Book - Bible - Gail Riplinger - Hazardous Materials

H azardous M a t er ia ls
G reek & H ebrew

Stu d y D a n g er s
V o ic e o f St r a n g e r s
THE
MEN
BEHIND
THE
SMOKE
SCREEN
BURNING BIBLES WORD BY WORD
Strong’s Concordance Lexicons
Bible Dictionaries by Vine, Zodhiates
Word Studies By Vincent, Wuest, Trench
Hebrew-English Dictionaries by Brown, Driver, Briggs
Greek-English Lexicons by Moulton, Thayer, Danker, Liddell
Greek & Hebrew Texts by Metzger, Scrivener, Berry, Ginsburg & Green
and all Greek and Hebrew Study Tools & Interlinears

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Greek & H ebrew

STUDY
DANGERS
The Voice of Strangers
T he M en
B e h in d the S m o k esc r een

B u r n in g B ib l e s
W o r d b y Wo Rd
G.A. R ip lin g e r
2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers, The Voice o f

Strangers, The Men Behind the Smokescreen, Burning Bibles Word By Word
© G.A. Riplinger and Bryn Riplinger, 2008
ISBN-13 978-0-9794117-6-2 ISBN-10 0-9794117-6-9

Printed in the United States o f America
It is the author’s desire that the information in this book help as many people
as possible. Therefore, permission to reproduce portions for non-profit use
will likely be given to like-minded individuals who contact the publisher.
Chapters 1, 7, 30, and 31 may be used without permission for non
commercial’use, when accompanied by all o f the information on this page.
C ontact the publisher for the following:
Additional copies o f Hazardous Materials
Other books and videos by the same author, such as:

■ In Awe o f Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its
Mystery and History, Letter By Letter
■ New Age Bible Versions
■ The Language o f the King James Bible
* Which Bible Is G o d ’s Word?
A Free Catalogue o f King James Bibles, and books, videos,CDs,

tracts, and Powerpoint presentations, supporting the KJB and exposing
the corruption o f modem versions, is available by contacting the
publisher. Also see samples at the end o f this book.
A.V. Publications, Corp.

P. O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053 USA
Inquiries and Fax: 276-251-1734
Credit Card Orders: 1-800-435-4535

Online catalogue, secure ordering, and research updates.
www.avpublications.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
Permissions
Quotations from Lexicographica Graeca by John Chadwick (1996) used by

permission o f Oxford University Press.
For use of the letters written by Charles L. Dodgson, permission has been secured
from AP Watt Ltd on behalf of The Trustees of the C.L. Dodgson Estate, Morton
Cohen and The executors of the Estate of Richard Gordon Lancelyn.
For use of the diary written by Charles L. Dodgson, permission has been secured
from AP Watt Ltd on behalf of The Trustees of the C.L. Dodgson Estate and The
Executors of the Estate of Richard Gordon Lancelyn.
Quotations from Lewis Carroll - A Biography by Morton N. Cohen, copyright ©

1995 by Morton M. Cohen. Used by permission of Alfred A. Knopf, a division of
Random House, Inc..
Back cover photograph of letter ‘Q’ from “Nature Alphabet” by Kjell Sandved. Used
by permission of Kjell Sandved of www.butterflyalphabet.com.
Lewis Carroll: A Portrait with Background by Donald Thomas, published by John

Murray Ltd (hodder.co.uk; Loreen Brown, Contracts Administrator)
Photo of J. Henry Thayer used by permission of Picture History.
Photos of the Faculty at the Time of the Briggs’ Trial, Charles Briggs, and Francis
Brown, from A History o f Union Theological Seminary by Robert Hansly, copyright
1987, Columbia University Press. Reprinted with permission of the Publisher.
Photo of William Edwy Vine from W.E. Vine: His Life and Ministry by Percy Ruoff,
Oliphants Limited, First Edition 1951. Used by permission.
“Top Hats v Bonnets,” and photos of Frederic Rendall, George Trevelyan, F.W.
Farrar, and E.E. Bowen” reproduced from An Illustrated History o f Harrow School,
with kind permission of Harrow School, Rita Boswell, Archivist.
Cover photo of interior of Greek Orthodox church in Israel used with the kind
permission of photographer Les Millar.
Photo of James Strong printed with permission of stanklos.com.
Photos from the National Portrait Gallery, London used by permission secured
through liaison Dennis Palmu of Palmu Publications for use in this book only.
Numerous other photos herein secured and reproduced through the research and with
the kind permission of Dennis Palmu, Palmu Publications.
T able of C ontents
I n t r o d u c t io n
Chapter 1 “Hazardous Materials” Introduction to Greek

and Hebrew Study D angers............................... 11
Parti
P roblem s w it h G reek L e x ic o n s &

G rammars
“Confessions of a Lexicographer” sounds warnings by
professional lexicon and Bible dictionary makers themselves.
Chapter 2 “Lexicon Death Certificates — Signed by the

Doctors” Professional insider’s secrets............58
Chapter 3 “The 7 Deadly Sins: How Greek and Hebrew

Dictionaries Are Made” Plagiarizing the past
and paying penance today for the Liddell-Scott
Greek-English Lexicon....................................... 71
Chapter 4 “The Battle: The Spirit vs. The Desires of the

Flesh & of the Mind” Secularizing w ords .........97
Chapter 5 “Mortal Sins: Living Verbs Wounded in

Grammars” exposes the fallacies o f current
New Testament Greek grammar books. (Also see
chapter 12 et al..)...............................................121
Chapter 6 “Metzger’s Lexical Aids and Greek Text Are

Deadly: Nuggets From the Greek or Fools
Gold?” ................................................................ 136
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
Part II
G r e e k & H e b r e w L e x ic o n s : W h o 's Who
Greek Lexicons by Members of the Corrupt Westcott-Hort

Revised Version Committee of 1881: Strong, Thayer & Scott
Chapter 7 “Strong Delusion”: James Strong’s Dangerous

definitions in the back o f his Strong’s
Concordance...................................................... 157
Chapter 8 “Logos Bible Software’s Liddell-Scott Greek-

English Lexicon” Did Henry Liddell protect
‘Jack the Ripper’ suspect, Alice in Wonderland’s
Lewis Carroll (a.k.a. Charles Dodgson)?........203
Appendix A Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon editor

Dean Henry Liddell & His Best Fiend* Alice
in Wonderland’s Charles Dodgson, alias Lewis
Carroll................................................................ 276
Chapter 9 “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon” reflects his

Unitarianism; ASV words as definitions......... 328
The Early Corrupters of New Testament Lexicons
Chapter 10 “R. C. Trench: Synonyms o f the New

Testament” exposes this author who uses
Blavatsky’s serpent logo.................................... 358
Lexicons Defending Their Father’s Westcott-Hort Revised

Version :
Chapter 11 “Moulton & Milligan’s Vocabulary o f the

Greek New Testament” was co-authored by an
editor who thinks Zoroastrianism was a
forerunner for Christianity............................... 402
Copycats
Chapter 12 “Vine’s Expository Dictionary” defines words

with RV and ASV words and now has NIV
editors. Vine denies that the blood saves....... 417
Chapter 13 “Copycat: Kenneth S. Wuest ” editor o f Word

Studies From the Greek New Testament admits
his definitions were taken directly from the
unsavory men who are exposed in this book..487
Chapter 14 “Marvin Vincent, Marred and Sin-Bent” His

Word Studies in the New Testament denies the
existence o f the Devil. A.T. Robertson’s Word
Pictures in the New Testament uses corrupt
Greek text. .................... 514
Nazi/Heresy Trial Connection
Chapter 15 “Walter Bauer’s Lexicon”: The keywords

“Nazi,” “Heresy,” “The Gospel o f Judas,” “The
DaVinci Code,” and “NIV” describe his work.
Bauer thought Christians were heretics..........535
Chapter 16 “Frederick W. Danker,” editor of A Greek-

English Lexicon o f the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, was used by NKJV
and NIV editors. He was a translator for the
Catholic New American Bible and was expelled
from his professorship for heresy.................... 545
TABLE OF CONTENTS 7
P a r t ii i
G reek N ew T estam ent T exts
The following chapters will document problems relating to the

printed editions o f Greek texts, not covered in New Age Bible
Versions. (Also see chapter 6 for M etzger’s UBS and NA text.)
Chapter 17 “The Textual Heresies of F.H.A. Scrivener”

He was a Bible critic and Revised Version
Committee member, working under Westcott
and Hort. He wanted to omit many crucial parts
o f the New Testament....................................... 578
Chapter 18 “The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Little

Leaven: Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus”
Chapter exposes this text and Frederick
Scrivener, who back-translated the KJB into
Greek but also made some unwarranted changes
to this Textus Receptus, now published as a so-
called edition o f Beza; exposes Green’s text..629
Chapter 19 “Very Wary of George Ricker Berry”

demonstrates the problems with his Greek-
English Interlinear New Testament which
wrongly omits words, a whole verse, and is
accompanied by a faulty English interlinear...695
Chapter 20 “The Wobble Unorthodox Greek Orthodox

Crutch” shows the heresies and textual errors
that plague the Greek text preserved by the
Orthodox church and wrongly presented as the
‘Majority text’ by Zodhiates, Hodges-Farstad,
Pierpoint-Robinson. Divine Intimacy origin...730
Chapter 21 “Zodhiates Byzantine Empire Strikes Back”

discloses his corrupt lexicon, which plagiarized
NIV editors. Shows his use o f a corrupt Greek

text.......................................................................797
Chapter 22 “Child Molester on New Version Committee”

This and the following chapter reveal for the first
time that B.F. Westcott, the editor o f the Greek
text underlying new versions such as the TNIV,
NIV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, and HCSB, opened
the door for his old homosexual and pedophile
compatriot, C. J. Vaughan, to work closely with
him on his RV Committee. These m en’s RV
English word choices are echoed in Vine’s
Expository Dictionary, other lexicons, and all
new versions..........................................................825
Chapter 23 “Moral Hazard: The Pederast on Westcott

and Hort’s English Revised Version
Translation Committee,” by Dennis Palmu of
the North American Conference on British
Studies, looks at the perpetrator, his penalty, the
cover-up, and his preferment on the RV
committee............................................................. 859
P a r t iv
H e b r e w O l d T e s t a m e n t L e x ic o n s
Chapter 24 “Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon,”

by a German Bible critic, is the source of
virtually all Hebrew Bible interpretation seen in
all new versions and lexicons. Therefore all
Hebrew study is cankered with error.............. 903
TABLE OF CONTENTS 9
Hebrew Lexicon by Member of the Corrupt Westcott-Hort

Revised Version Committee of 1881
Chapter 25 “Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English

Lexicon” was taken from Gesenius; Briggs
secret meeting with the Catholic hierarchy in
Rome (recently revealed by a Harvard University
journal) and his trial for heresy are brought to
light. Their words are seen in the NIV and all
new versions today.............................................. 918
Chapter 26 “Hebrew Summary” ......................................... 963
Party
H ebrew O ld T estam ent T exts
Details, which scarcely have seen the light o f day,

concerning the currently printed editions o f the Hebrew text,
unfold in two riveting chapters:
Chapter 27 “Hebrew Old Testament Critical Texts”

details errors in the current Israeli editions and
the edition underlying the NKJV, NIV and all
new versions, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,
edited under the influence o f anti-Semitic critic,
Rudolf Kittel...................................................... 968
Chapter 28 “Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Non-

Authoritative Texts” shockingly reveals that C.
Ginsburg, editor o f the only currently available
printed edition o f the good Bomberg (so-called
Ben Chayyim) Rabbinic Bible and published by
the Trinitarian Bible Society, was a follower of

the wicked Kabbala and Luciferian Madame
Helena P. Blavatsky........................................ 1005
Chapter 29 “The Occult & Catholic Origin of Greek &

Hebrew Focus” exposes Reuchlin, the founder
of Greek and Hebrew study, and his use o f the
wicked Kabbala. This could have been chapter
one!....................................................................1065
P art vi
I n s p ir a t io n , P r e s e r v a t io n , T r a n s l a t io n &
I n f il t r a t io n
These encouraging, uplifting, and challenging chapters

demonstrate God’s provision for the preservation of his inspired
words.
Chapter 30 “The Scriptures to All Nations”: Translating

Yesterday and Today......................................1093
Chapter 31 “Seven Proofs of the King James Bible’s

Inspiration” ................................................... 1131
Epilogue Includes a summary, an admonition to critics,

and a warning.................................................... 1186
Acknowledgements.....................................................................1201
A.V. Publications Catalogue 1204

C h ap ter 1
Hazardous Materials
Detecting Bugs in Software & Bats in Books
How to Read This Book — Braced
“ Cease,
my son,
to hear the instruction
that causeth to err
from the words
of knowledge.”
Prov. 19:27
“ Prove
all things; hold fast
that which is good.”
1 Thes. 5:21
The Men Behind the Smokescreen
HOSE tongues were set on fire o f hell, burning
W Bibles word by word? The flame is burning yet

today and fanned by the books and software which
give their dead authors breath. What dangerous men concocted
the hazardous words and texts used today in the corrupt new
versions, such as the NIV, NKJV, TNIV, Holman CSB, ESV,
NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, New Jerusalem Bible, New
American Bible, New Century Version, New Living Translation
and The Message? What men spawned the sinister words
wrongly used to ‘correct’ or re-define the words in the King
James Bible? The astounding answer: The words used in new
versions and the words given as ‘definitions’ o f KJB words are
identical and come from the same poisoned well, Greek and
Hebrew study tools, both by the same menacing men. Their
names vie for the line-up of the ten most wanted offenders in
the table o f contents. The following frightening mysteries will
be solved in different chapters, about different editors of
different Greek or Hebrew lexicons [dictionaries] or texts. How
can one field of study harbor so many deviants?
Who was the dorm supervisor who allowed (encouraged?)

the worst episodes o f sexual violence in British boy’s school
history? Who was the pedophile who was dredged out o f hiding
to join the dorm supervisor on the Revised Version Committee?
Who took their words and placed them in that bestselling Bible
Dictionary’ on your bookshelf? Who harbored and befriended
another well known pedophile who became one of the suspects
in the ‘Jack the Ripper’ case? Who went to the meetings where
Luciferian Madame Blavatsky spoke? Who used her serpent
logo on his books criticizing the King James Bible? Who
denied that the blood o f Christ saves? Who defines the word
INTRODUCTION 13
Lucifer like Jesus Christ? Who was on the Westcott and Hort
RV committee? Who was on the ASV committee? Who used
RV and ASV words to define KJB words? Who was a Unitarian
and denied the Trinity and Christ’s blood atonement? Who
thought Christians were heretics and pagan Gnostics were
superior? Who thought pagan Zoroastrianism was a forerunner
o f Christianity? Who copied all o f his definitions from the men
who embraced the aforementioned abominations? Who was
charged with heresy, even by his liberal denomination? Who
was discharged from his college teaching position for heresy?
Why are Christians trusting Greek and Hebrew study tools
created by these men who have this kind o f record — even
above their Holy Bibles?
How to Read This Book— Braced
Buckle your seat belt. You are about to take a trip through
the time barrier, looking behind time-closed doors where men
coined counterfeit words to “choke the word” and the voice o f
God (Matt. 13:22). The reader is in for many surprises, some
that will verge on riveting shock. Before this book, no one had
ever critically examined the authors o f Greek and Hebrew study
tools. Instead, these tools were accepted blindly. Christians,
however, are taught to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good” (1 Thes. 5:21). Have readers of Greek and Hebrew study
tools proven these men? “The simple believeth every word: but
the prudent man looketh well to his going” (Proverbs 14:15).
"Lay hands suddenly on no man,” the Bible warns (1 Tim.
5:22). Some have laid their hands on Greek and Hebrew study
tools without a thorough examination o f the beliefs o f the men
who penned them. This book contains more real news than the
Nightly News. But, like babes who like to be read to, some will
opt for the latter. If you are turning the pages in this book, you
are part of God’s reading remnant.
An investigation which began as a simple examination o f

their beliefs became a bizarre trip, quite like that o f Alice in
Wonderland, where frightening stranger-than-fiction characters
emerged. I did not intend to write a hard-to-put-down, white-
knuckled chiller, but I discovered once again that people who
want to change the Bible are not nice people. Jesus warned,
“[T]he lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:44). The words
seen today in the NKJV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, and HCSB and all
other new versions were spawned in a cesspool o f Satanic
unbelief. My research for this book began many years ago, but
was set aside because I discovered that these men themselves,
and the lifestyles o f some o f them were not fit subject matter for
Christian audiences. Too much would have to be left out. (I
enjoy writing about the glories of the Holy Bible, not the dregs
o f society.) The series of events which compelled me to resume
work on this book are hair-raising and can only be partially
disclosed, and that at the end o f this chapter. God has shown
through answered prayer that the Holy Bible is deadly serious
business.
The alarming uproar o f a watch dog is not unwarranted. A

subtle someone is trying to steal your most valuable possession
— your Holy Bible. Reading this book will install an alarm
system in your mind to halt the arsonists who would bum your
Bible word-by-word. It will take mental and physical discipline
to read a few portions of this book thoroughly — a mental
exercise that will strengthen the mind and will raise the rabid
fury o f the devil who operates and succeeds only through the
passive apathy o f good Christians. This book is an inoculation,
just as a vaccine is. As such, sometimes it will push at the flesh
INTRODUCTION 15
while conveying a bit of tedious documentation; some

discoveries will pinch the reader’s comfort zone with shock for
a moment. But it is guaranteed to strengthen and build the
immunity o f the reader to any notions that ‘the’ Greek or
Hebrew words spouted today have any healing balm in them. It
will keep your confidence in the Holy Bible from weakening
under the continual bombarding attacks. If many Christians read
this book and become armed for the attacks, it will keep them
from becoming a part o f the rising weakness and apostasy in the
body o f Christ. If you want to keep your Holy Bible, you will
have to read the fine print which will prove your right to believe
and treasure its every word.
O f the dead entombed breath o f the scribes Jesus said,

“ ...the men that walk over them are not aware o f them” (Luke
11:44). Many o f the names o f Satan’s scribes discussed in this
book may be new to the reader. Bear with this. They have
covered their tracks so carefully that few have ever heard o f
them. These names may be unfamiliar, but I am certain that you
have heard their haunting voices hammer over your Saviour’s
sweet words. You will seldom see their names in any Bible,
book, commentary, software, or online discussion o f ‘the’
Greek or Hebrew Bible. But their claims to correct G od’s word
are heard from pulpits, television, and radio programs, internet
blogs, and the pages o f new Bibles and lexicons, which
pronounce, “That word in Greek really means.” According to
the book o f Luke, Satan comes immediately after a scripture has
been given and tries to take it away.
“Then cometh the devil, and taketh away the

word out o f their hearts” Luke 8:12
Instead o f saying “The Greek says,” one should more

correctly say, “Liddell says,” “Vincent says,” “Trench says,” or
“Brown, Driver and Briggs say.” These men were the first to re
define the words o f the Holy Bible. Their words are echoed by
mere copy-cats in more recent lexicons and are echoed again in
new versions. All are echoing the disentombed word-choices o f
unsaved, God-hating liberals from the middle and late 1800s.
You must learn about these men and the mindset behind their
words, now seen in the NIV, NKJV, ESV, TNIV, HCSB,
NRSV, and NASB.
The Bible tells us that, “If any man will do his will, he shall
know o f the doctrine” (John 7:17). Since these authors do not
appear to do God’s will in many cases, they cannot “know” the
doctrines o f the Bible, to say nothing o f changing or interpreting
its words. A mind that is dimmed with sin will receive no light,
even through advanced education. A man who does not
“tremble” at the word is not fit to teach the word (Isa. 66:5).
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
G od...neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
This author learned many things while researching this

book. I trust that all who find this book in their hands will
not assume that they have nothing left to learn. Having one’s
preconceived notions uprooted can be unsettling. I found out
that there are fire-starting land mines which have been planted
around our own back yard. A wise man would say, ‘Fence off
the area and stay out. Warn the unwary.’ A proud man would
say, ‘That’s my garden. Let’s hope the neighbors do not find
o u t’ The “fiery” “serpent” still lurks around the Greek tree of
knowledge in every unpruned garden (Isa. 14:29).
INTRODUCTION 17
The Serpent Slithers From “The NIV S a ys...” to “The

Greek says...”
NLIKE most creatures, the serpent can conform his
U shape to fit the need. He can be long and straight,

coiled and circular, or assume any ‘S’ shape in
between. He twists and turns words, sliding around the comer
of every book page and software rage, to create wiggling
distractions from the real Holy Bible. The serpent has had to
keep moving as he is spotted eventually. When the errors o f the
corrupt Revised Version (RV) were exposed, it wiggled away
and became the RSV. When that was exposed, it became the
NRSV. When its errors were revealed, it became the ESV.
Likewise, unsteady squirming transformed the ASV into the
NASB. The Living Bible became the New Living Translation.
The NIV morphed into the TNIV. The serpent’s trail, left in the
sinking sands o f new versions, leaves its mark. But “the way of
a serpent upon a rock” makes no mark (Prov. 30:19).
The serpent’s moves were exposed in New Age Bible

