Are ALL Bibles Valid?

Previously in this series of articles we looked at Luke 24:1. In this short article we will look at our next shining example in this chapter. For this example we don't have to go very far, viz. we only have to go to verse 3. Verse 3 reads as follows in our AV, "And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus."

I would remind my readers that we are dealing with the subject of "Are ALL Bibles valid?". There are many that claim that ALL Bibles are 'valid'. I want to demonstrate BY EXAMPLE that this is a totally absurd notion. Not ALL Bibles can be 'valid' if you believe the Bible when it says we are not to 'add to' nor are we to 'take away' from God's words. We proceed.

When fabricating their false Greek text, Drs. Westcott and Hort found it essential to shut up within 'double-brackets' the words "tou kuriou Ihsou" (or 'of the Lord Jesus'). Consequently, the RSV, NRSV and the InV (Inclusive Version) all read, "but when they went in, they did not find the body." It is a strange phenomenon indeed as to how these precious words are expunged from the Biblical text. What one group of 'scholars' (sic) questions; the next group separates by brackets; then the last group boldly removes the phrase or verse entirely as though it was never part of the inspired words of God. Such is the case in the example before us. What W-H bracketed off the Revisers have completely removed.

And what might you ask is the 'weighty evidence' upon which these words have been brought into question? And what great amount of evidence can be laid before us in order to justify removing these wonderful words from our Bible? Well, believe it or not, the ONLY piece of evidence, as far as the Greek MSS. are concerned, that can be presented is the omission of the words by Codex Bezae (D). I don't want to abuse your patience but that bears repeating----the ONLY manuscript to omit "tou kuriou Ihsou" is D! On this 'weighty evidence' these words have been deleted from a few of our modern versions. Again, I would ask where are those voices that are raised in protest of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 in our beloved Authorized Version? As usual they fall silent when faced with such utter foolishness as can be found in their modern versions.

Does anyone beside myself find it unfathomable that the phrase "of the Lord Jesus" would be excised from God's Holy word based on the authority of a SINGLE Codex? And Codex Bezae at that! Our dear friend John William Burgon stated that in Luke 22 through 24 Codex D omits no less than 354 words. Of these 354 words, an astounding 250 are peculiar to D alone (in other words D alone among mss. omits these words). Oddly enough, in addition to these 354 words D adds 173 words to the commonly Received Text. With such wild variances it is certain that D cannot be trusted as an accurate witness in this context. If it were such an accurate witness why then do they (i.e. the 'scholars') not follow it in the other verses?

Here we are faced with a dilemma, if the singular Codex D is correct and the RSV, NRSV and InV are correct then what are we to do with the other Bibles? Every other Bible I looked at contained the phrase "of the Lord Jesus". Either the RSV and company are God's preserved words and the others corrupt because they have ADDED the phrase "of the Lord Jesus" OR D, RSV, NRSV and InV are all 'invalid' because they have 'taken away' from God's preserved words. We cannot simply overlook the vast differences and proclaim that ALL Bibles are 'valid'. It appears that many have so backed themselves into a corner that they are unwilling to admit that their position is impossible for fear of embarrassment. If one truly believes the Bible then it is absolutely impossible to hold to the position that ALL Bibles are 'valid' translations of God's preserved words. It is impossible!

Lastly, I want to look at the footnote as found in the NRSV. We read, "Other ancient authorities add of the Lord Jesus". As I have asserted in the past the footnotes in the modern versions are chock-full of LIES and are purposely meant to deceive the unsuspecting saint. This is another classic example of what I am talking about, viz. "Other ancient authorities ADD of the Lord Jesus". They attempt to make it look as if most of the mss. read as does their text while "other ancient authorities" ADDS the phrase. This is very misleading and deceptive on their part. The truth is EVERY other mss. so reads as does the Traditional Text. Only ONE mss. reads as does the NRSV! The footnote is a lie and is meant only to deceive the average reader. So, what are we to conclude? That EVERY other 'ancient authority' has in fact ADDED this phrase or is it that D has been corrupted along with the RSV, NRSV and InV due to their omitting of this phrase?

Hopefully, it is becoming more and more clear that the position of many that ALL Bibles are the same and that ALL Bibles are God's words is impossible. Not all Bibles are the same and not all Bibles are God's words! I have yet much more to say regarding Luke 24. As God wills I will continue this series. Selah!