I was so excited when I found this book
at House of Bibles in Fullerton, a few miles from
my old Bible College!
This is The Text of the Earliest
New Testament Greek Manuscripts: New and Complete Transcriptions
with Photographs, edited by Philip Comfort
and David Barrett.
This is the first copy of parts of 65-70
papyrus manuscripts I was ever able to get hold of.
I'll have to tell you more about that in another vlog.
This book by Tyndale House Publishers
has not stood the test of time.
It's only 15 years old, and it's totally coming apart.
But there's some stuff I really want you to see.
I'm just going to focus on pages 27 and 28.
In these pages you are about to see some secrets of Textual Criticism.
1) Text Critics change the terms so you wouldn't trust God's words
if you found them.
2) Text Critics lie about what the Alexandrian
and Preserved Texts really are.
3) Text Critics aren't looking for the same Bible
that you and I are looking for.
Want to hear them say these things for themselves?
Hi, I'm David Daniels for Chick Publications.
Text Critics who are against the King James
usually pit the KJV against the Alexandrian Text.
How many parts or complete Greek manuscripts
are we talking about?
This is a book on the Sinaiticus by the British Library in London,
called In a Monastery Library (2006).
Let's just look at page 35.
"According to the authoritative list maintained by the
Institute for New Testament Studies at Münster,
there are 5746 surviving manuscripts of parts of the New Testament
in Greek, including 118 papyri."
45 papyri have been claimed as Alexandrian.
But when I checked p52, Rylands P. 457, right here,
I found nothing in the text to indicate which it is,
preserved or Alexandrian.
That brings the number for me down to 44 Alexandrian manuscripts.
44 out of a total of 5746 is .00765 or 7/10 of 1%
that favor the Alexandrian Text.
What if that number forgot to add the 3 main Alexandrian codices
to the number?
Well, that's easy.
Add Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus,
and you get 47/5746.
It only goes up to .00817.
Or, 8/10 of 1% are Alexandrian manuscripts.
So at least 99.182% of the evidence is stacked
against the Alexandrian Text.
That's a lot of evidence, don't you think?
But publishers use that 8/10 of 1% to go against
the whole history of preservation, and create most of the modern Bibles
you see today from that tiny smattering
of Gnostic desert discards and modern counterfeits
that they call the Alexandrian Text.
Isn't that incredible?
How can they do that?
Let me show you.
So here's Secret #1.
When they talk about manuscripts that are like our King James,
they call them "Byzantine Manuscripts."
Why do they use that term?
Because they teach that Emperor Constantine
set a standard text for the Bible at a huge meeting in about 330 AD.
Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence
for this meeting.
"Westcott and Hort said so.
Therefore it must be true!"
So then, for them, the "Byzantine Period"
started about 330 AD.
But what if you find older copies of scripture
that are like those later copies?
Isn't that evidence that those "Byzantine Bibles"
are actually God's preserved words?
Not to the Text Critics.
Because of that made up term, they throw those manuscripts
out the window!
Here are the actual words of Comfort and Barrett, the authors,
page 27.
"For starters, the 'Byzantine' category can be eliminated.
None of the early papyri are Byzantine,
because they antedate [were made before]
the Byzantine period."
That means, "If you have
an older copy of the scriptures that looks the same as
the ones we call Byzantine, we'll say it's not really the same.
It just looks the same as those Byzantine Bibles."
It's like saying, "There are no dinosaurs in the Bible,
because the term 'dinosaur' is not in the Bible."
Of course not!
The term "dinosaur" wasn't invented until 1842!
But there WAS a term for those giant lizard animals
before 1842: "dragon."
And "dragon" is in the Bible 34 times!
"Byzantine Text" is an invented term, just like the term "dinosaur."
Let me go on.
"If some of them happen to display some Byzantine qualities
(such as expansion and harmonization),
these manuscripts simply display scribal tendencies
manifest in full during the Byzantine era."
Let's take apart their sneaky words.
Text Critics mention two "Byzantine qualities."
First is "expansion."
Critics mean it "adds words."
But that's backwards.
Actually, the Alexandrian text takes away words.
So it's not that so-called "Byzantine texts"
have stuff added to them.
It's that the Alexandrian texts have stuff cut out of them.
The second term was "harmonization."
Text Critics mean copyists changed scriptures
in different verses so that they mean the same thing.
But that's backwards.
What it really means is the words of God
don't contradict each other.
So what are the Text Critics looking for?
Turn those words around.
They are looking for a shortened, contradictory text.
That's what those code words really mean.
So let's not use the Text Critics' made-up term
Byzantine.
God promised to preserve His words, so let's use the term
Preserved Text.
Suddenly the definition of those texts changes!