Versions. That book weakened the boa constrictor NIV-hold in
liberal circles and loosened the NKJV noose in many
conservative circles. It even caused a panicked re-write o f the
NASB in 1995. Satan had to retreat. New versions have gone
running and hiding from many churches and homes.
It was time for the Devil’s ‘Plan B ’— his tower o f shaky

bibles is now being buried beneath babbling and conflicting
Greek and Hebrew lexicons, grammars, texts, and software —
the tongues o f Babel and the heresy o f Babylon, all on one CD-
Rom. You know when the enemy is losing — he shies away
from verse comparisons, which expose the corruptions in new
versions, and scurries behind a maze built o f Greek and Hebrew
tools. And like a snake the Bible constrictor has shed its skin for
a completely new look — going back to the ‘original. The old

Serpent, which is the devil” knows the power of the word of
God and he has sought to counterfeit it. The great counterfeiter
has latched on to the ultimate counterfeit, the so-called
‘originals.’ So close and yet so far. Today he slithers back to
the words from the old counterfeit tools which pretend to reveal
the ‘original’ word meanings and manuscripts o f the Bible. Like
a snake, which can even flatten itself and slide under a loose
doorway, he has slipped into many good households in the
guise o f so-called ‘original’ Greek and Hebrew study tools.
Today this dangerous new wave has been spewed from the
dragon to swallow up the word. This book will remove the
cover from the devil’s very latest scheme to discredit the Holy
Bible. “ [W]e are not ignorant o f his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).
There is no new thing under the sun. The serpent is merely

repeating his successful temptation used in the garden o f Eden.
Eve got the word o f God from Adam — a translation, so to
speak, o f what God had directly told Adam alone. The serpent
led her to question her second-hand information. After all, he
implied, she did not hear the ‘original’ words that God gave
Adam. Eve had shown no signs o f being a ‘bad’ girl’— no
drinking, no drugs — merely wondering if the ‘original’ might
have been different than what she was given second hand. Still
today, good, clean-living people, like Eve, are just ‘wondering
if the ‘original’ might not be desirable to make one wise. But
Eve did not really get the ‘original’ from the serpent. He merely
gave her his coiled spin. God had provided her with a perfect
second-hand copy.
“The history o f Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the

fact that Satan’s sphere of activities is in the
INTRODUCTION 19
religious sphere, and not the spheres o f crime or

immorality. His battlefield is not the sins arising
from human depravity, but the unbelief [and
pride] of the human heart. We are not to look for
Satan’s activities today in the newspaper press,
or the police courts; but in the pulpits, and in
professors’ chairs. Whenever the Word o f God is
called in question, there we see the trail o f “that
old serpent, which is the Devil, and
Satan.” ...This is why anything in favour o f its
inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual
truth is rigidly excluded as being “controversial.”
(The Companion B ible, Grand Rapids, M l: K regel Publications, 1999,
Appendix, p. 25).
The perpetual temptation is to know more than God has

already revealed. Even Moses said, “I beseech thee, shew me
thy glory.” But God replied, “Thou canst not see my face; for
there shall no man see me, and live...thou shalt see my back
parts; but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:18-23). Many
want to see too much and know something other than what God
has revealed. Man has never been content with what God said.
Therefore, since the garden o f Eden, the devil has made himself
available to tell man what God really meant.
Plan B is Working
My phone began ringing. At the other end were elderly

ladies, pleading with their last breath, Spanish-speaking
immigrants inquiring with very broken English, teens who had
never read the New Testament through in English. All were
desperate to get God’s real words. They had all gotten the
impression, perhaps from liberal Christian radio or TV
ministers, or even inadvertently from their own good pastors,
that if they could just get THE Greek or Hebrew in some form,
they would have the key to understanding God’s Bible. They
did not want a corrupt NIV. They had been warned about that.
Suddenly it dawned upon me - the serpent, who was “more
subtil” than any other creature, had switched weapons by
merely switching the cover. He had Christians peering in
the very same stagnant pool of Greek and Hebrew study
tools that had been dredged for words by new versions
(Gen. 3).
Everyone has waited for the sequel to New Age Bible

Versions, the international bestselling book that has sold nearly
a quarter o f a million copies. It exposed the errors in the NIV,
NASB, NKJV, and all modem versions o f the Bible and proved
the purity o f the King James Bible (variously referred to in this
book as the KJB, KJV, AV, and Authorized Version). That
book brought the demand for nearly a million copies o f other
helpful tools by this author, such as videos, tracts, and the
books, Which Bible Is G od’s Word?, The Language o f the King
James Bible, and In A we o f Thy Word.
The preceding books, New Age Bible Versions and In Awe

o f Thy Word, were building blocks to establish a foundation for
understanding the history and qualities o f God’s true word. In
Awe o f Thy Word established the primacy and inspiration of the
King James Bible as THE “one” interpreter o f the scriptures for
the English speaking people since A.D. 1611 (1 Cor. 14:27). It
demonstrated that the KJB is in agreement with the pure ancient
and historic Holy Bibles, both in English and in other
languages. The advertisements for new bible versions falsely
claim that they use better and older Greek and Hebrew
manuscripts than the King James Bible. The book New Age
INTRODUCTION 21
Bible Versions was written to answer this false charge and to

prove it wrong. In New Age Bible Versions I showed that by the
enemies’ own criteria (Greek and Hebrew manuscripts) the
King James Bible text was the oldest and most widely used.
New Age Bible Versions showed that the KJB was in agreement
with the majority of Greek manuscripts (now around 5,700).
The Greek manuscripts, discussed in New Age Bible Versions,
and the vernacular Bibles, discussed in In Awe o f Thy Word,
together form what is called the Received Text, that is, the Holy
Bible preserved and then received and accepted by the body o f
Christ throughout the centuries.
The saga now continues at a deeper level in this

encyclopedic book, Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers, The
Voice o f Strangers: The Men Behind the Smokescreen, Burning
Bibles, Word By Word. The Lord, the “expert in war” (1 Chron.
12:33), allowed me to forge this new comprehensive weapon
which can put to silence the ignorance o f foolish men who
question the King James Bible at every turn o f a page o f Greek
and Hebrew reference materials. This book will answer almost
every other false charge leveled against the King James Bible.
Now, for the first time, this book’s original groundbreaking new
research demonstrates the faulty nature o f all tools which
pretend to take the reader back to so-called ‘original’ Greek and
Hebrew texts and meanings. New Age Bible Versions was milk;
now the reader is ready to chew meat (1 Cor. 3:2). Jesus had
cautioned, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now” (John 16:12).
Taken together, New Age Bible Versions and the book you
hold in your hand create a complete examination o f Greek and
Hebrew study dangers. They cannot be viewed as separate or
conflicting books. This book is merely an extension o f New Age
Bible Versions and is meant to be read as volume two. Reading

it alone will give a disproportionate emphasis. The errors o f the
critical Greek text underlying the NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB,
NASB and most new versions are so extensive that it took that
700 page book to describe them, their evil editors, and their
history. Small attention is directed to the critical Greek text in
this volume because it was so fully covered in that first book.
THE MOST EGREGIOUS Greek study dangers are found in
the critical Greek text made popular by Westcott and Hort and
seen today in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society s
Greek text. Several chapters will document the collusion o f B.F.
Westcott and C.J. Vaughan, the child molester, who together
with other Revised Version translation committee members,
corrupted the scriptures and first penned many o f the words
seen today in new versions, as well as in lexicons such as Vine s
Expository Dictionary o f the New Testament.
GOOD GRIEF:
A GOOD LOOK AT GOOD GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS
“ A little leaven”
This book will document problems in the printed editions of

the Greek and Hebrew Bible, which were not covered in New
Age Bible Versions. It will answer the question: Are Greek and
Hebrew texts available today which can be used as the final
authority?
The good Greek text, variously referred to as the Textus

Receptus, Majority Text, and Byzantine Text, is popularly
accessed today in only three editions, which have varying levels
o f accuracy:
INTRODUCTION 23
1.) F.H.A. Scrivener’s Textus Receptus is printed by the

Trinitarian Bible Society and Jay P. Green. It is often
mistakenly referred to as Beza’s text. It has few serious errors,
but its venial mistakes make readers seriously doubt the
accuracy o f their own Holy Bible. That is serious.
2.) Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament is

proven to be a rubber crutch which collapses with the weight o f
its shaky sinning Saviour and the curse o f a missing verse.
3.) Zodhiates’ Greek Orthodox text, published by AMG

Publishers, contains even more serious errors.
This book exposes in detail the corrupt Hebrew texts used

by new versions, including the NKJV. Those examined include
the Ben Asher, the Biblia Hebraica Kittel (BHK) by Rudolph
Kittel and Paul Kahle, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
(BHS) by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf, as well as Hebrew editions
by other editors such as Baer, Delitzsch, Snaith and various
Israeli editors, such as Mordechai Breuer and Cohen.
Also explored for the first time are the good Hebrew
Masoretic texts, such as that published by the Trinitarian Bible
Society. Editing by ben Chayyim, Ginsburg, Letteris, and others
prevents these from serving as jot and tittle perfect editions,
however. Currently printed, facsimile, software, and online
editions o f the good Hebrew Massoretic Text fail to reflect the
pure historic Massoretic Text in toto (e.g. Numbers 33:8, 2
Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam 16:23, Ruth 3:5, Ruth 3:17, Judges 20:13 et
al.), as preserved correctly in the KJB and other vernacular
Bibles. These slightly marred Hebrew editions include, but are
not limited to the following:
1.) The Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green, published by

Hendrickson, Sovereign Grace Publishers, and others. This
is the Athias/van der Hooght/M. Letteris edition from the
British and Foreign Bible Society (B&FBS), 1866.
2.) The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), Holy Bible, The Holy
Scriptures in the Original Languages, Bomberg/Ginsburg
Old Testament 1894 and 1998. Ginsburg, a foundational
member o f the Westcott and Hort Revised Version
Committee, wrote an entire occult book, called The
Kabbala, which promoted the evil theories o f this
unscriptural Jewish mystical system. He was also an
attendee at the Luciferian Theosophical Society’s Meeting
in Piccadilly, England, where Madame Blavatsky spoke.
3.) All software, online editions and facsimile editions which

use the term “Hebrew Old Testament” or “Masoretic Text
(often spelled ‘Massoretic’). All commentaries, lexicons,
Bible notes, and study Bibles which reference the
Hebrew.”
This book goes beyond New Age Bible Versions and

exposes many o f the small errors in currently printed editions of
good Greek and Hebrew texts, from which the King James
Bible and good vernacular editions have been kept pure.
A British textual critic once said that “ever and anon we are
landed in particulars.” It is good to generalize and say that the
King James Bible matches the good Textus Receptus in the New
Testament and the Hebrew Masoretic text in the Old Testament.
But woe unto him who says it must follow one particular
printing by one particular editor of either o f these texts. Many
enjoy the comfort zone of generalities and cannot function in
INTRODUCTION 25
the realm of particulars. But God is a God of particulars,

keeping track o f the jot and tittle and the very exact number of
hairs on everyone’s head. One size may not fit all. This book is
about the particulars.
Ancient manuscripts, whether Greek or Hebrew, are not the

criteria for the believer. God said, “But the word is very nigh
unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it”
(Deut. 30:14). The frailty o f relying solely on ancient or
medieval Greek manuscripts will be demonstrated in the
chapters entitled, “The Wobbly Unorthodox Greek Orthodox
Crutch,” “Zodhiates’ Byzantine Empire Strikes Back,” “The
Scriptures to All Nations,” and “Seven Infallible Proofs.” The
latter two are faith-building chapters in a book about men who
seek to destroy faith in the Holy Bible. We are warned, “Neither
give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister
questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do”
(1 Tim. 1:4). Tracing the genealogy o f KJB readings always
proves the readings to be correct, but it is not a substitute for
faith, humility, and awe before the word o f God, the Holy Bible.
The very nature o f the Bible makes demands upon our faith.
“But without faith it is impossible to please

him ...” (Heb. 11:6).
MORE GRIEF: A LOOK AT LUCIFER’S LEXICONS:
“Every idle word”
There are corruptions in new versions which are not based

on their corrupt Greek and Hebrew texts, but on the English
interpretation o f words which are common to all Greek and
Hebrew texts. The majority o f this book will expose the second
half of the mystery of bible version iniquity — Greek and

Hebrew lexicons and grammars. New Age Bible Versions
exhaustively proved that the new versions of the Bible fail on
two accounts. They are translated from faulty Greek and
Hebrew texts and they use liberal, watered-down words. New
versions are unacceptable because the Greek text they follow
omits the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and many basic doctrines
of the Christian faith. They are also unacceptable for a more
subtle and sometimes less obvious reason. When looking for
English words with which to translate their corrupt Greek and
Hebrew texts, new version editors look to the liberal authors of
Greek-English and Hebrew-English lexicons, men who have
tried to put words in God’s mouth. Greek and Hebrew Study
Dangers is the result of my investigation to determine what men
with what beliefs spawned the change in the English words seen
today in corrupt new versions. I examined the history of each
word in new versions and determined which lexicon author
originated the new version’s English word. This research led
me to the lexicographers and grammarians of the mid 1800s.
Years were spent examining every rare and now even crumbling
book which they had written.
Just as the editors of the Greek text underlying the new

versions (Westcott and Hort) were exposed in New Age Bible
Versions, this book will expose the men who gave the new
versions their English words. “Lucifer s Lexicons, the last
chapter o f New Age Bible Versions, just reveals the beginning of
my examinations into the dirty world of lexicons. It revealed the
depravity of Gerhard Kittel, editor o f the Greek lexicon
underlying the NIV and many new versions. Kittel’s poison pen
did double duty, writing anti-Jewish propaganda for Adolph
Hitler during his wicked extermination o f the Jews. Such
lexicons are the source o f the liberal theology that is rampant
INTRODUCTION 27
today and which springs from the liberal word choices in new
versions. This book will take off where New Age Bible Versions
left off, examining the other authors o f Greek and Hebrew
lexicons. Their often bizarre beliefs and sordid lifestyles send a
foul scent into every sentence in their lexicons. Their definitions
echo the serpent’s charge, “Yea, hath God said...?” to today’s
generation, who seem to want the Bible to ‘mean’ something
other than what it says.
G od’s word is not like other books. It can only be

understood by direct intervention o f the Holy Ghost. He will not
cast his pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6). He hides things from
the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25). He wil! show himself
unsavoury to some. Only to the pure will he show himself pure
(2 Sam. 22:27). Sensing that God is withholding knowledge, the
wise and prudent join the “thief and the robber” to find yet
“some other way” to enter into an understanding o f his word
(John 10:1). “ [T]he words which man’s wisdom teacheth” in
Lucifer’s lexicons provide just such a counterfeit for that
“which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:13).
The authors critiqued in this book used SECULAR sources

(pagan writers and secular papyri). “And even as they did not
like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate m ind...” (Rom. 1:28). How can those whose minds
are ‘darkened” correct the HOLY BIBLE, which was written
to enlighten their minds (Eph. 4:18)? How can those with a
“reprobate mind” re-define words like ‘Godhead,’ ‘everlasting,’
hell,’ ‘only begotten,’ or ‘judgm ent’? The purpose o f the Bible
is to introduce God’s meaning o f such words to the lost. Such is
outside o f the natural m an’s earthly experience. According to
these wicked men, a secular translation o f the Bible is needed.
For example, they believe the word for ‘heaven’ should be
translated ‘sky,’ as it often is in all new versions regardless of

the context. After all, unregenerate liberals who walk by sight,
not by faith, do not believe in heaven.
New Versions Admit Use of Corrupt Lexicons
New version editors admit their use o f unsavory Greek and

Hebrew lexicons for selecting word choices. The lexicons they
use are so corrupt that each one merits an entire chapter in this
book.
■ New International Version (NIV): Its editors admit, They
have weighed the significance of the lexical and
grammatical details o f the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
texts.” They used “Bible dictionaries” and “lexicons...”
including:
x The Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament by

convicted Nazi war criminal, Gerhard Kittel (see New
Age Bible Versions, chapter 42 for details).
x A Greek-English Lexicon by H.G. Liddell and R. Scott.
x A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament and

Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt,
Gingrich, and Danker.
x A Hebrew and English Lexicon o f the Old Testament by

F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs.
(The New International Version, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton, 1996 ed„ Preface, p. iv; B urton Goddard, The
N IV Story, NY: Vantage Press, 1989, pp. 67, 68; Kenneth L. Barker, The M aking o f
a Contem porary Translation, Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House 1986,
nn 110 122 163, 166; K enneth L. Barker, T h e A ccuracy o f the N IV , Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1996, pp. 7, 8, 53, 54, 61, 73, 75, 79. 93, 95, 98, 111, 112, 114).
INTRODUCTION 29
■ New King James Version (NKJV): The resident evil and

heresy in the New King James Version (NKJV), or any
modem version which claims to be translated from an
edition o f the Textus Receptus, lies in their editor’s use of
lexicons, all o f which are corrupt. For this reason the
English Bible, which saw its seventh and final purification
in the King James Bible, can never be updated (Ps. 12: 6, 7).
The following corrupt lexicons were cited by Arthur L.
Farstad, NKJV “New Testament editor,” “Executive
Editor,” and “Old Testament Executive Review Committee”
member:
* “Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English

Lexicon o f the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature”
* “Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs. A

Hebrew and English Lexicon o f the Old Testament.
London: Oxford University Press, 1968”
* “Gesenius, William, A Hebrew and English Lexicon o f

the Old Testament, Trans, by Edward Robinson. Third
Edition. Boston: Crocker and Brewster 1849” (The N ew K ing
Jam es Version in the Great Tradition, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1989, pp. ix, 54, 161, 162).
■ English Standard Version, ESV: “Throughout, the

translation team has benefited greatly from ...Hebrew and
Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding”
(W heaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2002, The E S V Classic Pew and Worship E dition, p. ix).
■ The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) has “Greek

Word Studies” taken from lexicons on almost every page
(Nashville, Tennessee: Holm an Bible Publishers, 2001, Experiencing the W ord, Prefatory
material).
-The Am plified Bible's words include those of

“lexicographers” (Grand Rapids, M I, Zondervan Corporation, 1987, p. viii).
■ The New Living Translation maintains "Lexical

Consistency in Terminology” for many words ( W h .,™ , . l ,
Tyndale Publishing House, 1996, Touchpoint Bible, Introduction).
. The New American Bible: “The New American Bible is a

Roman Catholic translation." “Collaborators on the Revised
Edition of the New Testament of the New American Bible
include lexicographer “Frederick W. Danker,” exposed in
this book. They looked at word meanings “in profane
Greek” (Iowa Falls, Iowa: Catholic W orld Press, W orld Publishing, 1987, Front
prefatory m aterial and later Preface to the N ew Testam ent Revised Edition).
If God’s people will not “hear his word” he will “feed them
with w orm w ood...for from the prophets o f Jerusalem is
profaneness gone forth into all the land” (Jer. 23:15).
Burning Bibles Word by Word:

