena which perplex or distress us in considering the readings of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts," "History of the Revised Version," pp. 155, 157. by Dr. F. C. Cook.

Notice Dr. Cook ties Origen to Eusebius and to the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.

Other authorities testify the same:

Dr. Robertson on page 80 of his book entitled "Introduction to Textual Criticism" states:­

"Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the churches in Constantinople. It is quite possible that Aleph and B are two of these fifty."

"But in connecting B and Aleph with the Library at Caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in Aleph by the third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS was compared with a copy ‘corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,’ which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Pamphili manifested great agreement with one another. The probability that Aleph was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain ‘Codex Marchalianus’ is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that Origen’s recension of the Old Testament, although he published no edition of the text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books of the Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated that that MS was compared with a MS in the library of Caesarea ‘which was written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus.’ These notices added to the frequent reference by St. Jerome and others to the critical (akribe) MSS, by which we are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that Aleph should have been sent forth from that "school of criticism’." "The Traditional Text", pp 164,165.

Abbo Martin, a well-known Catholic textual critic claims that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were "fabricated" by Origen and other. (See Schaff, (Companion to Greek Text.")

It is very apparent, and the evidence confirms, that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus originated through the efforts of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome. And that these two corrupted manuscripts were two of the fifty supplied to Constantine by the Catholic Bishop Eusebius.

Now may I cite several Authorities that clearly show that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were corrupted.

I will first quote from Dr. F. C. Cook, textual critic who was invited to sit on the Revision Committee, but refused. He said:

"But it is precisely on this ground that I have throughout maintained the wrongfulness of the innova­tions introduced into the Revised Version, so-far as they affect leading facts and great words recorded in the first three Gospels. The reader need but look at the passages enumerated in the classification given above, p. 136 seq., to be convinced that so far from resting upon the consentient testimony of ancient manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers by far the greater number of innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the authority of two manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), or even of one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive." Revised Version of First Three Gospels p. 227.

And again:

"I cannot but maintain that if the majority of those readings, which we call omissions, are subjected to any external test, if tried by any other measure than that of the manuscripts themselves, they will be convicted as defects, or blunders, or innovations more or less erroneous, to whatever cause the mischief be attributable. The tests to which I would refer are, first, the more ancient and trustworthy Versions; secondly, citations in anto-Nicene Fathers; and thirdly, the consensus of manuscripts., including those which in doubtful cases so generally coincide with Alep and B as to leave little room for doubt that their text was founded on the same original authorities."—Idem, p. 171

Dr. Cook also says:

"Reiche then observes that he fully admits the value of these MSS, A, B, C. D, which often retain true readings, either alone or in combination with a few other authorities; but that it is equally true that it is impossible to deny that in very many places (permultis locis) they have false readings, partly atributable to negligence, partly intentional; . . . Moreover that those MSS, to which critics in Germany attach exclusive importance, are of Egyptian, or rather Alexandrian origin, so that all belong to one family, a fact evidenced by their singular consent in peculiar readings; and lastly that all documents of the N.T. coming from Alexandria, at that time the home of ever-bold criticism, abound in readings which are manifestly false."—Idem, page 7.

Dr. Miller says:

"The marks of carelessness spread over them, especially in Aleph, (Sinaiticus) are incompatible with perfection. Tischendorf, after collating B, speaks of the blemishes that occur throughout. Dr. Dobbin reckon 2,556 omissions in B as far as Heb.9:14, where it terminates. Vercellone, the editor, tells of ‘perpetual omissions,’ ‘of half a verse, a whole verse, and even of several verses.’ This is just what examination reveals: and Aleph is unquestionably worse." —Miller’s "Textual Guide", p. 56.

With regard to Codex B (Vaticanus) Dr. Scrivener says:

One marked feature characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting an abbreviated text of the New Testament’: and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He’ calculates that Codex B leaves out words or clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2556 times in all. That no small proportion of those are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity." Scrivener, "Introduction", Vol.1, p. 120.

With regard to the Sinaiticus Dr. Scrivener published a book entitled,

"A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," and in his introduction he states:

"The Codex is covered with such alterations," alterations of an obviously textual character) "brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century. . ."  "A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," p. XIX, Introduction

I will now add a quotation from Mr. Philip Mauro, as follows:

"But there are other characteristics of this old MS (Sinaiticus) which have to be taken into consideration if a correct estimate of its evidential value is to be reached. Thus, there are internal evidences that lead to the conclusion that it was the work of a scribe who was singularly careless, or incompetent, or both. In this MS the arrangement of the lines is peculiar, there being four columns on each page, each line containing about twelve letters—all capitals run together. There is no attempt to end a word at the end of a line, for even words having only two letters as en, ek are split in the middle, the last letter being carried over to the beginning of the next line, though there was ample room for it on the line preceding. This and other peculiarities give us an idea of the character and competence of the scribe." — "Which Version", p. 45.

