I'm just simply amazed how someone can pick a verse which even refutes their position of KJV only, and even when it is pointed out, they still continue to run with it.

I'm afraid that there is nothing more I can say to help you out here.

kland,

There is nothing in the verse that "refutes" the KJV. If anything, it supports it. There is a distinct difference between "clean" and "purge." The difference is usage. There is a dramatic difference between saying, for example, "I was eaten up" and "I had eaten up." The verb "eaten" is the same, isn't it? There are other points of context, however, that make the usage entirely different.

Jesus basically said that what a man eats does not defile him because it just goes on out the other side as excreta. He said that what defiles a man is not what goes in but what comes out. Specifically, I believe that He was referring to such things as words and deeds coming out from an impure heart.

As others have said on this thread, the text had nothing to do with clean and unclean meats. But the modern versions would make the average reader think that this is exactly what the text meant--that Jesus had declared all foods "clean." But that is not at all what He was saying!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That portion is the most sensible thing you said the whole time. I agree.

You have to look at the purpose and Westcott and Hort definitely had one. Not only do they differ on many verses, they reduce and weaken the statement of many doctrines. Westcott-Hort texts leave out a doctrine entirely (as in John 3: 13).

This verse says, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." the words "which is in heaven" are left out of the new Bible versions following Westcott-Hort. "Which is in heaven" states the doctrine that Jesus Christ, while on earth in human flesh, was also omnipresent and in heaven with the Father.

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
(King James Version)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
(Revised Standard Version)
For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost---
NIV(New International Version)
( missing )

Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
(King James Version)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 'which was made' of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(Revised Standard Version)
concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 'who was born' of the seed of David according to the flesh,
NIV(New International Version)
regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 'who as to his human nature' was a descendant of David,

Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
(King James Version)
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
(Revised Standard Version)
and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
NIV(New International Version)
wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Then you have the removal or deletion in the new RSV/ NIV the following so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24


If you go to the Textus Receptus it is very hard to change the meaning with so many copies, 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. This ensures the integrity of the words and meaning, but if you use the Alexandrian/Minority Texts which is a few copies which have gnostic influences and other corruptions, then you are looking for trouble.

And more and more modern Bible versions are picking this corrupted texts, most modern English Bible versions are translated from Greek new Testament texts (Hort/Westcott -- Nestle/Aland etc...) based on primarily the Alexandrian text coming basically from two sources-- the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

They had no reason to replace the Textus Receptus, except to push the Alexandrian versions so they set about to put in text, based on the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus texts.

Here is what Hort wrote about it:

"One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich
materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions." The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by Arthur Hort, Vol. I, p. 240. p. 250

These manuscripts with Gnosticism corruption, were picked up and spread around but rejected by most Christians in the early church, but not all. Origen of Alexandria, Egypt may have been, in part, influenced by Gnosticism. The effect of believing Gnostic teachings is to bring doubt about the basic doctrines of the Bible.

Gnostics thought that the Supreme Father is remote and unknowable. He/she created supernatural beings called Aeons. One of the Aeons was Sophia - wisdom in Greek - who gave birth to the "inferior" creator
being Gnostics call the Demiurge. The Demiurge then created the material world which Gnostics said was evil, corrupt and flawed. To Gnostics, the demiurge is the God of the Old Testament, seen by them as evil, rigid, and lacking in compassion.

The text of the Alexandrian manuscripts had alterations and changes from the standpoint of Ghnostic beliefs, as the Minority text came from these manuscripts, which even older text from the early church fathers proves where deleted or corrupted. Here is the part which makes this point which I came across...

"If the New Testament quotes by Irenaus in Against Heresies are faithful copies of his original Greek text, then we have evidence that the wordings of many verses of the Textus Receptus ...existed at the time he wrote, in the late second century (somewhere around 175 to 185 AD). The Westcott-Hort theory says that the two Greek manuscripts associated with Alexandria, Egypt, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from the fourth century, are the best because they are the oldest copies available.