The Devil’s or God’s Definition of KJB Words
VEN more shocking was the realization that these
E unorthodox authors and their adulterated lexical choices

are being used to ‘define' the words of the pure Holy
Bible These words “which m an’s wisdom teacheth
slipped into churches and homes that would never have used a
have
new version. I have often wanted to write the following letter:
Dear Preacher,
Did you know that the word you used this

morning to define a Bible word is the very word
used by the Jehovah Witness bible? Both o f you
got the word from a corrupt lexicon, probably the
INTRODUCTION 31
one in the back o f Strong’s Concordance. Please

read on—
It quickly became obvious that the liberal words in lexicons,

which have moved into new versions, are unknowingly being
used when lexicons are accessed by King James Bible students
to define KJB words. In other words, KJB words are now being
defined with NIV words. The serpent has slipped into the laps
o f KJB users without notice. Now the very words in the corrupt
NIV seem to have ‘authority,’ because they are found in a
Greek and Hebrew lexicon. Pastors who would never use an
NIV are using and unconsciously steering their listeners to THE
very words in the NIV and even the Jehovah Witness version.
Since many have never read a new version, they do not
recognize the corrupt words. For years I have cringed when I
hear a dear pastor say, “That word in Greek m eans...” I have
spent almost 25 years collating new versions to expose their
errors. I know their heretical vocabulary by heart, word-
for-word. I recognize that the so-called ‘definition’ is the
very word used in the corrupt versions in every case. Small
wonder; they both came from the same source: Strong, Vine,
Zodhiates, Thayer, Moulton, Milligan, Trench, Vincent, Wuest,
Liddell-Scott, Bauer, Danker, Kittel, Gesenius, Brown, Driver,
and Briggs. No one meant to get into the devil’s territory; he
moved into theirs, just as the serpent moved into the garden.
But the BAD words have the same BAD theological effect in a
lexicon that they have coming from an NIV. In fact, it is even
worse because it comes with the sheep’s clothing o f ‘THE
Original’ echoed by a good pastor. The serpent still is “more
subtil than an y ...”
Words, such as ‘dog,’ ‘river,’ and ‘bread,’ may be simply

transferred from Greek to English. But those are not the words
that new versions and those who reject God are interested in re
molding. And those are not the words God wants to enlighten
men about. He seeks to enlighten them about the nature o f God,
Jesus Christ, salvation, the Christian walk, heaven, hell, and
eternity. Neither the pagan Greek philosophers nor the Egyptian
peasants, who left grocery lists among the papyri, can shed any
light upon these subjects. Yet lexicons pretend that they can.
They do this with an ulterior motive. That motive is to bring the
higher things of God BACK DOWN to the mundane man-
centered point of view. For this reason, Greek lexicons cannot
be used for most o f the words of the New Testament.
Knowing this, God simply gave us the perfect English

translation for every word. Why wouldn’t he? He also defined
each word within the Bible itself. God enlarged the borders of
words’ meanings to encompass heaven. He lifted words up to
the mind of Christ. He made words the expression o f far deeper
thoughts, deeper than the shallow puddles of earth. Words
became the vehicle to carry God’s ideas, not man’s. After
Christ, words were born-again, just as men were. There was a
revolutionary ennobling o f words. The heathen used them as the
“natural man” might; God uses them “not in the words which
m an’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth...”
(1 Cor. 2:13).
One might think if he could resurrect someone who lived in

the first century, who spoke both Hebrew and Greek, he could
then know what Bible words meant. God did— he resurrected
Jesus Christ. He is alive and living in each believer, as an
abiding Bible teacher. “ [W]e have the mind o f Christ” (1 Cor.
2:16).
INTRODUCTION 33
“The Voice of Strangers” Brings Heresy Trials
The Bible says, “thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Truth and
heresy are at opposite ends o f the spiritual spectrum. When
someone looks at a Bible dictionary or lexicon, he supposes that
he will find even more truth. Yet the facts indicate that he will
find heresy, written by men who were called “heretics” by their
own peers. The Dictionary o f Heresy Trials in American
History was written with the collaboration o f historians from
the Universities o f Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, and Duke, as
well as the University o f Chicago, the University o f Maryland,
the University o f California, the University o f Pennsylvania,
and other well-respected universities. The authors o f today’s
most used Bible study dictionaries are paramount among the
mere fifty ‘heretics’ whose beliefs shocked their contemporaries
enough to bring them to trial and thereby merit inclusion in this
hall o f shame. The top heretics include the editors o f the most
accessed Old Testament lexicon, the Brown, Driver, and Briggs
Hebrew-English Lexicon and the most popular New Testament
lexicons, including J.H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, and
Danker, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon o f
the New Testament. Also indicted is Philip Schaff, the
committee chairman of the American Standard Version, whose
words are used as faulty definitions in the back o f Strong’s
Concordance. Schaff handpicked like-minded libertines, like
Strong and Thayer to serve under him on the ASV committee.
How have they escaped detection? One professor concludes,
“ ‘they’ use our terms but give them non-Christian meanings.”
Sir Robert Anderson said the writings o f Bible critics are
“expressed o f course in veiled language, and with perfect
courtesy.” Only those who have thoroughly studied the heresies
o f the past can see through their facade, as they try to infest
God s garden with the weeds o f the world. The heresy trials and
heresies of well-known dictionary-makers have been held

behind closed doors. The book, Dictionary o f Heresy Trials,
unlocks the door; the book you hold in your hands swings it
wide open for a full view (George H. Shriver, ed., D ictionary o f H eresy Trials in
A m erican H istory, W estport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997, pp. 46-57, 327-336, 419-429, 369, 59
et al.; Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible and M odern Criticism, London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1903, p. 41).
Separation — the Bible teaches it (2 Cor. 6:17). Would you

recommend giving your church’s microphone and members
ears to men, like John MacArthur, who taught that it was
Christ’s death, not his blood, which redeems sinners? W.E.
Vine, editor o f Vine’s Expository>Dictionary, also believed this.
Yet his RV derived ‘definitions’ have pierced many a pulpit’s
microphone. Would you have men in the pulpit who denied that
Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes? Ginsburg, who edited the Hebrew
Masoretic text, denied this. Would you invite men who were on
the Westcott-Hort-Vaughan Committee to speak at your
church? The main Greek and Hebrew lexicons and texts were
written by men on this committee such as F. Scrivener, (Textus
Receptus), C. Ginsburg (Hebrew Masoretic Text), James Strong
{Greek and Hebrew Concordance and Lexicon), J. Henry
Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon), S.R. Driver, (Brown, Driver,
and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon), Robert Scott (Liddell-
Scott Greek-English Lexicon) and R.C. Trench (,Synonyms o f
the New Testament). Would you have in your pulpit men who
used the RV and ASV? Strong and Vine used them exclusively.
What does the Bible itself say?
“...the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his

own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And
when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth
before them, and the sheep follow him: for they
know his voice. And a stranger will they not
INTRODUCTION 35
follow, but will flee from him: for they know

not the voice of strangers” (John 10: 3-5).
“[TJhey that handle the law knew me n o t...” Jer.

2:8
“ ...not in the words which m an’s wisdom

teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor.
2:13).
“Wherefore hearest thou men’s w ords...?” (1

Sam. 24:9).
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the

counsel o f the ungodly” (Ps. 1:1).
“Every day they wrest my words” (Ps. 56:5).
“He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about

questions and strifes o f words, whereof cometh
envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse
disputings o f men o f corrupt minds, and destitute
o f the truth...from such withdraw th yself’ (1
Tim. 6:4-5).
“Mark them which cause divisions and offences

contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned;
and avoid them. For they....by good words and
fair speeches deceive the hearts o f the simple”
(Romans 16:17, 18).
“And ye have not kept the charge o f mine holy

things: but ye have set keepers o f my charge in
my sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord
GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor

uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my
sanctuary...” (Ezek. 44:8, 9).
“These sought their register among those that

were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not
found: therefore were they as polluted, put from
the priesthood” (Ezra 2:62).
In the book o f Jeremiah God warns o f those who “speak a

vision o f their own heart, and not out o f the mouth o f the
LORD” (Jer. 23:16).
“Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets,

saith the LORD, that steal my words every one
from his neighbor. Behold, I am against the
prophets, saith the LORD, that use their
tongues, and say, He saith ...What hath the
LORD spoken?...for ye have perverted the words
o f the living God” (Jer. 23:30, 31, 35, 36).
That which is given by inspiration o f God requires a

spiritual life in the one who teaches it. He shall lead you into all
truth. Only those taught of the Spirit may expound it.
Other Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, Grammars and Texts
If you use Greek and Hebrew lexicons and grammars

other than those exposed in this book, know for certain that
their definitions contain the same errors as those discussed
in this book, because they were taken from one of these
authors (See Part 1).
“[T]here is none that doeth good, no, not one”

(Rom. 3:12).
INTRODUCTION 37
The old lexicons are copyright free. This means that anyone
can take their vile words and place them in a Greek or Hebrew
study aid and call them their own. Just as the current Greek
texts o f Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society, which
underlie new versions, are nearly virtual copies o f the corrupt
1881 Greek text o f Westcott and Hort, so the current Greek-
English bible study tools, such as Vine’s, Strong’s, W uest’s,
Thayer’s, Berry’s, and Zodhiates’ are taken from the lexicons
that were written in the mid-to-late 1800s by Liddell, Vincent,
and Trench. This book shows who first invented the words. For
example, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon admits that its
sources include Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon', both
Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear and Vine’s Expository
Dictionary used Thayer and Trench, both o f which were rooted
in the lexicon o f Liddell-Scott. W uest’s Word Studies used the
lexicons o f Trench, Thayer, Moulton, Milligan, and Vincent.
Strong used Gesenius. Zodhiates plagiarized so much that he
was even sued for it. And on it goes.
The worst mistake a reader could make would be to suppose

that, because an author is not mentioned in this book, his Greek
or Hebrew study tools are safe. All tools have been examined
and ALL are corrupt. Obviously one book cannot show the
particulars o f each and every lexicon and grammar I have
examined. This book discusses the lexicons from which all the
others merely copy. New lexicons and grammars simply
disguise old foes with new faces. This book will prove that the
very words used in new versions and used to define KJB
words came from heretics, although today these words are
sometimes hiding behind somewhat more orthodox writers.
A.T. Robertson, for example admits in his “List o f Works Most
Often Referred To,” as well as in his Preface and Chapter 1, that
he followed the lexicographers and textual critics covered in
this book, such as Liddell-Scott, Thayer, Trench, Moulton-

Milligan, Gesenius, Westcott, Hort, and Nestle (a .t . Robertson,
Gramm ar o f the Greek New Testament, N ew York: George H. Doran Com pany, 1914.)
The reader will find that all Greek and Hebrew

dictionaries, lexicons, and grammars use the corrupt Greek
text or the words from either old corrupt lexicons, the RV, or
the ASV, both o f which are based on the corrupt Greek text.
There are no exceptions. The Preface o f A.T. Robertson s
Grammar o f the Greek New Testament says,
“the text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all

essentials... I think with pleasure o f the preacher
or teacher who under the inspiration o f this
Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek New
Testament and there find things new and old, the
vital message all electric with power for the new
age” (Robertson, pp. xiv, xv).
In fact, Frederick Danker admits that the Greek text used in

lexicons “has no corresponding existence in any single
m a n u s c r i p t ” (Frederick Danker, Jesus and the New Age, St. Louis M issouri: Clayton
Publishing House, 1972, p. xxi).
All Greek or Hebrew texts not reviewed in this book,

including one-man editions of the Greek Textus Receptus
and Hebrew Masoretic text, are subject to minute errors
and cannot be relied upon as a final authority. All Greek and
Hebrew texts are one-man editions and as such are subject to
corrections (whether minute or massive) by the Holy Bibles
handled by the aggregate priesthood o f believers, according to
Dr. Jack Moorman and Dean John Burgon. (See chapter, “The
Wobbly Unorthodox Greek Orthodox Crutch.)
INTRODUCTION 39
Vital Reading Tips
0 Each chapter is very different from every other chapter in

that each editor’s work and lifestyle was different. Taken
together they paint a picture of the mindset o f the men who
in the 19th and 20th centuries set out to destroy the Holy
Bible. If you turn on the radio today in the 21st century, their
words will penetrate your home and mind, through a
modern-day w olf in a sheep-skin suit. His bleat, ‘but in the
0 Greek,’ hides his w o lfs howl. After reading this book, the
astute reader will know to ask, “What Greek?” ...“Who was
the originator of the English word used to explain the
Greek?” ...“Why is the word changed from holy English to
such unholy anguish”?
0 Although an individual chapter is devoted to a discussion of

a particular Greek or Hebrew editor or lexicographer, most
chapters also contain one-of-a-kind discussions which apply
to all Greek and Hebrew texts and study tools. The chapters
in this book are therefore not exclusively about the subject
matter o f each chapter’s title. Important research dealing
with the thesis of this book is scattered throughout it and
placed in chapters as it was discovered during the many
years o f research and writing. So, for example, if you are
not interested in the serpent-man, R.C. Trench, read the
chapter for the other important research. Critical data is
woven throughout the book. Therefore each chapter should
be read for a full understanding o f the subject.
0 The discussion o f any particular topic is not limited to the

chapter whose title most obviously identifies it. There is
some intermeshing o f subject matter. Should the reader skip
chapters, he may miss the very discussion that will benefit
him the most or shed light on a topic only partially

discussed in another chapter. Sometimes a topic or view is
mentioned in one chapter, but the documentation to
demonstrate it may be given thoroughly in another.
0 That with which the reader at first may not agree or which
the reader may not understand will be rectified upon reading
the entire book. All questions have been anticipated and are
explained somewhere and in detail. Assuming, ‘the author
does not know or understand ‘something’ will only be
possible if the entire book is not read. I suggest reading the
book from the beginning to the end. If however one
particular editor is o f special interest to the reader, that
chapter might be read
first. No chapter stands
alone and all must be read
within the context o f the
whole book, as well as
that which was written in
New Age Bible Versions
and In Awe o f Thy Word.
0 The bold emphasis used

in this book (to aid
scanning) is the author’s
own, unless noted.
0 Throughout this book

reference is made to the
“Originall Greeke,” a
term and spelling used on
the title page o f the
original KJB of 1611. It
INTRODUCTION 41
represents a pure text consulted by the translators and now

readily and easily accessible through vernacular Bibles,
such as the KJB. The terms KJB and KJV are used
interchangeably.
0 Many chapters contain a helpful boxed summary. The

Epilogue at the end o f the book provides a brief summary.
0 Be patient while reading Part I, “The Confessions o f a

Lexicographer.” It contains many revealing and important
direct quotes from professional lexicographers whose
writings are touched here and there with technical lingo.
The rest o f the book is as simple as can be, I assure you, and
is much more interesting. It was important at the outset to
show that professional lexicographers, although certainly
not proponents o f the KJB, would strenuously dissuade
Christians from using Strong’s, Vine’s, or the other
available Bible study tools. The title o f this chapter,
“Hazardous Materials,” came from the premier
lexicographer o f our day, Frederick Danker. He wrote an
essay entitled, “Lexical Evolution and Linguistic Hazard.”
It accompanies the warnings of other lexicographers in the
new release, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography.
The warnings in Part 1 are not mine, but those of the
world’s leading scholars in the area o f New Testament
study.
Christ left the glories o f heaven to rescue perishing souls.

Jeremiah sank in the mire to warn erring Israel. Paul spent three
days in the deep to reach the lost. To help the confused, Stephen
stood the barrage o f pounding stones, until he was finally killed.
Will you put down the remote control, the surfing mouse, and
the ringing cell phone and relax in the comfortable reading chair
God gave you to plod through the documentation in this book,
s o t h a t y o u c a n t h e n h e l p a C h r i s t i a n i t y t h a t is h e a d i n g s w i f t l y
o u t o n a ro u g h a n d tr e a c h e ro u s w a v e ? G o d h a s g iv e n u s a m u c h
e a s ie r jo b th a n M a r in e C o rp s b o o t cam p and it h a s g o ld e n
e te rn a l re w a rd s .
Who Will Benefit From This Book?
o k n o w le d g e o f G re e k o r H e b re w is r e q u i r e d t o r e a d
N th is b o o k . G re e k w o rd s a re a v o id e d a lm o s t e n tire ly .
G re e k a n d H e b re w fo n ts a re g e n e ra lly n o t u s e d so th a t
th e f lo w o f r e a d in g is n o t in te r r u p te d f o r r e a d e r s w h o
a re n o t c o n v e rs a n t in th e s e la n g u a g e s . Y o u w ill fin d th a t re a d in g
m o s t o f th e b o o k is a s e a s y a s r e a d in g th e n e w s p a p e r . I h a v e
d o n e a l l o f t h e G r e e k w o r k f o r t h e r e a d e r . (For 22 years 1 have been
examining such materials — uninterrupted— for at least 8 hours a day. No Greek professor or
translator has had that time latitude. I began at the age of 13 with a private tutor of classical
language. By the time I was 18, 1 was hired to teach English to Greek-speaking immigrants. For
over 30 years I have waded through thorny Greek briars to rescue tangled sheep, brought near
the precipice of unbelief by Greek and Hebrew study tools. There is nothing about the Greek
New Testament that 1 did not see before most of my critics were bom, as I am now in my
sixties.).
A lth o u g h it m a y ta k e a b it o f tim e to r e a d th is b o o k , it is a
tim e - s a v e r. I h a v e s p e n t y e a r s a n d y e a rs r e a d in g a ll o f th e h a rd -
to -fin d books w ritte n by th e a u th o rs o f G re e k and H e b re w
le x ic o n s a n d e d itio n s , so th a t r e a d e r s c o u ld q u ic k ly g a th e r a ll o f
th e c ritic a l m a te ria l fr o m one so u rce. T h e fo o tn o te s p ro v id e
re s e a rc h re s o u rc e s fo r fu r th e r s tu d y .
T h is b o o k is w r it te n f o r th e f o llo w in g a u d ie n c e s :
O rd in a r y C h ris tia n s w h o h a v e h e a r d p e o p le s a y , “ T h e G re e k
s a y s ,” a n d w o n d e r e d i f p e r h a p s th e ir B ib le m ig h t b e w r o n g
o r i f th e y s h o u ld g e t s o m e b o o k s o n th e s u b je c t so th a t th e y
c o u ld b e tte r u n d e r s ta n d th e B ib le .
INTRODUCTION 43
G o o d p a sto rs w h o h av e ta k e n a little G re e k in c o lle g e o r

h a v e a c c e ss to so m e re fe re n c e b o o k s w ith G re e k d e fin itio n s
o f B ib le w o rd s a n d re fe r to th e m w h e n th e y feel th e y n e e d
to d e fin e a w o rd o r e x p o u n d a tex t. T h e y h a v e h e a rd th o se
th e y re s p e c t d o th is a n d a ssu m e th a t th e ir so u rc e s are c o rre c t
a n d h elp fu l.
C h ristia n s w h o ca re a b o u t th e B ib le a n d w h o w a n t to b e
a rm e d w ith e v id e n c e to h e lp th o se w h o w ill d e m e a n it
th ro u g h a g g re ssiv e m e a n s, a p a th y , o r a little ‘G re e k ’ h e re
a n d th ere .
K JB d e fe n d e rs w h o n e e d a m m u n itio n th a t w ill th w a rt
p ra c tic a lly e v e ry fa lse c h a rg e a g a in s t th e K JB .
B ib le c o lle g e p a s to rs , p ro fe ss o rs, stu d e n ts a n d th e ir p a re n ts,

w h o h a v e w o n d e re d w h y th e ‘s tu d y ’ o f th e w o rd s o f G o d in
th e B ib le h a s b e e n s w itc h e d to th e stu d y o f th e w o rd s o f
m e n in le x ic o n s, g ra m m a rs, a n d p rin te d o n e -m a n e d itio n s.
G re e k a n d H e b re w sch o lars, w h o lik ely w ill b e th e o n ly

o n e s w h o w ill re c o g n iz e all o f th e n a m e s o f th e e d ito rs
d is c u s s e d in th is b o o k a n d w h o h a v e n o t h a d th e tim e to
re s e a rc h th e ir w ritin g s a n d b e lie fs th o ro u g h ly .
B ib le critics, w h o w ill ig n o re th e e v id e n c e in th is b o o k like

th e p la g u e , b u t w ill n o w b e w ith o u t e x c u s e at th e ju d g m e n t.
The Purpose of This Book
In stin c tiv e ly m o st k n o w th a t n e w v e rsio n s w h ic h o m it

“th ro u g h h is b lo o d ” a n d “b y Je su s C h ris t” are w ro n g (e.g . C ol.
1:14 a n d E p h . 3:9 ). M a n y lik e w ise in s tin c tiv e ly se n se th a t
so m e th in g is a m iss w h e n th e y h ear, “ T h a t w o rd in G re e k really
m eans...” However, they have no way o f explaining why it is

wrong. This book will provide an explanation. The result o f a
thorough and careful study o f the material in this book should
be:
1.) To dispel the myth that the Greek and Hebrew study tools
available today provide clear and revealing light upon or
improvements to the Holy Bible. Yale University Press’s
book Lost For Words warns of, “a naive faith in the virtues
o f scholarship” (Lynda M ugglestone, L ost F or Words: The Hidden H istory o f the
O xford English Dictionary, New Haven: Y ale University Press, 2005, p. 28). This
book is meant to expose the shifting sands o f scholarship

and return faith to the solid rock, the Holy Bible.
2.) To dispel the myth that translations o f vernacular Bibles can

safely be made by leaning upon the currently available
Greek and Hebrew texts and lexicons.
3.) To discover the truth that the ‘translations’ in lexicons are

often done by a ‘traitor,’ as expressed by the similar Italian
words traduttore, traditore, meaning, translator, traitor.
4.) To discourage the study o f the Bible from the perspective of

the so-called ‘original’ languages.
5.) To keep the next generation from hearing from the pulpit,
“The Greek says,” to hearing once again what the old-time
preachers said, “The Bible says...” Hopefully the Greek
rush will become a holy hush.
Pastor R.B. Ouellette penned and preached the following

perceptive poem.
I heard the old-time preacher speak

without one reference to the Greek,
INTRODUCTION 45
“This precious Book within my hand

is G od’s own word on which I stand.”
And then the scholars came along

and said the preacher had it wrong:
“Conflations here, rescissions there,
and scribal errors everywhere.”
A book “essentially correct,”

but not in every last respect.
“A ‘fairly certain’ word,” they say,
“To light our path and guide our way.”
Then in despair I bowed by head.