The Definition of Preserved is manuscripts that are the same as
what the original writers wrote under inspiration by the Holy Ghost.
Now, any manuscript could be one of the Preserved Line,
if it says the same thing that God originally inspired.
But Text Critics redefine the Preserved Line
and call it "Byzantine," so they can dismiss it.
You can't win with these guys.
If these Bible-doubters found the actual words of Paul,
in his own handwriting, they would throw it
out of consideration as an original autograph.
They'd say,
"It displays Byzantine scribal tendencies."
So what?
It's the actual words of Paul!
It's the words of God, not some "Byzantine text."
So "Byzantine text" is one of those "weasel words."
They weasel their way out of trusting God's actual words
preserved through history, by renaming the Preserved Text
"Byzantine."
Text Critics are NOT looking for the Preserved Text.
They'd be out of a job!
We already have it.
In English, it's the King James Bible.
Not much left to criticize, here.
So what kind of text ARE Text Critics looking for?
They are looking for something called the Alexandrian Text.
Look at what Comfort and Barrett wrote on the next page, page 28.
"The Alexandrian text is found in manuscripts
produced by scribes trained in
Alexandrian scribal practices, the best of its kind
in Greco-Roman times.
Such scribes were schooled in producing
well-crafted, accurate copies."
How well-crafted and accurate does this Alexandrian Text look?
Remember, they say this is one of the "oldest and best,"
Codex Sinaiticus.
Then they go on.
"The Proto-Alexandrian manuscripts are usually purer
than the later ones in that the earlier are less polished
and closer to the ruggedness of the original writings."
To a Text Critic, "less polished" and "rugged"
mean the text isn't smooth.
It may have mistakes.
It may have bad grammar.
It may not make sense.
My Greek teacher told us that the Apostle John
made writing mistakes.
Textual Criticism proved it to him!
Wow.
Back to Barrett and Comfort.
"In short, these manuscripts display the work of scribes
who had the least creative interaction with the text--
they stayed with their task of making good copies."
Oh, really?
Like this?
Or this?
Or, let's get the Vaticanus. How about these?:
Do these look like "good copies" to you?
The "Alexandrian" manuscripts remove words, phrases
and verses that change doctrine, on top of all the rest.
So in certain verses, Jesus Christ isn't God,
or Jesus became God's Son after He was baptized
to forgive His sins, like it says in Mark chapter 1
in Sinaiticus.
That's pretty "creative interaction," don't you think?
Of course, it won't earn them any brownie points
on Judgment Day.
Modern Text Critics are looking for a "rough text," that is, incomplete,
inconsistent, and contradictory.
They are looking for a man-made text.
Bible believers believe God's own promise
to preserve His own words.
They are looking for a preserved, clean, pure text.
They don't want one changed by doubting men.
The text they are looking for is not rough, but "smooth."
That is, it's complete, consistent, and it doesn't contradict itself.
It has a consistent Gospel and Jesus Christ properly exalted
as God the Son.
And it shows a clear Godhead and the way to salvation.
And it tells the truth about heaven, hell, angels, devils, and
faith in Christ's shed blood to get us to heaven,
not good works to earn heaven.
Bible believers want a text that has been Preserved
and blessed by God's "singular care and providence."
That means God provided a cared-for and preserved text.
You see the difference?
Bible-believers and Bible-doubters can never get together,
because they are looking for different texts!
Bible-believers are looking for one that makes sense.
Bible-doubters, Text Critics, are looking for one
that doesn't make sense.
Look.
If these Bible-doubters found John's Gospel and Epistles,
in the Apostle John's own handwriting,
they would set them aside, saying "It is too polished.
It doesn't exhibit the rough characteristics
we are looking for.
It is consistent.
And it makes too much sense."
That, Brothers and Sisters, is the secret of Textual Criticism.
The Text Critics are Bible-doubters.
Their definition of what the Bible is, is all wrong.
We aren't looking for a rough, inconsistent doubt-inducing,
man-made Bible.
We are looking for a smooth, consistent, faith-building,
God-preserved Bible.
I want what God has preserved through the ages,
"by His singular care and providence,"
as the Westminster Confession has said since 1646.
I want those faithfully preserved words in English,
as the 1657 Confession says.
Remember: the doctrine of
God's preserved words in English is NOT a new doctrine.
It's only about 30 years younger than the King James itself.
I don't want OAO, a non-existent
"original autographs only" Bible."
Remember, that is a new doctrine.
It was invented in April of 1881.
It's only 4 months older than the doubters' Bible it was made for,
the English Revised Version New Testament
of Westcott and Hort.
Make your own choice.
Bible-believer, or Bible-doubter?
Believe God, or the trust the Text Critics?
Remember: you'll face Jesus
with your choice on Judgment Day.
God bless you, and have a wonderful day.