There are in existence fairly sizeable Papyrus fragments (p66 and p75 for example) from the second and/or third centuries which contain wordings supporting both the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort which suggests the Textus Receptus wordings existed at least in the late second century. Papyrus p66 is supposed to be from 125 to 200 AD, and Papyrus p75 is from 175 to 225 AD. An important consideration for p66 and p75 is that both were found in the dry climate of Egypt. Experts claim these papyri were copied from other Greek texts in about the time of the late second century. Some verses of these papyri are like Textus Receptus wordings and some like Westcott-Hort wordings.

I am not certain what implications this mixed type of wording might have for the transmission of early Greek New Testament texts. One possibility is that in Egypt during the late second century, a process of changing some verses was going on, but it was not as far advanced as it was by the time Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were copied in the fourth century. Whatever the implications of the mixed wordings in these papyri, the Textus Receptus wordings that are in the papyri came from some Greek texts existing in the second century.

If Irenaeus had the Textus Receptus wordings in the late second century (about 175 to 185 AD), this shoots big holes in the Westcott-Hort theory that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts are better because they are older, as well as the claim the Textus Receptus is inferior because of its much later date. Scholars claim Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in 175 to 185 AD."

and on the Ghnostic veiw incorporated into the manuscripts...

"If I quote all the verses in the Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort text, the KJV, NIV, etc. that I've found on the deity of Christ where the Westcott-Hort differs from the Textus Receptus, it would go on and on. On the topic of the incarnation of Christ in human flesh, there are also verse wordings different in the two Greek texts, enough verse differences (eight or more) to suggest a possible Gnostic influence.

The Gnostics opposed the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God who took on human flesh in what they considered to be the evil material world. I am going to briefly go over some of the verse differences between the Westcott-Hort-NIV, etc wordings and Textus Receptus-King James Version wordings on the subject of the deity of Christ, as follows:

Matthew 16:20: "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." "Jesus" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text and is also left out of the NIV. This seems to conform to the Gnostic view that there is a separation between Jesus in human flesh and the spiritual Christ.

Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." "Son of God" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. It is in the NIV. The Gnostics did not accept the Biblical teaching that Jesus was fully God.

John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." While the Textus Receptus and King James have "only begotten Son," the
Westcott-Hort text says "only begotten God." The NIV does not translate "monogenes," or "only begotten," but instead says "God the One and Only." The new translations do not clearly say that Jesus is the Son of God, making him fully God. Some Gnostics, especially Arius, said Jesus was a created being.

John 4:42: "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." "Christ" is left out of the
Westcott-Hort text and the new translations. Gnostics did not want to teach that Christ is the Saviour.

Acts 2: 30: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn 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 (II Samuel 7:12)." The Westcott-Hort text leaves out "to raise up Christ according to the flesh." The NIV says "that he would place one of his descendants on his throne," which is not saying that the descendant is Christ. Removing "according to the flesh to raise up Christ" fits the gnosic teaching that Christ was a purely spiritual being. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human flesh as a descendant of David opposes Gnostic theology.

I Corinthians 5:4: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Westcott-Hort text leaves out "Christ." The NIV also leaves out "Christ." This omission is in agreement with the Gnostic view that Jesus Christ was not God.

I Corinthians 15: 47: "The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven." The King James Version identifies the second man or second Adam as Jesus Christ. But the Westcott-Hort text does not say who the second man is. It omits "Lord." The NIV also fails to say who the second man is. It says only "the second man from heaven." That statement is simply not as clear as saying "the second man is the Lord from heaven." Leaving "Lord" out of I Corinthians 15: 47 could weaken faith in the promises of Jesus Christ, who is the second Adam as our head.