“We have no word o f God,” I said.
“I f some o f this old Book is wrong,
pray tell, what else does not belong?”
Will still more manuscripts be found

to make us go another round?
Correcting, changing, taking out;
creating questions, fear and doubt?
Must more discoveries come to light

before we finally get it right?
Will precious doctrines fade away
because o f what the scholars say?
How many “errors” must we purge

because o f what the scholars urge?
How many versions must we make?
How many changes can we take?
How will we ever know w e’re through -

that we possess a scripture true?
If man must find G od’s word, my friend,
when will the changes ever end?
Then to the Book again I fled

to find out what my Father said.
“Forever settled.. .never fade” -
This promise God the Spirit made.
A thousands generations hence -

that seems a pretty strong defense.
A “perfect Book?” Then it must be
man can’t improve what God gave me.
We have a Book completely true,

instructing us in all we do.
Preserved by God, not found by men,
inscribed by God the Spirit’s pen.
If God or scholars you must choose,

be sure the “experts” always lose.
D on’t give to them a second look;
Just keep believing this old Book.
(Preached at W oodland Baptist Church, W inston-Salem , N C, M ay 1,

2007).
6.) To promote awe and reverence, once again, for the Holy
Bible, in the midst of the multiplicity o f versions and
opinions about what the ‘original’ languages are purported
to say.
7.) To dissuade Christians, pastors, and Bible colleges from

exposing themselves and others to the errors and potential
heresies inherent in the minds and writings o f the authors of
Greek and Hebrew lexicons and texts. Regarding his former
spiritual blindness, even Paul had to admit, “I did it
ignorantly...” (1 Tim. 1:13). Hopefully many will quit
repeating “That word in Greek really m eans...,” start
thinking, and resume focusing solely on the words of God,
instead o f human tradition. The wolves have howled for so
long and so loudly that some may stand stunned and
continue serving as their sounding board. For these
INTRODUCTION 47
remaining few who have stopped all learning, lexicons fit

the bill o f a parrot perfectly.
8.) To alert pastors, parents and pupils about —
Certain College Creeps
“For there are certain men crept in unaw ares...”

Jude 4
N this book you will find out what happens behind the
I closed doors o f some college classrooms and closed

textbook covers. Liberal Bible school professors “fear the
people,” especially peering parents and pastors (Matt. 21:26).
Like Judas, they must “betray him ...in the absence o f the
multitude” (Luke 22:6).
“ [T]he scribes the same hour sought to lay hands

on him; and they feared the people...and they
watched him, and sent forth spies, which should
feign themselves just men, that they might take
hold o f his w ords... And they could not take hold
o f his words before the people” (Luke 20:19-26).
The eminent colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and

Cambridge began as religious schools for the preparation of
ministers. Today they are “the habitation o f devils, and the hold
o f every foul spirit, and a cage o f every unclean and hateful
bird” brain (Rev. 18:2; for an update contact Dr. John Hinton at
jhinton@post.harvard.edu). What caused the downfall o f these
schools? It certainly was not their King James Bibles.
Yet today fresh-faced young men leave home for Bible

college, packing little but a change of clothes and their Holy
Bible. With each passing year a growing pile of books has been
stacked upon their now seldom read and less revered Holy
Bibles. When they graduate it becomes a church ornament,
outshone by a mile o f commentaries and lexicons. How did this
all happen? The answer: Greek and Hebrew study. Period.
These termites are quietly and slowly chewing away at the
churches’ one foundation. They did not enter through the light
of the front door, but lurk on the meaty wooden library shelves
of pastors and colleges, lying wait to devour, first the pine, then
the pulp of the Bible’s pages.
But sadly, the material uncovered in this book has never

been investigated before, even by the people who teach from or
use these Greek and Hebrew tools every day. The real peril to
anyone who stands and teaches is an ignorance of his own
ignorance and a claim to be an authority in an area about which
his knowledge is incomplete. A person must first be a learner
before he is a teacher.
Why This Book?
As a former college professor at a secular university, I must

admit that college students hold a special place in my heart. My
daring adventures while telling students about salvation through
Jesus Christ could fill a thrilling book. Young students are very
open to new information, both good and bad. (I too received
Jesus Christ as my Saviour while in college.) Students are
frighteningly vulnerable, away from parents and familiar
safeguards. They are also quite vulnerable, when confronted by
an eloquent and persuasive professor.
When my own daughter and her fiance, an evangelist for the

KJB, enrolled in Christian colleges for the first time, I
discovered first-hand exactly what concerned parents had been
calling about. Both went to church-based schools where the
INTRODUCTION 49
pastors and their churches were perfect. How much safer could
it get? Surprisingly, my daughter brought home a textbook that
falsely charged that the word “candle” in the KJB was incorrect
because, according to the author, ‘there were no candles in
Bible times.’ The lexicon author who invented that lie is
discussed in an upcoming chapter. I showed my daughter two
standard secular encyclopedia which confirm the KJB reading:
“Candle was man’s chief source o f light for at

least 2,000 years [i.e. 39 B.C. said in
1961]....Crude candles made o f fats wrapped in
husks or moss were used before the time of
Christ” (The W orld B ook Encyclopedia, Chicago, IL: Field
Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1961, vol. 3, p. 137, s.v. Candle).
“ ...a cylindrical rod o f solid fatty or waxy

matter, enclosing a central fibrous wick, and
designed to be burnt for giving light. The oldest
materials employed for making candles are
beeswax and tallow...W axlights (cereus, sc.
funis) were known to the Romans” (Encyclopedia
Brilannica, NY: Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 5, 1910, eleventh edition,
p. 178, s.v. Candle).
The good pastor got rid of the bad textbooks. But with no
nearby Bible colleges to complete her degrees, my daughter
switched to an accounting major via ‘safe’ distance learning.
Surely the accounting textbooks, written by unsaved reprobate
professors, would not try to steal her Bible from her word-by-
word.
Later, her fiance received an e-mail from his professor at a

different Bible college. It quipped, “I have never said we have a
perfect innerrant [sic] Bible.” The debate was on and the
professor’s views (and spelling) were no match for this young
man, his parents, or his pastor. Both of these incidents hinged

upon what a word ‘meant’ in the Bible. How had professors and
Christian textbook authors gotten the idea that the words in the
KJB were wrong? The ulterior motive may b e ...
“We will not have this man to reign over us”

Luke 19:14.
These episodes and an uncanny series of events prompted

me to resurrect this book project, which had been started many
years earlier but was dropped due to the sensational discoveries
that were made. Much must remain unsaid or tempered due to
its sensitive character. Although highly censored, the sections of
this book about Liddell and his strange ‘friend’ Dodgson, as
well as the section about W estcott’s strange ‘friend’ Vaughan,
are best reserved for adults only. Hopefully the research herein,
if read, will send a wise warning so that yet another generation
of students and their Holy Bibles will not be subject to such
attacks. The church can only use so many accountants.
Young soldiers, the same age as college students, fight in

very dangerous situations; some are killed in action. Even
young men who stay home and attend secular universities are
not free from danger. At VA Tech many students were killed on
campus by a deranged gunman. Yet Jesus said, “ Fear not them
which kill the body...” (Matt. 10:28). To God, the eternal soul
is more important than the temporal body. Therefore the
greatest danger of all is faced by young men who are stalked by
wolves who hide behind a sheepskin at an apostate ‘Bible’
college. Their sheep’s skin was taken from a Christian whose
faith in the Bible was killed by their teacher or textbook. Both
are waiting to torch a word in the Bible and set off a firestorm
of doubt. A wolf cannot devour sheep unless he is among them.
The serial soul-killers are lurking on bookshelves, in
INTRODUCTION 51
bookstores, in Bible software, and on the poisonous spider’s

‘w eb.’ These wolves whisper behind closed doors, “That word
in Greek really m eans...” The student thinks, “If it ‘means’
that, why doesn’t my Bible say thatV
Greek grammars and lexicons do not teach Greek. They

teach unbelief. Young Bible school students are given an
assignment to translate a portion of a book o f the Bible. A
floodgate o f lexical definitions and textual variants soon pours
into their souls. Each student’s translation is bound to be
different, as “Every man did that which was right in his own
eyes” (Judges 17:6). By changing the Bible the young men have
just destroyed their weapon o f defense, the word o f God, which
is the sword of the Spirit. They have lost the most important
thing in the world, even more important than their lives. They
have lost confidence in the Holy Bible. Had a fellow student
handed them drugs or pornography, the sword o f the Spirit,
their Bibles, would have helped them keep it at bay. But if the
devil can take away their swords, they are defenseless from any
attack. The gullible young men may travel through life and
never use drugs, steal, or kill anyone, but once he begins
questioning the Bible, he has succumbed to the very same sin
that tempted Adam and Eve, led to the downfall o f the entire
human race, and turned the garden of Eden into the garden o f
weedin.’ The professor may just as well have shown the
students pornography and proclaimed, “The ‘original’ Eve
actually looked like this. Your wife’s version is inferior.”
Lexicons have the exact same destructive effect and are, in
effect, ‘Christian’ pornography.
Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of

the truth, the Bible students, so led, will continue to collect
Software and books “to make one wise” and “be as gods,
knowing” more than God has directly said in his word. They
have now joined the serpent’s side with the battle cry, “Yea,
hath God said...?” The AIDS disease was originally called
GRID (Gay Related Immune Disorder). Another GRID (Greek
Related Immune Disorder) contaminates students, lowering
their immunity to heresy.
If a doctor told a student he had cancer cells, even though

the young man could not foresee their future destructive power,
he would be unwise not to have them removed. Removing such
cankered professors and textbooks from arms reach of
impressionable young men seems to be God s safest plan. And
their word will eat as doeth a canker... (2 Tim. 2.17). Read
on—
Dead Professors Don’t Lie:

A Story of the Dunking Booth That Became the Deep Sea
POOR little boy named Johnny was faithfully picked
A up for church every Sunday for many years by a kindly

bus worker. He was given a Bible, received Jesus
Christ as his Saviour, and grew in his Christian walk. He
continued attending this strong KJB church and had no
problems clutching his beloved Bible. Although his unsaved
parents gave him no support in his new Christian life, he
worked hard and saved to go to the well-known Three-Ring
Seminary, Clown College. In class he met the hirelings,
painted-up as Professors Priê, Cash, and Dollar. Like Judas,
they held a bag o f translation tricks, balancing them high above
the words in Johnny’s Holy Bible. Like clowns, they made the
students laugh by mocking those who promoted the KJB. Their
rosy-red clown noses grew like Pinocchio’s as they pretended,
“That word in Greek really m eans...” They made the KJB look
‘funny’ by sending students down the Midway between the NIV
INTRODUCTION 53
and the KJB. Each year Johnny came home from college, not
happy and excited, but with more and more questions and
doubts about the Holy Bible he had been given by the godly bus
worker. The clowns had taught him how to aptly juggle a pile of
Greek and Hebrew lexicons, but he dropped his awe for his
Holy Bible before he left. After graduation he told someone, “I
don’t know where the Bible is.” His painted smile, like all
Clown graduates, is now being used by Satan to deceive
listeners who will look at his hall o f mirrors to see a distorted
image o f God’s word. Do not be lured by the kissing booth
advertising this school’s Fun House. Remember Judas betrayed
Jesus with a kiss. He was not a creepy killer, just a sneaky
kisser.
This is not funny; it is a true story o f the three-ring circus

surrounding Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Have you ever
noticed that the clown’s wide circular collar looks just like a
millstone? Jesus does not think that Clown College is funny. He
warned,
“But whoso shall offend one o f these little ones

which believe in
me, it were better
for him that a
millstone were
hanged about his
neck, and that he
were drowned in
the depth o f the
sea” (Matt. 18:6).
Walking the dangerous tightrope between KJB words and

lexicon words can lead to a disastrous falling away. Looking
away from the straight and narrow for a deeper look will drown
men in destruction.
(The names o f the student, professors, and college in this true story have b e e rid .
AV Publications for a list o f good Bible schools to attend or those to avoid. To be added to the
list o f 'g o o d ' colleges, submit a letter that all fa cu lty affirm that the King James Bible
inspired, inerrant w ord o f God.)
Many years ago Herman Hoskier, renowned collator of

Bible manuscripts, said o f textual criticism,
“This is just the kind of thing which seems to be

misleading the Oxford school, and, in lectures,
causing them to unsettle rather than settle their
youthful hearers in the W ord...It is then nothing
short of a crime for men in responsible Christian
chairs to unsettle their hearers...” (Herm an Hoskier,
Concerning the Genesis o f the Versions o f the New Testament, London:
Bernard Quartich, 1910, pp. 94, 95).
My burden for college students has led me to pray daily that

those who lie to them would repent, and should they refuse,
their lies would be silenced. Perhaps they should pursue other
jobs where their talent for lying would do no spiritual hann.
Selling used cars might be the logical position. The Lord has
chosen to stop several professors and Bible doubters in their
tracks, sending some for rehabilitation to used car lots, where
lying has strict legal consequences.
The people who fill the pews have no quarrel with their
Holy Bible; the asides it receives come from higher education,
where the books of men stack higher than the word o f God. The
Bible says to set those who are least esteemed in the church to
judge matters (1 Cor. 6:4). But there seems to be a fleshly
tendency in the body of Christ to be like “Diotrephes, who
loved to have the preeminence” (3 John 9). There is more of a
INTRODUCTION 55
desire to look intelligent, than a desire to be spiritual. There is a

tendency to ignore the verses which say, “Mind not high things,
but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own
conceits” (Rom. 12:16).
Yea, hath God said? The Bible is dead?
Some have a God who just speaks Greek.

To read his word his face to seek
they need a book that’s all in Greek.
A single word they cannot speak.
Yet swelling words their heads do seek
to puff them up, confound the weak.
These men are wise in their conceits;
They’re sure they’re Popes, without the seats.
There are few words in the KJB that might need to be

defined by a Bible teacher. Even rebellious Balaam said, “I
cannot go beyond the word of the LORD... (Num. 22.18).
Even Jesus did not add to or correct the words the Father had
given him (See John 12:49, 50; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14). The Lord’s
day was never meant to be a day o f “speaking thine own words
(Isa. 58:13). Yet many sermons are sure to re-defme or correct
at least one Bible word, even if the word used to define it is
more difficult that the original. This drive to define a Bible
word in every sermon is based on Bible college textbooks that
list the so-called ‘necessary parts o f a sermon.’ They are told,
with no scriptural basis, that defining words is one o f the four
parts o f exegesis (the so-called interpretation o f the Bible). Let
us relieve the Bible student and teacher from this unscriptural
burden. The Bible says, “Preach the word.” Period.
(Hermeneutics, the study o f the principles o f the interpretation o f scripture,

is named after the pagan Greek “god” Hermes. Has anyone who teaches or
studies this subject ever considered just ‘w ho’ this study is named after? The
Oxford Classical Dictionary says Hermes was known for “divination.” “ [H]e
leads the dead to Hades” ...“he was skilled in trickery and deception...[H ]e
is attested as trickster and thief...but most often he uses his power in
mischief, illusion, and m ystery...[H ]e puts on his feet sandals which erase
footprints.. .Like a magician he knows how to put the enemy camp to sleep.’
INTRODUCTION 57
“Hermes charmed him to sleep with the sound o f his flute and cut o ff his
head.” Hermes promoted bestiality and was the messenger for the god Zeus
(a type o f Satan). Hermeneutics, as taught today in liberal Bible colleges,
scarcely brings a message from the God o f Christianity. Hermes sends
students on a wild goose chase to find Z eus’s interpretation o f G od’s
message, using Greek lexicons, based generally on the writings o f the pagan
Greeks (The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1996, p. 690, s.v. Hermes; Elizabeth Hallam, Gods and Goddesses, NY:
Macmillan, 1996, p. 132).
Final Exam
HO loved Hermes and also made the following
W statement promoting the so-called originals over the

KJB?
“In the King James’ version, as it stands

translated, it has no resemblance what ever to the
original...And yet Septuagint [Greek], Vulgate,
and Hebrew original, have all to be considered
as an inspired Word of God.’’
Was it a good pastor, a media preacher, or a knowledgeable

scholar? Although they all express this view when they correct
the Bible, this quote is not from them. It is from the arch-Satan
worshipper o f the late 1800s, Madame Helena P. Blavatsky (h .p .
Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, W heaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1972, orig. 1877,
This book will reveal such astonishing ties to the
vol. 2, p. 495).
father o f lies. Yet how many good pastors have said, “the
original actually says”? Have Greek and Hebrew study tools
become the 67,h book o f the Bible?
“They believed not his word” (Ps. 106:24).

Part I
Problems with Greek Lexicons
& Greek Grammars:
C o n f e s s io n s
of a Lexicographer
World’s Leading Greek Scholars
Warn of Faulty Greek-English
Bible Study Tools*.
- Lexicon Death Certificates —Signed by the Doctors
■ The 7 Deadly Sins: How Dictionaries Are Made
Paying Penance Today for the Liddell-Scott Lexicon
■ The Battle: The Spirit vs. The Desires of the Flesh &
of the Mind
■ Mortal Sins: Living Verbs Wounded in Grammars
■ Metzger’s Lexical Aids and Greek Text Are Deadly.

Nuggets From the Greek or Fools Gold?
LEXICON DEATH CERTIFICATE 59
Chapter 2
Death Certificate —
Signed by the Doctors
Dr. John Chadwick:

Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon Supplement
Dr. John Lee

Moulton-Milligan’s
Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament (Revision)
Dr. Frederick Danker

Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich
Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament
“L e x ic a l E v o lu tio n a n d L in g u is tic Hazard”
fo r Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography
Dr. William Johnson

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
Dr. Rykle Borger

Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestiicke
Bible Dictionaries & Lexicons: Dead on Arrival
reek and Hebrew lexicons, infected by the unhealthy
G minds of their authors, have contaminated modem

bible versions, Bible study tools, and Bible
dictionaries with their hazardous material. These same lexicons
have been carriers, causing outbreaks o f doubt about the words
in the King James Bible. The epidemic can only be cured by
closely examining the serial soul-killing sources. Behind closed
doors, the doctors of lexicography have identified the parasites.
In fact they have declared the body o f Greek and Hebrew study
tools terminal. Their death certificates have already been
signed. A chapter in this book is reserved for obituaries for each
of the popular dictionaries including Strong, Vine, Thayer,
Zodhiates, Moulton-Milligan, Trench, Vincent, Wuest, Kittel,
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Metzger, Liddell-Scott,
Gesenius, Brown, Driver, Briggs and their modem carriers.
Fanning their pages will not revive them. Wise Christian
pallbearers will bury them before their evil smell takes the
breath of the Spirit away.
Lexicons “Cannot Be Relied On”
The experts announced —
“ [W]e cannot know for certain that what we find

in front of us when we look up a word is sound.
“ [A]ll the existing lexical entries in all our
dictionaries are now o b s o l e t e ” John Lee, Lexicographer
The men who make the study of Greek-English New

Testament Lexicons (Dictionaries) their life’s work fill this
chapter to overflowing with warnings. The men at the very top
of this field include John Chadwick of the University of
Cambridge, John Lee o f Sidney Australia’s Macquarie

University, Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, as well as
Rykle Borger, William Johnson, Terry Roberts, and Frederick
Danker. Chadwick, Lee, and Danker have been charged with
‘correcting’ the standard lexicons o f Liddell-Scott, Moulton-
Milligan, and Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, used naively by
Christians and others to explore the meanings o f New
Testament words. Their original errors were copied by Strong,
Vine, Thayer, Zodhiates, Wuest, Vincent, all Bible study tools,
and modem versions. Professional linguists sound the following
alarms, warning naive Christians that:
1. Bible dictionaries and lexicons contain “guesswork” and

“cannot be relied on.”
2. Bible dictionaries and lexicons are generally created by
“Raids on other dictionaries.”
3. Bible dictionaries and lexicon definitions are “obsolete.”
4. Bible dictionaries and lexicon definitions are often taken
from Bible “translations” and “commentaries.”
The book Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography

serves as an inner circle confessional where faults are freely
confessed and penance is paid later by those who purchase
Bible study tools. Typical is one chapter called “Lexical
Evolution and Linguistic Hazard” by Frederick Danker, editor
of the A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, a highly corrupt lexicon
followed by many new versions and Bible study tools. Danker
confesses, “lexicography is more o f an art than a craft...” As
this book will reveal this ‘art’ is more akin to deconstructionist
modem art than to the exquisitely crafted Holy Bible. How firm
are the definitions in lexicons? Danker confesses about his own
lexicon, “Sometimes debate continued for several mailings,
interlaced with linguistic horse trading...” In other words,

linguists working together as a team may not even agree on the
‘definition’ of a word (Bernard A. Taylor, John A.L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and
Richard E. W hitaker, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, Grand Rapids, MI: W illiam
B. Eerdm ans Publishing Company, 2004, pp. 25, 7).
Some of the following professional secrets were first aired

at the annual meeting o f the closed-door Society o f Biblical
Literature. The following are mere snippets from the thorough
writings of these men, which should be examined in whole.
Insider’s Secrets: John Lee
Coming clean, John A.L. Lee, contributing editor of Biblical

