Are ALL Bibles Valid?

Are ALL Bibles valid?

Though several responses have been posted to my series of articles titled "Are ALL Bibles Valid?" no one has yet to address the problem we face by saying that ALL Bibles are valid. I would again state that this is utter nonsense and an impossibility if you actually believe the Bible. Today we will continue our study by looking at Luke 24:12, which reads, "Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened." (NIV) I am sure that my readers will find this particular study interesting.

The reason for looking at this particular verse stems from the fact that when Westcott and Hort were fabricating their false Greek Text they found it necessary to shut up this whole verse in [[double brackets]] thus indicating that they believed this verse to be spurious. Was this due to the fact that those two corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, omit the verse? No! Was it due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of extant mss. omitted the verse? No! The fact of the matter is that Aleph and B contain the verse as well as p75 (3rd century). The verse is also present in EVERY other extant Greek ms. that contains this portion of Luke. In the end we find that these two apostate 'scholars' (sic) questioned the authenticity of this verse based SOLELY on the witness of ONE manuscript----and that, the most depraved of all, viz. Codex Bezae (D). Again, I would reiterate that ONE manuscript out of the over 5,200 extant Greek manuscripts omits the verse and W-H seek to overthrow these precious words by placing them in [[double brackets]].

As I have said before, what one group questions with brackets another group will expunge all together. Due to the fact, no doubt, that Westcott and Hort called into question this verse Nestle's 25th completely removed the verse from the Greek text. However, the verse has been restored to its rightful place in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Though one may rejoice over this fact it should be pointed out that it has not escaped without being labeled by N-A as "an omission". This they have done based on the sole testimony of Codex D! Of the versions I consulted only the Revised Standard Version completely omitted the verse. However, like the Greek text above, the verse has been restored to its proper place in the "New" Revised Standard Version. And thus we see that modern 'scholars' are little more than reeds shaken with the wind. The Biblical text that falls from their hands depends solely on the ever-changing winds of modern textual criticism. What you thought was assuredly the words of God in one version suddenly is removed in subsequent versions. Likewise, what you thought were spurious additions to the Biblical text in one version is restored again to its proper place and labeled "Holy Scripture".

Now, of those versions that do contain the verse there still remains an interesting situation, which I would like us to consider at this time. I have listed the reading of the NIV above. I will now show the reading of several other translations:

NASV- But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.

NRSV- But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.

NLT- However, Peter ran to the tomb to look. Stooping, he peered in and saw the empty linen wrappings; then he went home again, wondering what had happened.

NKJV- But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.

Tyndale 1534- Then arose Peter and ran unto the sepulcre, and stouped in and sawe the lynnen cloothes layde by them selfe, and departed wondrynge in him selfe at that which had happened.

Geneva 1557- Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre, and loked in, and sawe the lynnen clothes layd by them selves: and departed wonderyng in him selfe at that which had happened.

It is entirely possible, I believe, for one to read through all the translations above and not detect the "subtle" (Gen. 3:1) difference. This being the case I draw your attention to the little (Deut. 8:3) Greek word keimena (Laid). If you will look carefully the NIV, NKJV, Tyndale's, and the Geneva all contain this word. The NASV, NLT, and NRSV do not contain this word. The reason they do not contain this word (i.e. laid) is because they have chosen to follow the minority text (e.g. W-H/N-A). And how "minority" is this text, you ask? Well, less than 1% of extant Greek manuscripts omit this word. To be even more precise Aleph, B, W, 070 and p75 are the only manuscripts extant to omit this word; all other Greek manuscripts rightfully contain this single word. So, we see that the NIV joins the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva et al. in retaining the word "laid" (or "lying"). The NASV, NLT, NRSV et al. all conspire together in omitting this word from their text. Now, how is it that ALL these Bibles can be valid? They simply can't be! Either one group has 'added' to the word of God OR the other group has 'taken away' from the word of God. Both groups cannot be considered right and both groups cannot fall under the category of "valid" Bibles. We proceed; however, an even stranger occurrence awaits us.

I certainly do not wish to abuse the patience of my readers but if you will favor me with your undivided attention I will seek to demonstrate just how confused and mixed up our modern 'scholars' are. As pointed out above Aleph and B omit the word "laid". Likewise the NASV, NLT, NRSV et al. have also omitted this word. There is also another small omission just following the one listed above, viz. the omission of the following word mona ("by themselves"). The scribe of Aleph and a few others has rejected this word. However, the word is found in B so our 'scholars' were once again faced with a great dilemma due to the fact that Aleph and B disagree with one another at this word. So, what's a 'scholar' to do? Which "oldest and best" manuscript does he follow? Is it----to "B" or not to "B"? What a terrible quandary to be in!

Well, on this particular occasion the wind was blowing B's way, which is no surprise since W-H absolutely worshipped B. What is strange is that every translation I looked at contained the word (i.e. by themselves) in some form or another----that is, except for the NLT. The NLT alone of versions seemingly abandoned its underlying Greek text choosing rather to follow the reading of Aleph. Now, where does that leave us? Is the NLT alone of versions the only "valid" translation since it has followed Aleph in omitting the phrase altogether? After all Sinaiticus is hailed as the "oldest and best" manuscript by practically every Bible corrector. Does that mean then that ALL other Bibles are 'invalid' because they have 'added' to the words of God? Are we to conclude that the NLT ALONE contains the pure words of God OR are we left to conclude that the NLT cannot be trusted because it has again 'taken away' from the words of God? Do any of my readers see the confusion that is created by asserting that ALL Bibles are "valid"?

Lastly, I want to address a few footnotes that are found in the modern versions. This I want to do because the modern version supporters often tell us that the footnotes in the modern versions are not misleading and are there to benefit the Christian reader. In the RSV we find the footnote, "Other ancient authorities add verse 12". This is interesting considering the fact that EVERY Greek manuscript except Codex D, to quote them, "adds" verse 12. Strange isn't it that even though 99.99999% of extant Greek manuscripts contain this verse that the translators of the RSV would state that "Other ancient authorities add verse 12"? Wouldn't a truthful statement be "Only ONE manuscript omits verse 12"?

In the NLT we find this footnote, "Some manuscripts do not include this verse." What a blatant lie (and we actually have members in this club that defend these footnotes---shame on you.)! So, in one translation it is "Other ancient authorities ADD verse 12" but in another translation it is "Some (sic) manuscripts DO NOT INCLUDE this verse". So, which is it? Has it been "ADDED" or has it not been "INCLUDED" (i.e. omitted)? Again, do you see how confusing the modern versions leave the Christian reader? This is certainly not of God!

Though there remains a few things I could say about this verse I will end this study at this point. I trust that I have yet again demonstrated just how absurd the notion that ALL Bibles are 'valid' really is. It is simply not possible!