Christ as the second Adam paid the price for our sins when, as fully God, he took on human flesh and died on the cross. As the replacement of Adam as the head of His people, he gives to us, on faith, His righteousness, so that we might come to be on the right side of the plumb line of Amos (7:7-8). Christ, as the second Adam, at his appearing will give us a body and a likeness somewhat like his own. I John 3: 2 promises "...we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

The only Greek texts that omit "Lord" are the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. The word "Lord" is in most Byzantine texts as well as the Alexandrinus. The papyrus fragment p46 replaces "the Lord" with "the spiritual" (pneumatikos). 6.

The omission of "Lord," which identifies the second Adam as Jesus Christ to Christians, fits with some Gnostic ideas."

You can also find their false books which they tried to pass off to the early church as true writings of various apostles and others along with the Gnosticisms corruption of the Alexandrian Manuscripts. We see it today directly in the publication of the Gnostic Gospel of Judas and other so called letters and writings of the Apostles, and a renewed interest in The Nag Hammadi Codices. Let go over more about the Nag Hammadi manuscripts which were discovered at Nag Hammadi Egypt.

In 1945 Six Bedouin camel drivers were digging for fertilizer when one of them uncovered a human skeleton. Next to the skeleton was an earthenware jar. Inside the jar, they found thirteen leather-bound volumes containing fifty-two treatises, hence they were called the Nag Hammadi codices. This library of ancient documents, dated around 350 AD contained texts relating to Gnostacism and its heresy.These thirteen leather-bound volumes contained fifty-two treatises which were supposedly books of the Apostles or letters from them.

But all of the writings were Gnostic in nature, and they were all written in Coptic. Dan Brown's book titled The Da Vinci Code falsely characterizes these writings as "the earliest Christian records" and the "unaltered gospels." But the Nag Hammadi texts were in fact all written in the second and third centuries AD long after the death of the Apostles. It is known that every book in the New Testament was written in the first century AD! In fact, Gnostic beliefs did not begin to be mixed with Christianity until about 150 AD and the Gnostic sects virtually disappeared by the 6th century. So these manuscripts or supposed writtings of the Apostles including the Gospel of Thomas and Philip and also the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, and a letter of Peter to Philip and the Apocalypse of Peter and Paul are forgeries of Gnostic beliefs, complete corruptions of Christian doctrines and theology. Scholars regard these Gnostic gospels as not genuine, spurious, counterfeit, and so you can see how if they could not corrupt the genuine articles as there were too many true manuscripts, they generated complete false ones.

We know that purposeful efforts to alter and corrupt the New Testament began almost immediately after each Gospel and letter were written. We know that false gospels and false letters were written and circulated while the Apostles were still alive.
Look at 2 Thessalonians 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."

It is obvious that someone had written a letter and was circulating it, claiming that is was from the Apostle Paul and other disciples. So its clear there were forgeries and corruptions even at that time. Paul says
the letter is a bogus, fake, a fraud.

We also see in 2 Peter 2:1-3 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long
time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."

These false prophets and teachers are said to "privily...bring in damnable heresies." That is, they secretly introduced
spurious (unauthentic, counterfeit or bogus) teachings
that were "damnable heresies" or perversion of the truth.
They sought to peddle these heresies among believers. So you
can see that it started right from the first when the Paul and
the Apostles were doing their writing and continued especially
during the period of the Gnostic heresies.

Let's look at some of the early heresies that developed
in the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterwards.
The beginnings of these heresies are alluded to in the
Epistles John, Paul and Jude. Let's look and see what
scripture shows us.

Galatians 1:6-8 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed
from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto
another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be
some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed."

Someone was promoting a false perverted letter or letters,
and many in the church of Galatia were buying into the lie.
Next, lets look at...

1 John 4:3 in the King James Bible -- "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...."

The NIV says, "Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus
is not of God...." You see that the NIV leaves out the word "Christ." Why? It is because it was translated from the Alexandrian line of Greek texts that had been corrupted by the Gnostics. The so called "Christian" Gnostics believed in a dualistic Jesus Christ. Jesus was the physical Jesus and Christ was the spiritual Jesus.