Greek Language and Lexicography and the forthcoming revised
Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament,
spills the beans at the Society o f Biblical Literature regarding
the use o f Greek study tools to define Bible words,
“ [T]here is the problem o f the quality o f the

coverage. It is simply a fact that what has been
done so far cannot be relied on. This does not
mean that it is all badly wrong; it does mean that
until a thorough check has been done, both to
eliminate the mistakes of the past and to use the
full resources now available, we cannot know
for certain that what we find in front of us
when we look up a word is sound’’ (Taylor, pp. xi,
72).
“Lexicons are regarded by their users as

authoritative, and they put their trust in them.
Lexicons are reference books presenting a
compressed, seemingly final statement of fact,
LEXICON DEATH CERTIFICATE
with an almost legal weight. The mere fact that

something is printed in a book gives it authority,
as far as most people are concerned. And
understandably: if one does not know the
meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust
the only means o f rescue from ignorance. Yet
this trust is misplaced. The concise, seemingly
authoritative statement o f meaning can, and often
does, conceal many sins - indecision,
compromise, imperfect knowledge,
guesswork, and above all, dependence on
predecessors. Lexicographers have to make a
decision and put down a definite statement, and
they are fallible like everyone else. But the
ordinary user has no means of knowing where
the mistakes have been made, where the
ignorance has been covered up, what has been
lifted from somewhere else without checking,
and so on.”
“To put it more bluntly: there are gaps

everywhere, and even those things that seem to
have been done have not been done as well as
they could, and need reassessment. In saying
this, my intention is not to denigrate everything
that exists, but to honestly assess the present
situation, so that we can go forward” (Taylor, pp. 66,
67).
“Let us take first the NT [New

Testam ent]...there is the fact that even the latest
lexicons derive their material from their
predecessors, and a great deal o f it has been
passed on uncritically over the course of

centuries. Thirdly, there is an aspect that I think
is not well known: meanings given in the NT
lexicons are by glosses from the contaminated
standard translations, going back as far as the
Vulgate. There is a fourth tendency which has
become evident to me lately: NT lexicons are
unsystematic in their control o f other
discussions, and may or may not take up useful
contributions to the understanding o f the
meaning. All this mainly concerns the major
lexicon series of our time, Bauer (1828, 6l ed.
1988) and its offshoots in English” (T ay io r,P. 69).
“NT lexical tradition...would benefit from a

thorough rethinking” (Taylor, P. 70).
“The NT is more difficult because existing

lexicons are generally regarded as the last word.
Nevertheless, all is not well with the NT lexical
tradition, and long-term plans for a complete
overhaul are needed” (Taylor, p. 73).
“For the present, if we do nothing else, we can at

least recognize the true state of affairs in
Ancient Greek lexicography and be cautious’
(Taylor, p. 74).
Lee’s prop to bolster bookshelves bowing with bad Bible

study tools is to patch them with even more decaying materials
from secular Egyptian papyri. Lee will take the time-worn faces
of Moulton and Milligan and engrave a few more lines from
scrawled Egyptian inscriptions, then add a new dusty jacket
scrawled on the sands o f the Sahara. As this book will

demonstrate, each indolent generation plagiarizes the past, then
tweaks their work (during commercials) to bolster their claim to
‘scholarship.’ It is repeated generation after generation, each
claiming that only their private interpretation is the correct one.
It is propelled in academic circles by the ‘Publish or Perish’
syndrome, where positions, promotions and raises are based
almost entirely on one’s list o f publications.
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the

knowledge o f the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).
Insider’s Secrets: John Chadwick
John Chadwick o f the University o f Cambridge is today’s

leading expert on the original source o f all lexicon ‘definitions,’
the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. He warns students o f
the dangers of defining words with standard lexicons in his new
Oxford University Press expose, Lexicographica Graeca.
Chadwick cautions,
“The essential precept to bear constantly in mind

is the need for exercising sober judgment, and
adopting a skeptical attitude towards every
assertion which cannot be proved by satisfactory
evidence. This is true o f all forms o f scholarship,
but it is never more necessary than in the
practice of Greek lexicography” (John Chadwick,
Lexicographica Graeca, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 29-
30).
Later in this chapter some o f Chadwick’s charges against

the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon will be fully presented.
Insider’s Secrets: William Johnson
William Johnson is a world-class Classicist (a professor

who studies and teaches the classics written in Greek and
Latin). He was a foundational contributor to the world-
renowned digital lexicon Thesaurus Linguae Graecae When
comparing Greek lexicons with Latin, he contrasts the precise
information” he is able to find in Latin-English lexicons, but the
“fundamentally flawed” state o f Greek-English lexicons. Often
the Greek “definition is simply wrong,” he explains:
“ ...one turns to Greek. We have not walked into

a slum exactly, but the buildings are more
closely spaced, the porch banisters often rickety,
the lawns not so well kept. Approaching the
dictionary, a Hellenist must remain cautious and
light on the feet. Often enough none of the
translation equivalents is exact for a given
context; sometimes the definition is simply
wrong; glosses are rather frequently
w r o n g . . . and the overview one gets o f the word
can be fundamentally flawed, since,
lexicographical practice aside, the passages
considered by the lexicographer were too few
and too skewed in the types of material. And
then there is the problem of the outmoded
lexicographic technique itself’ (Taylor, P. m
Insider’s Secrets: Rykle Borger
In Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography Rykle

Borger, renown for his work in cuneiform studies and Akkadian
grammar, pleads that New Testament textual criticism —
“ ...has been detrimental to Christian virtues. It

has turned out to be a breeding-ground o f rabies
theologorum. It should be abolished for ethical
r e a s o n s ” (Taylor, pp. 46-47).
He charges, “The sins committed by biblical scholars in

connection with the Greek NT are far too numerous” (Taylor, PP. 46,
47).
O ut-of date:
Strong, Vine, Zodhiates, Thayer, Wuest, Vincent, Moulton,

Milligan, & Trench
Modem lexicographers can clearly see the bald errors in

today’s lexicons. Lexicographers inform us that “the life o f a
printed dictionary has been approximately twenty years” (Taylor, P.
ix). Soured and moving past the expiration date are all
dictionaries usually used by Christians, including Strong’s

Concordance Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, Vine’s Expository
Dictionary o f the Old and New Testament, Moulton and
Milligan’s Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament,
Perschbacher’s New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Kubo’s A
Reader’s Greek English Lexicon o f the New Testament,
Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, W uest’s Word
Studies in the Greek New Testament, Zodhiates Hebrew-Greek
Key Study Bible and Complete Word Study Dictionary. Kittel’s
Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, Bauer, Danker,
Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon o f the New
Testament, the Greek-English lexicons o f Thayer, Liddell-Scott-
Jones and all the others. Yet the man-centered minds o f today’s
scholars think that the solution is more secular data matched
with their minds. Today, lexicographers are drawing on the
digital Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, an electronic data base of
ancient Greek texts. John Lee admits “this development brings

about a major shift in Greek lexicography” (T ay io r,P. 67). This data
base was not available to earlier writers of lexicons, therefore
Lee concludes,
“[Consequently all the existing lexical entries in

all our dictionaries are now obsolete and await
reassessment in the light o f the full evidence to
be added” (Taylor, p p .6 7 ,68).
Even the top professional lexicographers would toss out the

lexicons of Strong, Vine, Wuest, Zodhiates, Vincent, Kittel,
Liddell-Scott, Bauer, Thayer, Moulton, and Milligan. (No doubt
some o f the criticism by these liberal lexicographers is
misdirected at a few straggling KJB words still seen in some
lexicons, as jewels among the mountains o f mire.)
How stable and reliable is even the latest so-called research?

It is apparently not even worth the paper on which it is printed.
Lexicographers believe that lexicon entries should change
continually. What they ‘thought’ was a ‘definition’ yesterday,
may not be the definition they use today. Danker said,
“Indeed, the speed with which new discoveries,

including papyri and epigraphs, cry for
scholars’ attention will probably call into
question the very idea of a printed NT, not to
speak of OT, lexicon” (Taylor, p. 28).
(W ithout the trumped-up need and the imagined “cry for scholars,
lexicographers would be out o f work and would have no books to sell.)
Given the ever-changing theories o f scholars, Chadwick

says that any printed lexicon is subject to error
“A continuously progressive lexicon should be

created, probably at one location with on-line
facilities for consultation at a distance” (Chadwick, p.
28 ).
Danker parrots Darwin’s evolutionary model despite the

hazards and missing links:
“Changes in language are such that bilingual

dictionaries [e.g. Greek-English] cannot lay
claim to permanence. Their very genre is subject
to an inexorable evolutionary process. Changing
patterns in receptor languages, as well as the
appearance o f new data, require constant
revision of dictionaries or lexicons devoted
especially to biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Hazards connected with such an enterprise are
many, as becomes readily apparent in this paper”
(Taylor, p. 1).
Conclusion — avoid the hazardous materials:
“ [MJeddle not with them that are given to

change” (Prov. 24:21).
Their Final Conclusion = No Conclusions
“every man did that which was right in his own

eyes” Judges 17:6
In the end scholars simply want the reader to “make his or

her own decisions about the meanings o f words” rather than
take definitions dogmatically from a lexicon. Danker says his
lexicon “opens the door to the reader’s own innovative
translation” (Tayio r,p p . 19, 16, 82). In other words, he admits that there
is no such thing as the ‘meaning’ of a Greek word.
The conclusion that must be drawn is that lexicographers,

past and present, do not agree with each other. The claim, That
word in Greek actually means’ is made only by Greek dabblers,
not by seasoned lexicographers. The word imbedded and held
for centuries by the hand of God among the crown jewels in the
King James Bible is what God said and what he meant. The
diamonds in the context surrounding each word shine their light
to illuminate each word (Ps. 36:9).
VIP: Greek Textual Base
When a Greek word is defined in a lexicon, it is invariably

the Greek word in the corrupt Greek text o f Westcott-Hort,
Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society, not the Greek word
seen in Received Text Bibles and any edition o f the Textus
Receptus. Since most who use these tools do not know the
differences between these two text types at every point and
cannot really read the Greek words, they will be unaware that
they are being given the definition o f the wrong Greek word!
For example, Rev. 15:3 says, “King o f saints” in the KJB and
the Received Text. The corrupt texts and modem versions say
either “King o f ages” or “King o f nations.” Therefore the
lexicon’s definition will be given for the Greek word aion (e.g.
ages, NIV) or ethnos (e.g. nations, NASB), not the Greek word,
hagios (saints, KJB). For this reason alone, all lexicons and
Bible study ‘helps’ should be buried to prevent the spread of
their deadly hazards. This includes all lexicons, as well as all
Greek grammar books. Complete autopsies of their dead works
follow in this book.
C h apter 3
The Seven Deadly Sins
How Bible Dictionaries

& Lexicons
Are Made:
Pagan Greeks • Egyptian Papyri • Catholic ‘Fathers’
German-Latin Lexicons
Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon
Plagiarism
By All Bible Study Tools
& Lexicons
Corrupt Bible Versions

Hazardous Material:
Poison Passed From the Past
to the Present
Pagan Greeks (Plato, Homer, et al.)
1
Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1843)
i
Catholic ‘Fathers’ & Heretics
4
Trench’s Synonyms o f the New Testament (1854)
I _
Revised Version (1881)
1
V incent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (1887)
1
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (1887)
I
Strong, Concordance with Greek-Hebrew Lexicon (1890)
American Standard Version (1901)

1
Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek
New Testament
I
Non-Literary Secular Egyptian Papyri
1
Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament
V ine’s Expository Dictionary o f the New Testament (1940)

I
W uest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (1940-1966)
i
Metzger, L e x ic a l Aids fo r Students o f New Testament Greek (1946)
Bauer, Danker, Arndt & Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon o f the New

Testament and Other Christian Literature
(translated from German in 1957, revised 1979, 2000)
Kittel (1933-1942) / translated from German by Bromiley

(1963-1974) as the Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament
Barkley, New Testament Words
Earl, Word Meanings in the New Testament

HOW BIBLE DICTIONARIES ARE MADE 73
Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text
Jenni, Theological Lexicon
Kubo, A Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament
Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament

Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary o f Old and New Testament
Words
Newman, Concise Greek-English Dictionary
Pennington, New Testament Greek Vocabulary
Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon
Renn, Expository Dictionary o f Bible Words
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament
Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New
Testament
Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible,

Complete Word Study Old and New Testament Dictionary
RSV, NIV, TNIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, CEV,

Good News For Modern Man, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, The
Message, New Living Translation, The Net Bible et al.
Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear
The Zondervan Greek-English Interlinear
Jay P. Green, The Interlinear Greek-English Bible,
Farstad, The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear
Mounce, Interlinear fo r the Rest o f Us: The Reverse Interlinear Metzger,
The Greek New Testament (with Concise Greek-English Dictionary)
The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader’s Edition (with Greek English
Dictionary) et al.
Mommy, Where Do Lexicons Come From?
his is a grave secret which babes in Christ are never
T told. Has anyone ever thought to inquire, ‘Where do

lexical writers get their English definitions and
translation equivalencies?’ The abominable “wings of a stork
bear them century after century (Lev. 11:13, 19 Zech. 5:9, 10 et
al.). In his book, Lexicographica Graeca, John Chadwick rips
down the facade exposing the shaky structure underlying word
‘meanings’ in Greek Bible study tools. They are built from. 1.)
plagiarizing the wobbly lexicons o f Liddell-Scott, Trench,
Thayer, Vincent, Strong or other early works which are no
longer under copyright (though these names seldom are
revealed in the ‘new ’ works,’ 2.) borrowing from corrupt bible
translations and commentaries, 3.) translating German-Latin
works, 4.) copying the ‘definitions’ in the Liddell-Scott Greek
English Lexicon of 1843, 5.) examining the usage o f the pagan
Greeks, 6.) ‘Catholic’ church ‘Fathers,’ early heretics, and 7.)
secular Egyptian papyri. With all o f the admitted plagiarizing, it
is not surprising that there is agreement among lexicons,
whereby certain word ‘meanings’ have become sacrosanct.
The following is a bird’s eye view of just a few o f the topics

that will be explored in depth in this book:
The Source of Today’s Bible Study Tools & Lexicons
Source #1: Plagiarism From Earlier Dictionaries
Chadwick frankly divulges that there are kleptos* writing

lexicons—
“ ...the two basic methods o f making a

dictionary. The first, the traditional and almost
universal method is take another man’s
dictionary and use it as the basis for one’s
ow n...[H ]e is unlikely to be accused of
infringing copyright; and it is often possible to
use dictionaries which have lost this protection.
Raids on other dictionaries will usually go
undetected, and the resulting compilation (a
revealing word to those who know its
etymology) will seem all the larger and more
impressive” [Skeat’s Dictionary o f English
Etymology says ‘compile’ comes from the root
‘pill’ from whence we get ‘pilferage,’ that is, ‘ to
steal’; *klepto is Greek for ‘steal’] (C hadw ick,P. 13).
Chadwick complains,
“The effort of making an unprejudiced analysis

o f the meanings o f a word is considerable; small
wonder that most scholars have found it easier
to rely on another’s opinion, especially if
enshrined in the dense print of a lexicon”
(Chadwick, p. 27).
Lexicographer Terry Roberts gives an example,
“Clearly, LN [Greek-English Lexicon o f the New

Testament Based on Semantic Domains by J.P.
Louw and E.A. Nida,] had some influence on
BDAG’s definitions. A reader familiar with the
terminology o f LN ’s definitions will recognize
the im pact...” [Bauer, Danker, Arndt and
Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature]

(Taylor, p. 61).
Roberts gives examples where Danker’s lexicon takes

material directly from LN. He notes that they were taken
“verbatim” (Taylor, p. 6 i). Danker confesses borrowing
definitions with the most eloquent euphemisms. He admits,
“their forward linguistic thrust has left its mark, along with
generously shared verbal echoes” (BDAG, xi, center).
■ Sakae Kubo’s A Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon admits,

“The meanings o f the words are by and large taken from
Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature translated
and adapted by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich.
Because Kubo follows the corrupt “Nestle-Aland text” he
falsely charges, “Mark 16:9-20 was not originally a part of
M ark...” (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1975, pp. vii, ix).
■ Where did Bruce ‘M etzger’ (means ‘butcher’ in German),

great grandfather o f all things Greek, get his definitions for
his lexicon, Lexical Aids fo r Students o f the New Testament
and his Greek New Testament, with Concise Greek-English
Dictionary? The list o f lexicons from which he took his
definitions, include Barclay Newman’s, A Concise Greek-
English Dictionary o f the New Testament. Newman says he
took English definitions from English translations of the
Bible, such as the Good News For Modern Man. Imagine a
Greek lexicon which takes its definitions from perhaps the
most insipid Bible version ever printed, instead o f it being
the other way around! Metzger also used the Catholic
lexicon by Franciscus Zorell, a man he calls a capable
Jesuit scholar.” Metzger also used Moulton and Milligan,
Liddell-Scott, Gerhard Kittel, and Arndt and Gingrich’s

translation of Bauer’s German-Greek lexicon. These men’s
works will be thoroughly exposed as faulty in this book (Bruce
M etzger, Lexical A ids F or Students o f the New Testament, Princeton, NJ: Bruce M. M etzger,
1976, 1946 edition p. 6).
Chadwick also writes of —
“centuries of tradition which have choked the

free exercise o f judgment and cluttered our
editions with useless erudition. As I have said, I
have a poor opinion of most of the notes on
words which have been handed down to us
from antiquity, and I believe they have exerted
far too great an influence on modem
C o m m e n t a t o r s (Chadwick, p. 27).
He writes o f “words which appear in dictionaries, being

often copied from one another” which are “a mistake o f some
kind” but “continues to appear in lexica.” He lists an example
and concedes, “I have no doubt that there are many more
awaiting exposure.” He warns that “If the first publication o f a
new document incorrectly identifies a word, it is very hard for
the lexicographer to escape from the wrong path” (Chadwick, PP. 13,
16).
They all agree that many seeming ‘nuggets’ in the Greek are
often fool’s gold from gold-brickers.
Source #2: Bible Versions, Commentaries, and Short

Synonym Dictionaries
New version editors and naive Bible students look to

lexicons for what they think are ‘advanced’ insights. How
shocking to discover that lexicons often take their ‘meanings’
fro m c o rru p t b ib le v e rs io n s th e m se lv e s. B a c k in 1958 th irte e n

p ro fe s s o rs w e re fire d , in c lu d in g th e e n tire N e w T e sta m e n t
fa c u lty at th e S o u th e rn B a p tis t T h e o lo g ic a l S e m in a ry in
L o u isv ille , K e n tu c k y . O n e o f th e fire d p ro fe sso rs, H e b e r R.
P e a c o c k p ic k e d B a rc la y M . N e w m a n , Jr. to c o m p ile , A Concise
Greek-English Dictionary o f the New Testament. N e w m a n s
m e th o d o lo g y is ty p ical:
N e w m a n ad m its h e b o rro w e d E n g lish w o rd s fro m th e

Revised Standard Version, th e Goodspeed tra n s la tio n , an d
th e Good News Bible New Testament. Im a g in e , le x ic o n s
d e riv in g th e ir w o rd s fro m th e se , th e w o rs t b ib le s th at h av e
e v e r b e e n h a tc h e d (Taylor, P. 93). T h e c h a p te rs o n V in e ’s a n d
S tro n g ’s d ic tio n a rie s d e m o n s tra te th a t th e ir so -c a lle d
‘d e fin itio n s ’ c a m e d ire c tly fro m th e v ile Revised Version
(1 8 8 1 ) a n d American Standard Version (1 9 0 2 ). T a k in g
w o rd s fro m c o rru p t b ib le s is a ty p ic a l p lo y of
le x ic o g ra p h e rs, as th is b o o k w ill re v eal.
N e w m a n b a se d h is le x ic o n o n W .F . M o u lto n a n d G e d e n s A
Concordance to the Greek Testament w h ic h is b a se d o n the
a d u lte ra te d G re e k te x ts o f “ W e stc o tt a n d H o rt, T is c h e n d o rf
a n d the English Revisers [Revised Version]’’ (T ay io r,PP. 93, 91).
In th e p re fa c e N e w m a n ad m its th a t “ m e a n in g s are g iv e n in
p re s e n t-d a y E n g lish , ra th e r th a n in a c c o rd w ith tra d itio n a l
e c c le s ia s tic a l te rm in o lo g y ” [w h a t D a n k e r d is d a in fu lly calls
“ c h u rc h ly ” w o rd s] (Taylor, P. 92).
H e th e n a d m its h e ‘b o rr o w e d ’ fro m th e le x ic o n s o f B au er,