A few more words from Dr. Scrivener on the character of the Sinaiticus:

"This manuscript must have beef derived from one more ancient, in which the lines were similarly divided, since the writer occasionally omits just the number of letters which would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter ruin of the sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line immediately below. Instances of this want of care will be found Luke 21:8; 92:25, perhaps John 4:45; 12:25, where complete lines are omitted; John 19:26; Heb.13:18 (partly corrected); Apoc.8:16; 19:12; 22:2, where the copyist passed in the middle of a line to the corresponding portion of the line below. It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but hapily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough." —"Collation on the Codex Sinaiticus," P. XV

Now see the verdict which Dr. Hoskier passes on the Codex Vaticanus:­

"That B is guilty of laches, of a tendency to ‘improve,’ and of ‘sunstroke’ amounting to doctrinal bias. That the maligned Textus Receptus served in large measure as the base which B. Tampered with and changed, and that the Church at large recognized all this until the year 1881—when Hortism, in other words Alexandrianism, was allowed free play—and has not since retraced the path to sound traditions."—"Codex B and Its Allies " Part 1, p. 465.

With regard to the corruptions of these two manuscripts, Dean Burgon says:

"(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence . . . . Codices B and Aleph are, demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the depraved class thus characterized. Next:

(2) We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by Codices B and Aleph that instead of accepting these codices as two ‘independent’ witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (comparatively) late copy."  "Revision Revised," pp. 315-318.

BIBLE CORRUPTORS.

D. Jacobus writes:­

"Jerome was an earnest Christian, but at the same time a polemical theologian, with strong opinions as to the interpretation of prophetic passages; and he allowed his polomics and his prejudices to warp his translation in a way that Catholics frankly admit." "Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared." p.42.

Again, "Now some of those may be simply blunders, but not all; and to say that those are ‘serious defects’ is less than the truth! They betoken a willingness to tamper with the text." Idem, Appendix, Note 200.

Helvidius, the famous scholar of Northern Italy, accused Jerome to his face of using corrupted Greek manuscripts. Of Jerome, the article of his name in the McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopaedia says:

"Easily offended vanity," "a fanatical apologist of monkish extravagances", "Romanizing," "pride, often concealed under the garb of humility" and "antichiliastic" that is against the millennium as we believe it.

Now listen to Phillip Mauro, a New York Lawyer and writer of several excellent books on the Scriptures:­

"It is easy to understand why this particular MS (Vaticanus) is cherished at the Vatican; for its corruptions are what make it valuable to the leaders of the papal system. We can conceive therefore the satisfaction of those leaders that their highly prized MS has been allowed to play the leading part in the revision of the English Bible, than which there is nothing on earth they have more reason to fear. On the other hand, may not this be one of the causes why God, in His over-ruling providence, has frustrated the attempt to displace the AV by a new version based upon such a sandy foundation?" — "Which Version?" Note p.50.

These are authorities who are convinced that the reason why these two beautiful and well preserved manuscripts have survived is because of their corruptions, they have not been worn out by use.

The N.I.V. is based mainly on these two Roman Catholic manuscripts.

An interesting note appears in the N.I.V. after Mark 16:8. It states:

"The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20."

The authors of the N.I.V. do not say, in this note, which are the supposed "two most reliable early manuscripts."

However the "New King James Version" gives us this footnote on Mark 16:9-20:

"They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them."

To the authors of the N.I.V. "the two most reliable early manuscripts" are the two catholic manuscripts from the Vatican and Catholic Monastry at Sinai.

They were both written in the style of the fourth century, namely in capitals or "Uncials."

They contain the Apocrypha. That is the uninspired books such as Tobit, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, and the epistle of Barnabas.

They came to light at a very convenient time. They had been used very little. That is apparent by their excellent condition. They both were written on the finest vellum—tanned antelope skins. This made them very expensive, well beyond the means of any but the very wealthy. They were both used by the Popes as weapons in the defense of the Latin Vulgate, and the downgrading of the King James Version and for the decisions of the Council of Trent. The timing of the discoveries of these two manuscripts is certainly significant. They were both "discovered" (?) just in time for Rome’s council of Trent. They both were discovered in Catholic buildings. They both came from "the fourth century." The statement of inspired history rings in my mind as I write.

"The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century.. ..Now the work of corruption rapidly progressed.... This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of ‘the man of sin’,...the representative of Satan—the bishop of Rome." G.C. 49,50.

The fourth century was the time of forgery, "suggested by the father of lies" when "writings were forged by monks ." G.C. 56.

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were available, but rejected by the reformers.

"Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God" G.C. 245.

Tyndale rejected the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as Roman corruptions. Erasmus, rejected the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as corrupt. Inspired history states:

"In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther’s theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testaments. . . In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered." G.C.245

Erasmus’ New Testament is the same as the King James Version. This is the Bible of the Advent Message, of the Waldenses, Tyndale, Luther, the reformers and the martyrs. It is the only known Bible ever printed by Seventh-day Adventists. (editor: maybe not now)

 TOC