Now lets look further in sctripture..
Jude 1:3-4 "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

This verse makes it obvious that "ungodly men" were turning the
"grace of our God into lasciviousness." That is what Gnostics did. They taught that the flesh was evil and therefore, it does not matter what you do with it. The Alexandrian codices are changed to follow the Gnostic heresy and beliefs and so were not used by Christians but yet now they are trying to wipe out the true text with this corruption.

So with the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus texts clearly a corrupted text, as all the Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts, why would Westcott and Hort pick it up to use in their translation. Lets take a look..

Lets first give a explanation of who Westcott and Hort were, then go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for new version.

Westcott 12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) and Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) were Anglican theologians who exerted influence on the members of the Bible commitee for revising the translation being done at that time which forms the basis of most modern versions.The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively which was based on the Textus Receptus and had done so almost from when it first came out.The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It also became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible and by extension the Textus Receptus it was based on. This challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)

Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support taht the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.

The great textual scholar of the time, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself..."

Now here is some of the ideas that give some background on the direction and purpose of these men:

Hort:

1. Was a follower of Darwin...in other words, he believed in Evolution.

2. Did not believe in blood atonement. What a surprise that the NIV removes “through his blood” in Col.1:14.

3. Doubted angels were for real.

4. Was pondering several degrees of salvation. That’s why the newer versions always say “are being saved” or “were saved”, but unlike the KJB which says we “ARE SAVED”.

5. Rejected an eternal hell. Maybe that’s why “hell” is taken out 40 of the 53 times in the NIV.

Wescott:

1. Did not believe in a literal heaven...much like the pope today.

2. Said there is no second coming of Christ. My friends, Titus 2:13 says, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

3. He believed the writings of mystics was profitable to read.

4. Thought the first three chapters of Genesis could not possibly have given a literal history.

5. Rejected the infallibility of scriptures.

6. Claimed it was improbable that the miracles of the Bible really occurred.

They slowly fed others the changes they were making and so were ready when the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 met and steered it away from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text and into the Alexandria codices and its changes.

They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new 'Alexandrian' English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version or KJV, as it was claimed to be.

In Samuel Gipps book, An Understandable History of the Bible, we read:“In 1870 the…church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version. A gleam of hope shone in the eye of every Roman Catholic. An eager anticipation filled every Jesuit inspired Protestant scholar…although it was meant to correct a few supposed “error” in the Authorized Version, the textual critics of the day assured themselves that they would never again have to submit to the divine authority of the Universal Text.”

When they finished, the pure text coming from the Textus Receptus was changed in 36,191 places. The result of all these changes is confusion in the diety of Christ for new readers or mistrust by others of the scriptures, so in my opinion their purpose was accomplished in one form or the other.

Rick, if that were the correct way of interpretation, I would have to agree with the Westcott-Hort version in this case. Look at the following:

Jesus forever sacrificed His omnipresence in order to become one of us.

I believe that when He said "which is in heaven" it had a different meaning altogether. It would be more akin to Mrs. White's statement that we should make our homes a "heaven on earth." I believe that Jesus lived in the very atmosphere of heaven while on earth. He stayed close to His Father. The angels attended Him. Being "in heaven" is a spiritual condition, like having a positive attitude, that each of us can also experience. Remember the words to the thief on the cross? I think those words can be true regardless of where the comma is placed. The thief was already "in paradise" knowing that the Savior accepted him. There is a literal fulfillment and a spiritual. Obviously, the thief was not that day literally in "paradise" with Christ. So we look at the spiritual meaning. When Jesus is speaking and referring to Himself as the "Son of man," it is clear that He is not at that very moment in Heaven. So again we look at the spiritual meaning. Another example is Lazarus, whom Jesus pronounced "asleep" when he was literally "dead." The spiritual meaning is usually Jesus' first intent, with other, more literal, definitions being secondary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Didnt think that one over before posting, we need to go over the doctrinal changes on another thread. This definely needs a new thread for deeper study, verse by verse..
God Bless, Rick