A rn d t, G in g ric h , L id d e ll, S co tt, M o u lto n a n d M illig a n .
N e w m a n ’s is ty p ic a l o f all le x ico n s: 1.) It ta k e s its E n g lish

‘d e fin itio n s ’ fro m c o rru p t b ib le v e rsio n s. T h is p a tte rn u s e d b y
all lexicons will be thoroughly documented in this book. 2.) It

is based on the corrupt Westcott-Hort Greek text (Aland-
Metzger, UBS), not the Textus Receptus, and 3.) It copies its
definitions from an earlier lexicon, which copied its definitions
from one earlier than that - all the way back to Liddell-Scott.
Therefore M etzger’s definitions, some admittedly coming from
Newman, came originally from the corrupt text and the vilest
new versions in print. Yet how many naively look to M etzger’s
Concise Greek-English Dictionary definitions for the ‘original.’
Not to be outpaced by M etzger’s liberalism, Danker

recommends the Catholic New American Bible, which he says
“does better” at points. Danker’s lexicon used English books,
such as A Dictionary o f Selected Synonym s in the Principal
Indo-European Languages (Taylor, PP. 19,1 5 ) . Is God limited to the
little list o f words which fit in a book o f English Synonyms?
Such a book would never claim to list all o f the synonyms for a
word (See D avid Crystal, C ambridge Encyclopedia o f the English Language, Cambridge
U niversity Press, 1995, pp. 158-164 et al.).
Lexicographer William A. Johnson reveals that lexicons

also derive their definitions from commentaries! He admits,
“Glosses [definitions] in lexica are often derived from the latest
commentaries” (Taylor, p. 78). Wait a minute. Lexicon authors are
taking their words from commentaries, when commentaries in
turn look to lexicons for authoritative definitions!
Other unscholarly methods abound in lexicons. The Review

o f Biblical Literature (October 2002) by Terry Roberts says,
“other parts o f speech are blurred. A verb can be defined as a
noun.. .an adverb as a noun.. .a noun as an adjective” (Taylor, PP. 56-
57).
Source #3: From Latin to German to English
The Axis powers, Germany and Italy (Rome) have waged

war on the Bible; American lexicographers have not sided with
the Allies in this battle. Check these facts about the five major
lexicons behind new versions and today’s Bible study tools:
The first exhaustive Greek-English lexicon of its kind

and the one from which all subsequent lexicons take
their ‘definitions’ is the Liddell-Scott Greek-English
Lexicon of 1843. It began merely as a translation of the
G reek-G erm an Lexicon o f Passow (Chadwick, p. i). Johnson
said, “ ,..[T]here exists no independently conceived
Greek dictionary. That is, the Diccionario is based on
LSJ [Liddell-Scott-Jones], which is based on Passow,
which is based on Schneider...” (Taylor, P. 77).
Trench’s Synonyms o f the New Testament (1854) was

the first strictly New Testament Greek-English Lexicon,
of sorts, and one from which many lexicons and new
bible versions take their words. Page after page goose-
steps to the repeated drone by Trench, That word in
G erm an means.’ As a Bible critic, he begs his readers
to learn German to further their understanding o f the
Bible, since Germany’s ‘Bible’ study tools are the
fountainhead o f all Biblical criticism (Trench, Synonyms, PP. is,
46).
J.H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon was the only

unabridged lexicon of the New Testament up to 1957.
Thayer’s title indicates that his is merely an English
translation of one rising out of the G erm an mind of Carl
Grimm as seen in his Latin-G reek Lexicon (Graeco-
Latinum 1862). It had been a revision o f W ilke’s Greek-
Latin le x ic o n (1 8 3 9 -1 8 5 1 ). C a th o lic L atin , th ro u g h an

u n b e lie v in g G e rm a n m in d , th e n tra n s la te d in to E n g lish
b y a n A m e ric a n U n ita ria n . H m m m m . S o u n d s lik e th e
‘o rig in a ls ’ to m e (T ay lo r,P. 4).
D id G o d ex p re ss h is o p in io n o f th e German to E n g lish
B au er, A rn d t, a n d G in g ric h Greek-English Lexicon o f
the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature ? In 1952 its te n ta tiv e n o tes m a d e a trip to
G e rm a n y . T h e sh ip w h ic h c a rrie d th e m , th e Flying
Enterprise, sa n k a n d th e n o te s w e re b u rie d in D a v y
Jo n e s lo c k e r (Taylor, p. 5). B ack to th e d ra w in g b o ard .
W h a t w a s F re d e ric k D a n k e r’s sp ec ia l sk ill th a t e n a b le d

h im to e n te r a n d rise to the to p o f th e m o d e m w o rld o f
le x ic o g ra p h y , c o m p le te ly “re w ritin g ” B a u e r’s ‘o r i g i n a l ’
G e rm a n le x ic o n as th e Greek-English Lexicon o f the
New Testamentl It w a s n o t h is se c o n d g ra d e te a c h e r w h o
fa ile d h im in re a d in g . “ ...F re d e ric k g a in e d flu e n c y in
b o th h ig h and lo w German, th e ir la n g u a g e of
e d u c a tio n ...” as a ch ild in a L u th e ra n e le m e n ta ry sch o o l.
I f o n e h o p e s to tra n s la te (p la g ia riz e w ith p e rm is sio n )
G e rm a n le x ic o n s, flu e n c y in G e rm a n is a m u st. D a n k e r
w o rk e d w ith A rn d t a n d G in g ric h in tra n sla tin g th e
German le x ic o n o f B a u e r (w h o in tu rn w o rk e d fro m
Latin-Greek d ic tio n a rie s ) a n d re c e n tly w o rk e d w ith
B a u e r’s German re v isio n b y K u rt A lan d . D a n k e r a d m its
th a t th e re are “hazards in sem a n tic [w ord] tra n sfe re n c e
fro m o n e la n g u a g e to a n o th e r.” H e say s, “ T h e c a p a c ity
o f G e rm a n fo r fo rm a tio n o f c o m p o u n d s c a n lead to
semantic falsification w h e n fe a tu re s in th e c o n te x t o f a
sp e c ific G re e k te rm b e c o m e e m b e d d e d in th e re c e p to r
g lo s s in g te rm , w ith o u t d e te rm in in g th e sp e c ific m e a n in g
of the source term.” Yet he cites several G erm an-based

lexicons as sources o f his definitions, such as those by
Nazi war criminal Gerhard Kittel, as well as those of
Baltz and Schneider (Taylor, pp. xvih, 2, 19, 27, 15).
Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948) wrote the G e r m a n lexicon

Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament
published in Stuttgart Germany in 10 volumes between
1932 and 1942. It was translated into English by
Geoffrey Bromiley as the Theological Dictionary o f the
New Testament and published volume by volume
between 1963 to 1974. The NIV translators stated that
they consulted Kittel’s lexicon for word choices, which
carried over into the TNIV. New Age Bible Versions,
chapter 42, thoroughly documents Kittel’s participation
as Adolph Hitler’s p r o p a g a n d a high priest, promoting
the genocide o f the Jews during World War II. The
Twentieth-Century Dictionary o f Christian Biography
says, “Kittel was discredited by his ties with the Nazis,
as reflected in his anti-Semitic tract Die Judenfrage
(1934). He was arrested by French occupation forces in
1945 and imprisoned for seventeen months. He was not
allowed to return to his university post nor to receive a
p en sio n ” (J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995, p. 205). HlS
anti-Semitic father, Rudolf Kittel, was the man who
corrupted the Hebrew Old Testament, still used today by
the NKJV, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, and HCSB. (For
more details about the anti-Semitic tendency of Greek
and Hebrew study aids see the chapters in this book on
the Hebrew Critical text and the Bauer German
Lexicon.)
Source #4: The ‘Original’ Serpent’s Seed
The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon
All Bible study dictionaries are based in great part on the

definitions in the Greek-English lexicon by Henry Liddell and
Robert Scott, although this is not expressly written on most o f
them. The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon is the whorish
MOTHER o f all harlot lexicons. An entire chapter in this book
investigates the mind and mentored minions o f Henry Liddell,
Alice in Wonderland’s proto-type for Humpty-Dumpty. Just as
the book New Age Bible Versions unveils the corroded
foundation underlying the Greek text used by new bible
versions, the chapter on Liddell-Scott will bare the monstrous
mind behind new version vocabulary and the so-called
‘definitions’ appearing in Bible study tools. One can merely
trace the history o f each definition or new version word, which I
have done, and see that it springs from Liddell-Scott, the first
Greek-English lexicon.
■ Linguist John Lee blows the horn on Greek-to-English

Bible study tools, warning that the secular Liddell-Scott
Greek English Lexicon is THE source for all subsequent
lexicons,
“And yet this is the work on which we not only

still rely heavily, but which has been, for
generations, the resource from which
everyone, including the authors of other
lexicons, has derived information. One can see
its influence everywhere (Taylor, p. 68).
Even the Greek lexicon which covers Greek from Ancient to

Modem “is basically LSJ’s [Liddell-Scott-Jones] material.” O f
another lexicon he observes, “most o f the meanings are taken

wholesale from LSJ.” He lists others and concludes, “one
knows that LSJ will have been the main guide to meaning”
(Taylor, pp. 69-71).
Paying Penance Today for the Liddell-Scott Lexicon
The Liddell-Scott fountain spews its poison into virtually

every lexicon, Bible study tool, and new version available.
Today’s lexicographers have little good to say about its many
erring definitions and translation equivalencies which still lie
lurking in materials used by Christians. Lee warns of Liddell-
Scott errors,
“Actually its faults are much worse than most

would suppose...its basic material is derived
from predecessors, in some cases descending
from the ancient lexicographers...” (T ay lo r,P . 68).
“In other words, it is based primarily on existing
lexicons; and so we continue to move around in
this circle in which the faults of one lexicon are
passed on to the next” (Taylor, pp. 68-70).
“Chadwick expressed sharp criticism of LSJ, saying,
“LSJ has all too often entered the opinions of an

ancient scholar as a positive fact, when research
and judgment lead us to believe that it was an
erroneous or at least misleading view.” “It must
never be forgotten that the recording of dubious
material takes up a great deal o f space, which
might be better occupied by clearer definitions
and examples” (Taylor, p. 109; Chadwick, p. 14).
The “ancient lexicographers” include the fifth century

“Alexandrian grammarian” Hesychius. His errors are repeated
today. Chadwick says, “Some entries are plainly wrong, or
partially wrong, as when he gives a series o f synonyms, only
some o f which appear to be correct” (Chadwick, p. 13; Columbia
E ncyclopedia, ed. W illiam Bridgewater, M om ingside Heights, NY: Colum bia University Press,
1950 ed., s.v. Hesychius).
Lee concludes,
“Fortunately, criticisms have now been

expressed in print, particularly by John
Chadwick. I refer you especially to his paper in
BIC for 1994, where abundant illustrations can
be found, and he says bluntly:
“ It is about time that Greek scholars

recognized the need for a thorough
overhaul of this indispensable tool.”
Since then his book Lexicographica Graeca has

appeared (1996), offering many word-studies
that show how LSJ’s treatment needs
improvement. That is how things stand with
what is our only general lexicon o f Ancient
G reek...”
“As to LSJ, we all shrink from suggesting a

major revision, knowing how huge the task will
be. Nevertheless, sooner or later something
must be done” (Taylor, pp. 68, 73).
Johnson says o f Lee’s comments,

“John Lee has given us an admirable sketch of

the problems with the Greek lexica currently
available to us. As a Classicist, I do not find
much to quarrel with” (Taylor, p. 76).
Cambridge’s John Chadwick Blasts Liddell-Scott Lexicon
John Chadwick writes as an insider and is currently the

overseer o f the British Academy’s project to fix and amend, via
a revised Supplement, the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon.
Chadwick says he has been a “professional lexicographer” since
“the summer of 1946,” affording him fifty years of experience
before writing his scathing 343 page expose o f the Liddell-Scott
Lexicon in 1996. He taught seminars on lexicography at
Cambridge, “But it was my training at Oxford which enabled
me to see the faults of LSJ,” he admits (Chadwick, pp. 5, 6). He
cautions,
“It must be observed that LSJ rarely attempts to

give a real definition...” (C h a d w ic k ,p p .20-21).
The 1843 Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon was very

slightly revised by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie and was
re-issued between 1925 and 1940. Chadwick says Jones and
McKenzie “render the new lexicon less rather than more
serviceable” (Chadwick, P. 8). He believes that the mam lexicon is so
faulty that a mere Supplement cannot repair the problems.
“It will not therefore be surprising if I say that I

have reservations about the value o f this
w ork...” “[T]here is no way a good dictionary
can be created out of a bad one. There is now a
project to produce a revised edition of the
Intermediate Greek Lexicon compiled by Liddell
himself and published in 1889...It is hoped that

in revising this some attention will be paid to the
structure o f the major articles, which naturally
share the faults o f their model” (Chadwick, PP. 6 , 29).
In his Lexicographica Graeca Chadwick said he found

“underlying defects in the main Lexicon,” with many “faults to
be corrected” which called for a “thorough revision.” These
“major faults in the original” Liddell-Scott Lexicon could not be
addressed in a supplement. He says the lexicon should not
“keep quoting discarded theories” (Chadwick, PP. 2 , 6, 8). Many
entries in the earlier Liddell-Scott Greek-English Supplement
were, according to him —
“amateurish and in places incompetent. All too

often the information given is incomplete,
inaccurate or misleading...” (Chadwick, P. 1).
“an incompetent production, unworthy both o f

Liddell and Scott and the Oxford tradition of
lexicography. Some o f its faults will become
evident in the notes which make up this book,
and the alert reader will have no difficulty in
discovering more for himself. However, I was
not myself aware o f the general level of
incompetence it displayed, when work began on
a new Supplement, since I assumed that the
errors I had detected were not typical...it
quickly became apparent that many o f the old
entries required amendment, and most o f them
needed to be fully checked and revised (Chadwick,
pp. 8, 9).
Additionally, “The 1968 Supplement suffered badly at the

hands o f an expert on the Septuagint.. .a number o f non-existent
senses have been created for the Greek words.” Logos Bible
Software offers the Supplement merged with the mam text
which he warns “will cause problems” (Chadwick, PP. 16,9).
“It became clear, as I had long suspected, that

many of the longer articles [“in the main
Lexicon”] were unsatisfactory and needed to be
rewritten...Some o f these notes amount to little
short of a revision of the whole article (Chadwick, P.
2 ).
In Lexicographica Craeca Chadwick gives hun d red s of

pages o f examples o f errors in the Liddell-Scott Lexicon and
concludes,
“In most cases they arose from observing a fault
in LSJ or the Supplement, but all too often it
proved impossible to correct one fault without
discovering others” (Chadwick, P. 25).
“This is a blatant example o f the inclusion of

virtually worthless information, but there are
many more entries of very questionable value
(Chadwick, P. 10).
Chadwick observed,
“Another fault of LSJ was the editors’ failure to

keep the etymological notes up to date.”
“It is generally agreed that the etymological

notes o f LSJ, mostly copied from earlier
editions, are unreliable and sometimes
worthless. I have not attempted to put a broom

to this corner of the stables” (Chadwick, PP. 8,27).
O f his expose Lexicographica Graeca Chadwick says, “ ...I

have in some cases improved considerably on LSJ, finding
sense which its editors had failed to discover” (Chadwick. P. 26). He
concludes,
“It is my considered judgment that most o f the

longer entries in LSJ require more than cosmetic
surgery, and many need to be completely
rewritten” (Chadwick, P. 11).
Johnson says, “[H]e is certainly on target as regards the

deficiencies o f LSJ” (T ay io r,P. 76).
What of Chadwick’s new ideas for the Liddell-Scott

Lexicon? Will they ever be included in the LSJ and will they
leave definition-seekers in any better state? Even Chadwick
admits his suggested improvements are only tentative private
interpretation at best:
“Some o f my suggestions in this field are very

tentative and must not be taken as representing
anything but my own opinion. . ( Chadwi ck, P. 27).
Chadwick’s recommendations for improving LSJ certainly will

have no effect on the old borrowed errors now resident in the
definitions in Strong, Vine, Trench, Wuest, Vincent, Thayer,
Zodhiates, and the rest.
Check your ‘Bible’ dictionary, interlinear, lexicon, and new

version with the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon online at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. You will see that their words
often mirror those o f the Liddell-Scott Lexicon, making them
“unsatisfactory,” by Chadwick’s standards. They are likewise

corrupt in those cases in which they do not match God s
standard for the English speaking world— the King James
Bible. If you cannot wait, jump ahead and read the hard-to-put-
down chapter on Henry Liddell. You will see why anything he
touched could not be acceptable by any standards. It is
shocking. His lexicon is sold today to Christians by Logos Bible
Software.
Source #5: The Pagan Greeks
The Liddell-Scott Lexicon (and from it all Bible study tools,

new bible versions, and lexicon authors) gathered its word
meanings from the same crumbling Greek ruins which show
God’s judgment upon that ancient Greek empire and no less
upon the German nation which likewise relied on the pagan
Greeks to support their shaky German-Latin lexicons. Such
Greek sources include the bawdy plays, both tragedies and
comedies, the pagan myths, as well as the political and anti-God
philosophical writings of the ancient Greeks who lived during
the centuries before and after the time of Christ.
Frederick Danker’s lexicon entitled A Greek-English

Lexicon o f the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, is anything but “Christian.” Even Taylor observes
that it has an —
“extensive range o f Jewish, non-Christian, and

even pagan authors now included, despite the
original subheading: “ ...and Other Early
Christian Literature”” (Taylor, P. 176).
All lexicon authors, like Danker, tell their readers that they
consult the godless ancient Greek authors “Plato, Thucydides,
Herodotus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides” to determine

the meaning o f Bible words. As a graduate student in Classical
Greek Danker studied “Plato, Aristotle, Pindar, Thucydides...”
His second year textbook was Aristophanes’ Clouds. Did this
Greek author’s “rollicking wit” provide the key to
understanding the Bible? Danker said that he had a “special
interest in Homer, Pindar, and the Greek tragedians” (Taylor, pp. 17,
xix, 6). Chadwick quips,
“ ...it is hardly possible to be sure now what

exactly Homer meant in some of his formulae;
he may not have known him self’ (Chadwick, P. i6i).
Truer words were never spoken. If we can not be sure what

Homer meant (and Homer himself did not know), why are we
using his writings to define Bible words? Violence, pagan gods,
perverse sensuality, witchcraft, sorcery, kidnapping, theft,
assault, and sin of every kind are portrayed by Homer. He takes
the ten commandments and breaks every one o f them.
Christians who had books such as these “brought their books
together, and burned them before all m en...So mightily grew
the word o f God and prevailed” (Acts 19:19, 20).
One of today’s leading authorities on Homer is James I.

Porter, professor o f classics and comparative literature at the
University of California (formerly o f the University of
Michigan). In his interview in Humanities Porter says Homer is,
“like the Sirens in the Odyssey, he wanted to teach and seduce
with his song.” Porter says that in the Iliad Achilles is “singing
the glory o f m en...The irony here is that the lyre is booty he
stole from a raid.” Porter notes, “Calypso holds Odysseus
hostage” in one o f the sin-filled portrayals in Homer’s works.
Classicists, such as Porter would not define Homer’s words
using contexts from Plato, much less hold New Testament

words hostage to such contexts (Im pertinent Questions: Jam es I. Porter,
July/A ugust 2008, Vol. 29, N um ber 4).
The discussion of defining words based on pagan contexts

will continue later in chapter 4, “The Battle: The Spirit vs. The
Desires of the Flesh and o f the Mind.” The upcoming chapters
on J.H. Thayer and R.C. Trench explore in detail the debased
nature of the writings of the pagan Greeks and show the central
place they have in determining the corrupt ‘meanings seen in
Greek-English Lexicons and new bible versions.
Source #6: Pagan Ideas in Sheep s Clothing.
Catholic Church ‘Fathers’ and Other Heretics
“Beware lest any man spoil you through

philosophy.. .after the tradition of men” Col. 2:8
Some Greek-English lexicons and Bible study tools

generate their definitions by studying the works o f the early
Catholic church ‘Fathers,’ secular writers such as Philo and
Josephus, and a swarm o f first through third century heretics.
The lexicons imply that some of these men are ‘Christian
writers, but their heresies make them very unsound sources for
determining Christian meanings. New Age Bible Versions traces
the origin o f the corruptions in new versions back to Ongen and
Clement, the very heretics cited for ‘definitions by today s
lexicon authors (see Chapter 38, pp. 516-544).
■ Clement (A.D. 150-216) was initiated into the pagan

mysteries. He preceded Origen as head o f the school of
philosophy in Alexandria, Egypt. Fourteen popes and
three anti-popes named themselves after him. He was a
Catholic ‘saint’ until Benedict 14th deposed him.

Clement calls himself an Eclectic, and thus he “viewed
heathenism with a kindly eye.” “He was in the main a
Neo-Platonist, drawing from that school his doctrine o f
the monad and his strong tendency toward mysticism.”
He was “passionately fond o f allegorical interpretation”
and held a “genial view o f Greek philosophy.” Clement
believed that “non-Christian” philosophy was not
diabolical but “a direct operation o f the divine Logos.”
(This is not the Logos o f the Bible.) He denied that Jesus
Christ and the Holy Ghost were part o f the Godhead,
calling them created beings. “[T]o Clement both the Son
and the Spirit are “first-born powers and first created.””
“Clement had at the time a strong belief in evolution...”
Like Trench and Westcott, he believed that revelation
was progressive, that is, that God purposefully taught
the heathen to worship the stars, then brought Greek
philosophy to prepare people for Christ. He believed
salvation was likewise gradual, with death followed by
time spent by man in purgatory. These things, according
to Clement, “in the end elevate him to the position o f a
god.” Textually he used the apocryphal Epistle o f
Bamabus and the Shepherd o f Hermes, Tobit, Wisdom
o f Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. He omitted the last
verses o f Mark 16 and questioned the books o f Jude,
Hebrews, and Revelation. (.Encyclopaedia Britannica, New York,
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1911, s.v. Clem ent o f Alexandria; The N ew Schaff-
H erzog Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge, N ew York: Funk and W agnalls, 1909,
s.v. Clem ent o f Alexandria).
■ Origen (A.D. 182-250) Schaff admits Epiphanus “saw

in Origen the father of all heresy.” He is “essentially a
Platonist” according to Schaff wherein “the only real
thing is the idea.” “In Origen Christianity blended

w ith.. .paganism.” He recommended the apocryphal
books of Tobit and Judith. His Hexapla is the source for
nearly all corruptions seen in today’s bible versions,
which amount to nearly 6000 changes. He produced the
“begotten god” o f John 1:18 seen in most new versions.
Even the Vaticanus manuscript carries not only Origen’s
textual corruptions, but some of his original
commentary. He castrated himself due to his
misunderstanding of scriptures; should we look to his
writings for ‘understanding’ and ‘meaning?’ (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1911, s.v. Origen; The N ew Schaff-H erzog Encyclopedia o f Religious
K now ledge, s.v. Origen, pp. 271-274).
The heresies held by Clement and Origen disqualify their

writings as sources for Bible word meanings. Although Origen,
Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus sometimes wrote in opposition to
rank paganism, they were syncretistic and often unscriptural in
their beliefs. They scorned some aspects of heathenism, not
because they thought they were bad, but because they believed
God had finished using the heathen religions.
The other men cited by lexicons are called ‘church fathers

by Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran and other
apostates because they birthed many of the heresies adopted by
such groups (or their writings were altered to make it appear
so). For example:
■ Justin Martyr (A.D. 114-162) The Encyclopedia

Britannica (1910-11) says “he appears as the first and most
distinguished in the long list o f those who have endeavored
to reconcile Christian with non-Christian culture.” “Flacius
discovered “blemishes” in Justin’s theology, which he
attributed to pagan philosophers.” “Even as a Christian
Justin remained a philosopher.” Like Trench and Westcott,

Justin believed that God gave the pagans their philosophies.
He introduced the Catholic and Anglican doctrine o f
transubstantiation, that is, the false teaching that the
elements o f communion actually become the body and
blood o f Christ. Justin taught that “Baptism confers
remission only o f previous sins.” Only “ ...a sinless life”
after baptism justifies. “Faith does not justify.” He also
taught the annihilation o f the wicked. (The N ew Schaff-H erzog
Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge, s.v. Justin M artyr, vol. 6, pp. 282-285;
E ncyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Justin Martyr).
■ Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202) was the headspring o f the Catholic

church. The Encyclopedia Britannica says his was the “first
systematic exposition o f Catholic belief.” He introduced the
false teaching o f apostolic succession from Peter and the
importance of tradition above the Bible. Like Justin, he
believed in transubstantiation and the annihilation o f the
wicked. Based on Irenaeus, textual critics developed the
heretical “Two document theory” that purports that the
writers o f the Gospels copied from each other (Encyclopedia
Britannica, s.v. Irenaeus).
The chapter on Frederick Danker will continue this

discussion and expound on the Gnostics and other heretics cited
by Danker, Kittel and other Greek-English lexicons.
Source #7: The Secular Egyptian Papyri
This is discussed thoroughly in the chapter on Moulton and

Milligan.
The Conclusion
Dragging God’s clear diamond words through these seven

dirty pagan puddles can hardly make them any clearer. Only
jewel thieves (and lexicographers) creeping in the dark would
steal worthless man-made counterfeits and mount them for
Christians to admire.
Chapter 4
The Battle:
The Spirit
vs.
“[T]he Desires of the Flesh

and of the Mind” Eph. 2:3
Stained-Glass Words or Sin-Stained Words
Multiple Meanings Make Sense
Only the Bible’s Context Holds Meanings
K J B ABC’s = A lw a y s B ased on C o n te x t
“F o r i t IS WRITTEN, I will destroy the

wisdom of the wise, and will bring to
nothing the understanding o f the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe?
where is the disputer of this world? hath not
God made foolish the wisdom of this
world? For after that in the wisdom of God
the world by wisdom knew not God, it
pleased God by the foolishness o f preaching
to save them that believe. For the Jews
require a sign, and the Greeks seek atter
wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified,
unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
the Greeks foolishness; But unto them
which are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of
God. Because the foolishness of God is
wiser than men; and the weakness o f God is
stronger than men. For ye see your calling,
brethren, how that not many wise men after
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: But God hath chosen the foolish
things o f the world to confound the
w ise;...” (1 Cor. 1:19-27).
“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them

that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this
w orld...” (1 Cor. 2:6).
THE BATTLE: THE SPIRIT VS THE MIND 99
JESUS said , “th e words th a t I sp ea k un to

y o u , th e y are spirit” Jo h n 6:63.
“ ...e v e n so th e th in g s o f G o d k n o w e th no
m an , b u t th e S p irit o f G od. N o w w e h av e
re c e iv e d , not the spirit of the world, b u t the
sp irit w h ic h is o f G o d ; th a t w e m ig h t k n o w
th e th in g s th a t are fre e ly g iv en to us o f G od.
W h ic h th in g s also w e sp ea k , not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth, b u t w h ic h
th e H o ly G h o st te a c h e th ; c o m p a rin g sp iritu al
th in g s w ith sp iritu al. B u t the natural man
re c e iv e th n o t th e th in g s o f th e S p irit o f G od:
fo r th e y are foolishness u n to him : n e ith e r can
h e k n o w th em , b e c a u se th e y are sp iritu a lly
d isc e rn e d . B u t h e th a t is sp iritu a l ju d g e th all
th in g s ...F o r w h o h ath k n o w n th e m in d o f the
L o rd , th a t h e m a y in stru c t h im ? B ut w e h av e
th e m in d o f C h rist” 1 C or. 2 :1 1 -1 6 .
“ ...w a lk not after the flesh, b u t a fte r the

S p irit” (R o m . 8:1).
“ F o r th e flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and

th e S p irit a g a in s t th e flesh: an d th e se are
c o n tra ry th e o n e to th e o th e r” (G al. 5:17).
The Greek Vocabulary of the New Testament
he ancient pagan Greeks never wrote a Greek-English
T dictionary. What they would have said in English is

anyone’s guess. Any English-speaking person who
gives an English definition of an ancient Greek word is simply
guessing. Definitions are ‘guessed’ by looking at the word in
context, examining ten words before and ten words after. The
context must be the one in which the word is used, not that ol
another author. A discussion about ‘love’ by Playboy founder,
Hugh Hefner, or even the Inquisitor Pope Innocent III, will not
elicit the definition of ‘love’ used by Jesus Christ in the Holy
Bible. Even within the work o f one author, a word may have
several different meanings depending upon each individual
context. Yet, in their drive to secularize the Bible,
lexicographers and new version editors toss their own rules to
the wind and refuse to define Bible words using only the
context o f the Bible. They plunge God’s pearls into the murky
mire o f paganism.
Sin-Stained or Stained-Glass Words
The Bible tells Christians, “be not conformed to this world.”

We are to be “conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 12.2
and 8:29).
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither

are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as
the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my
ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts
than your thoughts (Isa. 55:8, 9).
Therefore the Holy Bible is written, “not in the words

which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor.

2:13). Chapter five o f In Awe o f Thy Word explains why the
Holy Bible must be as Christ is — “holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners, made higher” (Heb. 7:26).
The words of the King James Bible are often higher,

‘special’ words, not defiled or defined by worldly use. Danker
dislikes these, calling them “churchly” words; lexicographers
avoid them, calling them “ecclesiastical” words. These include
words such as ‘hell,’ ‘heaven,’ ‘preach,’ ‘grace,’ ‘gospel,’
‘mercy,’ ‘lust,’ ‘carnal,’ ‘charity,’ ‘salvation,’ ‘sanctification,’
‘heathen,’ ‘heresy,’ ‘superstition,’ ‘heretick,’ ‘redemption,’
‘righteousness,’ ‘salvation,’ ‘repent,’ ‘judgm ent,’
‘covetousness,’ ‘ungodly,’ and ‘tribulation.’ One will be hard
pressed to find these words in most new versions and Bible
study tools. Liberal lexicographers have from the very
beginning set out to strip the Holy Bible o f its ‘holy’ ‘separate
from sinners’ vocabulary by replacing these holy words with the
words o f sinners. The English definitions and translation
choices in lexicons are highly secularized, that is, they are “the
words which men’s wisdom teacheth,” not those special
“separate from sinners” words which God instilled early in the
English Bible.
God’s words are “unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor.

1:23). Consequently, lexicographers have stoutly resisted any
input, even from nominal Christians. Their irrational anthem
rings —
“We will not have this man to reign over us”

(Luke 19:14).
Professor Rykle Borger admits that Christians have tried to

hinder lexicographers from secularizing the Bible’s vocabulary
He gives the two heresy trials of Bible lexicographers

(Taylor, P. x).
Charles Briggs and Frederick Danker as examples:
“Lexicographers are sometimes severely

hindered in their work by ecclesiastical
authorities. The preface of Brown-Driver-
Briggs (p. x) mentions “serious interruptions
from unforeseen circumstances of a personal
nature.” In 1892 Briggs was brought to trial and
condemned for heresy by the Presbyterian
General Assembly, and suspended from the
ministry...F.W . Danker had similar problems
with Concordia Seminary and the Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod while working on
BAGD. In 1974 he left “Concordia” together
with many other teachers and many students,
anticipating his dismissal, and was ordered to
stay away” (Taylor, p. 46).
Frederick Danker is the author o f the currently most popular

New Testament Greek-English lexicon. You may never have
heard o f him, but you have heard his idle words, as men
‘define’ Bible words. Lexicographers, such as Danker, wrongly
think that the words of the traditional ‘Holy’ Bible give a too-
Christian ““stained glass” connotation. He equates using
Christian words in the Christian Bible with “incest” ! Danker
says his replacement word —
“may not sound churchly, but it expresses the

truth, not a theological preference, but a
semantic reality that can steer one away from the
hazard of dogmatic presuppositions. Refuge in
sanctified vagueness, despite the patina of
centuries o f usage, is not a lexical gesture

devoutly to be greeted. Indeed, such practice
may invite liability to the charge o f linguistic
incest” (Taylor, p. 24).
(D anker's choice o f “truth” over theology echoes Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky's motto “There is
no religion higher than truth.” This book will show that shockingly other authors o f lexicons and
Greek texts repeat B lavatsky’s motto (e.g. Scrivener, Trench et al.).
Danker gives the word “grace” as an example o f a

“churchly” word, saying that he prefers the less “churchly”
word “generosity.” However, the word ‘grace’ means
completely undeserved favor. Generosity could be bestowed as
part o f an exchange. All lexicons secularize Bible words. Those
that retain a few “churchly” words are gradually being changed
to replace these words. Barkley Newman, author o f A Concise
Greek-English Dictionary o f the New Testament, said, “ ...were
I to have the opportunity o f revising the dictionary, 1 would
certainly change the first meaning given for x&P1? [charts] by
omitting “grace” from the listing” (Taylor, p. 93). Such corrupters of
God’s words certainly need God’s ‘charity,’ that is, G od’s
Riches At Christ’s Expense— GRACE.
(Reading grade level is dependent upon the number o f syllables in a

word. As unusual, lexical substitutes have many more syllables than their
corresponding KJB words. In this case ‘grace,’ a one syllable word, is
replaced by ‘generosity,’ a five syllable word. Consequently, new versions,
which use the words in lexicons, are always a higher reading grade level than
the KJB. See New Age Bible Versions.)
Danker is forgetting his own rule that the translation o f a

word should fit its context; the Bible is a “churchly” context.
Danker admits elsewhere that —
“Context in the source text determines what

specific word in the receptor language is
adequate to express what the source speaker

nuanced through the syntagmatic structure that
colored the lexeme” (Taylor, p. 27).
Sorry, Mr. Danker — the color of the Bible is “stained

glass,” which lexicographers paint over to block the light of the
scriptures.
Sociological terminology and thinking pervade Greek-

English study tools. To lexicographers all gods and all religions
are equal and are mere manifestations o f a culture. John H.
Elliott says Danker’s Lexicon gives the “meaning and function
of terms in their social-cultural contexts” (Taylor, P . 49). Danker
feels that with the Christian use o f “churchly” words, “Thereby
certain terms lose almost all connection with the socio-cultural
context that made them meaningful to their primary audiences
(Taylor, PP. 24. 25). He evidently thinks that the New Testament is
merely an historical record, about and for its subjects and not
the living word of God for all generations. When writing about
the Spirit in Acts 2:18, Danker uses the term “cultic rite” (Taylor,
P. 22). The word ‘cultic’ is rooted in the word ‘culture.’ Evidently
he sees ‘religion’ as merely an extension of human ‘culture, not

a revelation from God. He says,
“In brief, it is important that we do not multiply

meanings based on the rich reservoir of
synonyms in our language or on associations
based on elaborate theological tradition” (Taylor,
pp. 2 5 ,2 6 ).
Observe some examples of Danker’s wrecker-ball crashing

against God’s clear light-bringing words.
Danker calls the capitalization of the word “God,” a

“morphological intrusion.” He says, “one may through such
typography succeed in merely suggesting to polytheists that
“our God is better than your god...”” (Taylor, p. 25). Likewise in
Bruce Metzger’s Lexical Aids fo r Students o f the New
Testament, he first defines theos as “a god” and kurios as “a
lord.” He only capitalizes them in their second definitions
(M etzger, p. 8). Although these words have these secondary
meanings, they are hardly paramount in a lexicon about the

New Testament.
Danker says, “In English, “preach” suggests a moralistic or

didactic mode of communication...” Danker therefore
prefers the secular “proclaim” in some contexts, as do most
new version translators (Taylor, p. 23).
O f the word ‘pray,’ Danker’s suggests the definitions, “ask

for, demand.” Is it any wonder the name-it-and-claim-it TV
preachers tell their listeners to “demand” things from God
(Taylor, p. 25).
The word o f God is described as “powerful” in Heb. 4:12.

Danker wants to defuse its dynamite and “intensity.” He
says,
“Distortion o f the source text can also occur

when a translator uses an expression that loads
the source text with a negative intensity derived
from a receptor’s term that has acquired a
specialized sense. For example, the Greek verb
[blasphemed] is clearly transliterated as
‘blaspheme’ meaning “to speak in a disrespectful
way that demeans, denigrates, maligns.” The
word is thus used in Greek about humans or
transcendent beings [plural!], whereas in

English the transliteration “blaspheme” has
acquired an exclusive association with sacral
aspects, and when used in translations of the
Bible obscures the cultural breadth in usage of
the Greek term” (Taylor, p. 26).
Hypocrisy and inconsistency are the hallmarks of new

version editors and lexicographers. Their general trend is to
secularize, soften and neutralize the Bible. They can not bear to
express some of the potentially spiritual aspects o f a Greek
word which are expressible in English. For example:
■ While they will not transliterate ‘blaspheme,’ they do

transliterate sheol and hades (hell), so you will not know
how hot they are.
■ Although the Greek word ouranos generally means

‘heaven,’ in certain contexts it can refer to the ‘sky.
However the word ‘heaven’ is too “churchly,” so
lexicons and new versions generally opt for the
definition ‘sky.’
However, even Chadwick admits,
“Generally speaking, words which have a basic

physical or material sense [sky] tend to acquire
by transference non-physical or metaphorical
senses [heaven]. One o f LSJ’s frequent faults is a
failure to distinguish these, especially when a
corresponding English term has the same
extension” (Chadwick, p. 20).
Lexicographers can do an about face when it serves to

defuse the Bible. In these cases they do suggest that some words
might be translated in a variety o f ways. In other entries Danker
has many synonyms which he admits “may elicit outcries of
inconsistency.” For example, Danker writes o f “the boredom
that might be hazarded by the repetition o f “and” in a
translation...” (Taylor, PP. 25, 26). Boredom? Is this a translation of
the Holy Bible or a comic book? When Danker wants to change
the Bible he speaks out o f the other side o f his mouth saying,
“ ...G reek can be minimalist in its vocabulary

compared to English. A seemingly endless
variety o f connotative possibilities can enrich the
meaning o f a lexeme, which the English
language in its own way is able to color by
drawing on its vast repertoire o f synonyms
within a specific semantic set” (Taylor, P. 26).
Multiple Meanings in Different Contexts Make Sense:
The fact is all versions o f the Bible use numerous English

words to translate a single Greek word. Chadwick says,
“If the word has only one meaning, what is

sometimes called monosemy, this may emerge
from only a few examples. But this is rare, since
polysemy, the simultaneous existence o f a
number of meanings, is the general rule.
Where the word is used in a few quite different
contexts, it will then be useful to sort the
examples by context” (Chadwick, P. 20).
For example, the Greek word dioko is variously translated

as the English: ‘persecute,’ ‘follow after,’ ‘follow,’ ‘suffer
persecution,’ ‘given to,’ ‘press toward’ and ‘ensue.’ The Greek

word doxa is translated as ‘glory,’ ‘glorious,’ ‘honour, praise,
‘dignity,’ and ‘worship.’ Lexicons are limited by space
constraints and cannot list all possible English equivalents.
They often “separate” “from their company” holy KJB
words (Luke 6:22).
Looking first at the letter ‘a,’ note the following examples in

the KJB of multiple translation equivalencies for just one Greek
word.
Greek: anabaino
English: spring up, grow up, come, enter, arise, rise up, go,
come up again
Greek: anakeimai
English: sit at meat, guests, sit, sit down, be set down, lie, lean,
at the table
Greek: anastrepho
English: return, have conversation, live, abide, overthrow,
behave, be used, pass
Greek: aule
English: palace, hall, sheepfold, fold, court
(An enclosure can be a sheepfold or a palace depending upon
the context. The Greeks also had the context and could
understand what was meant.)
The same phenomenon occurs with the Hebrew Old

Testament. In the KJB the single Hebrew word sheol is
translated 31 times as ‘hell,’ 31 times as ‘grave,’ and 3 times as
‘pit.’ All three words correctly describe a pit, the depth o f which
varies. All men are buried in a grave or a pit, but all men do not
go to hell. The context reveals where the person might be going

and the KJB relays that information. The word sheol contains
both the word ‘hole’ (sheol) and the word ‘hel’ (sheol). (In
German ‘hell’ is ‘holle’; have you ever heard o f a bad place
referred to as a ‘hell hole’?). All go to a hole; some go to a hole
called ‘hell; it just depends how far down you ride the elevator
of the pit - just to a shallow grave or down to the deep
“enlarged” pit in the center o f the earth (Isa. 5:14).
The Language o f the King James Bible traces the etymology

o f the word (s)heol back to the Hebrew word Helel, meaning
Lucifer. The words helel and (s)heol are related to ‘burning’ and
‘shining’ (like the hot sun). It is seen in English as ‘hell,’ in
Greek as ‘helios,’ in Middle English as ‘helle,’ and in Danish as
‘helvede.’ Many new versions and lexicons join the Jehovah
Witness sect and refuse to translate the word sheol, just as they
refuse to translate the Greek word ‘hades’ in the New
Testament. They simply leave the Hebrew word sheol and the
Greek word hades untranslated and carry its letters into English
(to transliterate). They do not transliterate ouranos (heaven).
Why? It is not as hot! New Age Bible Version (chapter 18)
exposes why new versions avoid the word ‘hell’; their editors
do not believe in it! They sometimes substitute the word ‘grave’
or ‘death.’
“Hell’ is a powerful blood pressure word because its

collocations [nearby words] in the Bible are words such as
‘flame’ and ‘tormented.’ Powerless people use the powerful
word ‘hell’ to curse and thereby appear ‘powerful.’ The word
‘hell’ has a meaning recognized by the English mind; sheol and
hades have no such meaning. They are powerless. Can you
imagine the weakness o f an altar call which warns o f going to
sheoll (The Bible’s own hot definition o f ‘hell’ will be explored

later in this chapter.)
The three words used to translate sheol in the KJB (hell,

grave, and pit) include all aspects of the word, not just the
temporal secular ‘grave’ used in lexicons and new versions. The
KJB is not unique in its use of three English words to translate
one Hebrew or Greek word. All versions do it on just about
every line o f the Bible. (That is why there are 400 plus new
bible versions and none of them match each other.)
Conversely, the Greek or Hebrew culture may have several

words which have only one English equivalency. Note the
following examples, beginning with ‘a ’, of multiple Greek
words which are translated by a single English word in the KJB.
English: abide
Greek: anastrepho, aulidzomai, diatribo, epimeno, histemi,
meno, parameno, poieo, hupomeno
English: about
Greek: en, epi, kata, kuklothen, mello, peri, pou, pros, hos,
hosei
English: above
Greek: ano, anoteros, epano, epi, para, peri, pleion, pro, huper
English: abundance
Greek: asitia, hadrotes, dunamis, perisseia, perisseuma,
perisseuo, huperbole
The extent of these two phenomena can most easily be seen

in a Greek (not English) concordance.
■ The Greek-English Concordance by J.B. Smith and

W igram’s The Englishm an’s Greek Concordance o f the
New Testament show how Greek words have been translated
in the KJB. These books dispel the freshman fantasy that
one Greek word has one Greek meaning or that the two or
three English equivalents listed in the back o f Strong’s
Concordance are the only correct possibilities. James
Strong, as a member o f the corrupt Revised Standard
Version committee and American Standard Version
committee, usually gives the RV or ASV word as the
definition and tosses the KJB word at the end. (See the
entire chapters in this book on Strong and Thayer.)
■ Whitaker and Kohlenberger’s The Analytical Concordance

to the New Revised Standard Version o f the New Testament
reveals that, for example, “eight different w ords and pairs
of words are used to translate d7t6Ava)|it in the NRSV” (Taylor,
p. 103). Eight English words for one Greek word — this is just
the tip o f the new version iceberg.
■ Kohlenberger’s The Greek-English Concordance to the New

Testament with the New International Version lists 12
different G reek words which are translated as the one
English word, ‘destroy(ed),’ in the NIV (Taylor, PP. 102, 103).
Most are not varied morphological forms o f the same word
and are not even from the same lemma (stem). These
numbers are very typical o f nearly every sentence in the
NIV and other new versions.
■ The cover is blown off, revealing the erratic translation

techniques o f new versions’ in Morrison’s An Analytical
Concordance to the Revised Standard Version o f the New
Testament, Darton’s Modern Concordance to the New
Testament (Catholic Jerusalem Bible) and in the NIV

Exhaustive Concordance by John Kohlenberger (“ Biblical
Languages Index-Lexicon,” pp. 1357-1809).
These concordances defuse the grenades thrown at the KJB

which are aimed at its varied translation o f Greek or Hebrew
words. They demonstrate that modern versions often use a
wider variety o f words. The next time a critic points out that the
KJB translates the Hebrew word sheol three different ways or
conversely, translates three different Greek words as ‘hell,’
(hades, gehenna, and tartarod), show them any page or two
from a Greek concordance for a modern version (the NIV is
hilarious). They will quickly see that, when examined as a
whole, modem versions are the erratic ones. (Other tools, written
com pletely in Greek, will be o f little help to G reek pretenders; they also use a corrupt Greek
text. These include the Computer Concordance to the Novum Testamentum Graece,
Concordantiae omnium vocum Novi Testamenti Graeci, Kurt Alands Vollstandige Konkordanz ,
and Moulton and G eden’s Concordance to the Greek Testament, K ohlenberger’s Exhaustive
Concordance to the Greek New Testament, and C lapp’s Analytical Concordance o f the Greek
New Testament: Lexical Focus.)
An English speaker can best understand how one word can

have numerous meanings by examining the unabridged twenty
volume Oxford English Dictionary which lists numerous
meanings or usages for each English word. Greek is no
different. Words can have dozens o f very different usages and
meanings. Most people have never seen this phenomenon since
even large libraries carry only the one volume abridged Oxford
English Dictionary. The average W ebster’s Dictionary shows
only snippets o f this phenomenon.
The vast English vocabulary offers a huge reservoir o f

words. Each one brings with it, not only its denotative meaning,
but a connotative meaning as well. Each word also provides
various sound and rhythmic qualities. S.E. Porter says, “A
second conclusion is that one must realize that meaning is far
more complex than simply the knowledge that is contained in a

lexicon, at least as traditionally conceived” (Taylor, p. 2 2 1). He says
further,
“There is the further important recognition, often

overlooked when relying upon lexicons, that
words “mean” things in different complex
ways. Words have a variety o f meanings, in
terms o f sense, reference, denotation, their class,
their register placement, and their collocational
behavior, among other. All o f these must be
taken into consideration in discussing lexical
c h o i c e s ” (Taylor, p. 217).
The New Testament has approximately 5,170 lexical items,

which could potentially have scores o f thousands o f English
equivalents (Taylor, p. 54). But only one o f these equivalents is
“holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, made higher”
and is perfect for each context (Heb. 7:26). Who, but God, can
choose which word fits in which context? Because o f these
wide varieties o f options, none o f the hundreds o f English
translations o f the Bible are the same. The Bible says, “let one
interpret” (1 Cor. 14:27).
It is absolute blasphemy for an undergraduate Bible school

student to be told to make a translation o f a chapter o f the Bible.
The possibilities are endless; the assault upon the word o f God
is akin to the crucifixion. Using the available lexicons and
grammars, he will merely replicate the translation errors
exposed later in this book. More seriously, he will be following
the serpent, as Adam did, to think ‘Yea, hath God said?’ The
student’s youthful respect and heartfelt awe toward the word of
God “shall surely die.” There is often an underlying motive for
re-translating and thereby dulling the sharp sword o f the word

o f God. The young Bible school student will be happy to
‘discover’ that by using his new lexicon the KJB’s sound
“doctrine” forbidding “fornication” can be weakened into a
“teaching” questioning an unspecified kind o f “immorality.”
‘Hmmm’...he thinks, ‘This Greek study may be to my
advantage.’ ‘That word in Greek actually m eans...m y narrow
folks are full of beans.’ A whole new world o f correcting God,
and becoming “as gods” has been opened to him. Few can resist
the ‘temptation.’ The broad way is paved brick-by-brick with
these subtle alternate translations.
In a paper delivered at the Society o f Biblical Literature,

Linguist Dr. Randall Buth admits that no Bible school graduate
really understands or speaks Biblical Greek. He mourned, “ ...if
we had schools producing students who could converse in
Koine Greek as they w ished... But we don’t have such schools”
d a y io r , p. 180). Echoing Professor Buth is the sermon, “Hush, You
Don’t Speak Greek,” by the pastor o f one o f America’s large

and fine churches (available from A.V. Publications). In it the
pastor points an alerting finger at the naked emperor o f Greek-
speak. The Greek Em peror’s New Clothes are cut from the same
cloth as the new bible versions; neither have any substance.
None are woven together so royally as the King James Bible.
An upcoming chapter on R.C. Trench will explain the

Biblical directive for having only one Bible translation in each
language. Only God can place the proper translation
equivalency in the proper context. This chapter has proven the
absolute necessity o f having one inspired Holy Bible for each
language. God would not inspire Greek originals (which few
would ever see) and cast the translation o f the great mass of
Holy Bibles (which billions would see) to a panoply of
opinions. (He has provided just such vernacular Holy Bibles,

but men often abandon them to gather dust on library shelves
and leave the printing o f Bibles to the American Bible Society,
which uses the critical text.) Yet God’s inspired words can still
be found for those who seek them, in Bibles such as the Spanish
Valera 1602 Purificada, the Morrison Chinese Bible, Bible King
James Frangaise and others. Anyone who suggests that a
translation cannot be inspired knows little o f the wide and wild
theological heresies which have been generated using the Greek
words which are common to all Greek texts. For example, in the
NKJV, as well as in all new versions, with a swift kick from a
lexicon, Jesus slips down from God’s “Son” and “child” to
merely a ‘servant’ like Phoebe (e.g. see Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27,
4:30). There is more than one Greek word that carries the
meaning ‘servant,’ just as there is more than one Greek word
that can be translated ‘Son.’ In the modem versions Jesus not
only moves down the ladder and becomes a servant, but Phoebe
moves up from a servant to a deaconess (e.g., NIV and HCSB
footnote, New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible,
New Jerusalem Bible, Phillips Modem English et al.). The
word diakonos, translated variously as ‘deacon’ and ‘servant,’
has multiple meanings, depending upon the context. In the KJB
the Greek word translated as ‘deacon,’ when used for men, is
correctly translated as ‘servant’ when used regarding Phoebe
(Rom. 16:1). We know that the KJB has made the right choices
by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” Deacons might
have wives, which Phoebe would not have (1 Tim. 3:8-12).
Only the KJB paints with such a fine brush. Liberals can carve a
rnan-centered modem version by simply ignoring context.
(Further discussion is given in the chapter on Erasmus in In
A we o f Thy Word).
Context Holds Meaning and Definition
Bible word meanings and translation equivalencies

(particularly when a Greek word has more than one meaning)
cannot be determined by the current standard lexical method of
examining the same word in use in pagan, secular or apostate
religious Greek cultural contexts. Yet this is exactly what New
Testament lexicographers do, in spite of their very own ru e
which requires finding the definition of a word from its o
context. John Chadwick admits that “The essence of the method
is simply to study the contexts...” (Chadwick, P. 4). Therefore
words must be defined within the context of the Bible only.
Chadwick explains,
“I now turn to the second method of making a

dictionary. This is the only method which can be
used in a case where there is no previous
dictionary to use a basis...It consists of two
steps. The first step is to assemble a
representative collection of examples of each
word. In the case of a lexicon to a single author
[God is the single author of the Bible!], this will
comprise all of the examples in the corpus in
question (Chadwick, p. 17).
“He must determine the meaning by reference to

the context” (Chadwick, p. 20).
One needs “enough context to ensure the meaning could be

grasped,” he says (Chadwick, P. 25). The Cambndge Encyclope ici o
the English Language shows how a typical dictionary definition
is determined (David Crystal, Cambridge Encyclopedia o f the English Language
Cam bridge U niversity Press, 1995, pp. 158-164). The definition Can e
gathered: 1.) from the word next to the word in question, .)
from several words away, or 3.) by taking 10 words or so from

either side o f the word. Observe the following ‘meaning’ or
definition which is formed by examining most o f the usages o f
the word ‘hell’ in the Bible.
Definition from next word: fire
1. “Thou fool, shall be in danger o f hell fire” (Matt. 5:22).

2. “rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire” (Matt. 18:9).
3. “cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched” (Mark 9:4).
Definition from the next few words. 1.) fire 2.) deeper,
down, depths, dig, beneath, 3.) sorrows, pains, damnation,
destroy
4. “The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares o f death

prevented me” (2 Sam. 22:6).
5. “It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what
canst thou know? (Job 11:8).
6. “The sorrows o f hell compassed me about: the snares o f death
prevented m e” (Ps. 18:5).
7. “Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell:
for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them” (Ps. 55:15).
8. “and the pains o f hell gat hold upon me” (Ps. 116:3).
9. “the depths of hell” (Prov. 9:18).
10. “depart from hell beneath” (Prov. 15:24).
11. “when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit”
(Ezek. 31:16).
12. “Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them:”
(Amos 9:2).
13. “the damnation of hell” (Matt. 23:33).
14. “thrust down to hell” (Luke 10:15).
15. “is set on fire o f hell” (James 3:6).
16. “go into hell into the fire that never shall be quenched” (Mark 9:43,
45).
17. “cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains o f
darkness” (2 Peter 2:4).
Definition from ten or so words on either side: burn, lowest,

destruction, torments, consume, corruption, wicked
18. “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest
hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire
the foundations o f the mountains” (Deut. 32:22).
19. “Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants
thereof. Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no
covering” (Job 26:5, 6).
20. “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” (Luke 16:23).
21 “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget
God” (Ps. 9:17). ,
22. “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou sutter
thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. 16:10).
23. “destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28).
The pagan Greeks describe hades (NIV, NKJV, ESV,

HCSV, et al.) as a cold, dreary place in which to read and muse.
Plato’s Phaedo said,
“But the soul, the ‘unseen’ part of us, which goes

to another place noble and pure and unseen like
itself, a true unseen H ades...passing the rest of
time with the gods . . .’’
Plato says that he who is not “initiated” is not blessed to go to

‘hades’ but is —
“dragged back into the visible world, by fear of

the unseen, Hades so-called, and cruises about
among tombs and graves...” (G reat Dialogues o f Plato,
W .H.D. Rouse, translator, NYC: M entor Books, 1956, pp. 485, 486.)
Words describing the Greek hades as a ‘pure,’ ‘noble,’ place of

‘the gods’ cannot define the ‘hell’ of the Holy Bible.
Hypocritical Danker admits,

“ ...in English we frequently have many more

resources available for expressing the thought of
a lexeme used in context in a source
language...The meaning o f a specific lexeme in
such a structure becomes clear from its
surrounding semantic climate” (Taylor, P . 25).
The Bible’s climate is sometimes as hot as hell, not as cool

as the NKJV’s ‘hades,’ or as cold as the N IV ’s ‘grave.’ Its
clouds ascend past the N IV ’s ‘sky,’ up as high as the KJB’s
third heaven. Its readers are refreshed by the gentle spirit not
blown away by the NASB’s ‘wind’ (see In Awe o f Thy Word).
But worldly minded lexicographers are limited in their view to a
‘sky’ that they can see, a ‘grave’ that they can engrave on bible
pages, and a ‘wind’ that can blow away “spiritual things.”
Lexicographer Terry Roberts says a definition calls for —
“concern for a close syntactic fit with the

collocations [words around it], which calls for
strict demarcation between the semantic weight
carried by the word under definition and that
carried by the words required to complete the
meaning of the word group [context]” (Taylor, P. 58).
When working with books other than the Bible,

lexicographers do not define words in contexts written by
someone other than the original author. When translating Plato
or Homer, classicists will ask, ‘How did Homer use this term ?’
or ‘How did Plato use it?’ But they refuse to see God as the
author o f the Bible, therefore they will not say, ‘How did God
use this term ?’ They scarcely will ask ‘How did Paul use this
term?’ The question is: If a word’s ‘meaning’ is derived from its
context, why would Bible students look outside o f the Bible for
its meaning? It is unscholarly to define Bible words using the

paean Greeks or the liberal and confused Catholic ‘fathers. T e
context in which to define Paul is Paul, not Plato. Yet the plans
to repair the old lexicons merely include accessing more o f the
same secular contexts using the new digital, Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae. Johnson says, with this new tool, “we can now easily
locate almost all o f the contexts in which a w o r d form appears
(Taylor, p. 76). We already have all of the contexts in which Bi e
words appear; we do not need unsavory contexts.
“According as his divine power hath given unto

us all things that pertain unto life and godliness
(2 Peter 1:3).
The King James Bible’s built-in dictionary holds the

‘meaning’ and ‘definition’ for every Bible word. This is
explained in detail in the first chapter o f In Awe o f Thy Word
and The Language o f the King James Bible. Observe the
following sample verse wherein the KJB defines its own words
through parallelisms.
. .he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

and for the overspreading of abominations
he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate”
(Dan. 9:27).
cause = make
overspreading = poured upon
cease = desolate, consummation

Chapter 5
Mortal Sins:
Verbs
Wounded in Action
No One Agrees on Greek Grammar
Errors and Heresies in Greek

Grammar Books, Bible Study Tools,
and New Versions
Another ‘Aspect’ to Consider
A.T. Robertson’s Grammar o f the Greek

New Testament
Greek Grammar & Verbs

ible school students are taught Greek grammar from
B textbooks which try to squeeze a live octopus into a

shoe box. What does not fit the living English verbal
system gets cut out and the now-stinking dead remains are
squashed under the cover of Greek grammar textbooks.
Scholars recognize the problem, but the lively debate between
taxidermists and biologists is never heard by textbook and shoe
salesmen. Linguist Trevor Evans warns that false views abou
Greek verbs are being taught in Bible schools
“until the severely dated descriptions

contained in so many of our standard
grammars are replaced” (Taylor, p. 206).
“ ...recent advances will take time to supplant

the false comfort of traditional interpretations
to be found in the standard grammars” (Taylor,
p. 200).
Yet Bible schools are totally out of touch with what S.E. Porter,
author of Verbal Aspect in the Greek o f the New Testament
calls “the ongoing debate over the nature of the Greek verbal
: In - J ; , » seems that the -field o f Greek verb
theory” is up for grabs with few reachmg t o w a r d s the often
toxic and highly debatable material presented in typ.eal Greek
grammars, such as the following sample list:
George Hadjiantoniou, A Basic Grammar o f New Testament Greek (Spiros

Zodhiates, AMG International).
Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials o f New Testament G reet
(R e v is e d a n d O rig in a l e d itio n )
William H. Davis, The B eginner’s G r e e k Grammar o f the New Testament
J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek For Beginners
VERBS: WOUNDED IN ACTION 123
H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey, A M anual Grammar o f the Greek New
Testament
A.T. Robertson, A Grammar o f the Greek New Testament in the Light o f
Historical Research
Blass, translated by DeBrunner and edited by Funk, Greek Grammer o f the
New Testament
E.C. Colwell and E.W. Tune, A Beginner ’s Reader Grammar fo r New
Testament Greek
Steven Cox, Essentials o f New Testament Greek: A Student’s Guide
Nathan Han, A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament
Daniel Wallace, The Basics o f New Testament Syntax', Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics; A Workbook fo r New Testament Syntax
Trevor V. Evans presented a paper at the Society o f Biblical

Literature bemoaning the —
“long-ignored problems which lie at the heart

of the Greek verbal system and thus at the
heart of the Greek language itself. The purpose
o f this paper is to demonstrate that we have
barely begun the process of unraveling these
problem s...” (Taylor, pp. 199, 200).
If professional Greek grammarians recognize problems in Greek

grammar textbooks, why are professors presenting such
material as if it were woven from the veil o f the temple? These
men may not know God, but they know Greek. Evans warns of
the “dangers” and says discussions about verbs —
“ ...raise new questions and demand

reassessment o f numerous long-accepted
truths... (Taylor, pp. 202, 203).
A.T. Robertson’s dictates concerning the active, passive and

the middle are now questioned by scholars; among them is
Professor Bernard Taylor, translator for the NETS edition o f the
Greek Septuagint, published by Oxford University Press (Taylor,

P P xii 171 et ai.). Greek professors who open Robertson’s sordid
shoebox before they open the Holy Bible are being out-shouted
from every direction. Evans says,
“The days o f explaining present and aorist forms

in te rn s o f durative and punctiliar aspect-values
are numbered (though they will persist until
the severely dated descriptions contained in so
many of our standard grammars are
replaced)” (Taylor, p. 206).
Another ‘Aspect’ To Consider
There also is a “contemporary debate about the nature of

aspect in relation to Greek verbs.” Aspect is a category separate
from tense and concerned with perspective on the action, not
with time. Dr. Randall Buth says the current method o f teaching
Greek verbs is “convoluted and does not necessarily reflect
basic structures o f the language” (Taylor, P. 178). Out the window go
terms such as “present tense [nonindicative]” and “aorist tense
[nonindicative]” to be replaced with “imperfective aspect and
“perfective aspect.” Linguists Stanley E. Porter and Buist
Fanning clash on the details about “the Greek verbal structure,
“perfect,” “present and aorist” in Biblical Greek Language and
Linguistics’’’ (Taylor, pp. xiii, 177-221).
Chadwick admits that the understanding of ancient or Koine

Greek verbs is evolving, “A fault o f LSJ [Liddell-Scott-Jones
Greek-English Lexicon] is failure to allow for the semantic
value of the present-tense system, which was perhaps less well
understood in the nineteenth century.” “Some o f the problems
raised by LSJ’s treatment” of verbs are “due to this failure to
observe the component o f meaning conveyed by the aspect of

the verb.. (Chadwick, P. 21).
Trevor V. Evans wrote the textbook Verbal Syntax in the

Greek Pentateuch for Oxford University Press. He admits the
“ideas” and “contemporary theorists are still in the process of
impacting biblical Greek circles.” He says “shifts” have
occurred and yet “verbal aspect poses some of the most
difficult puzzles in Greek linguistics... The history of
aspectology is one o f changing concepts.” Evans says “There is
disagreement among theorists on the number o f abstract
classes to be established...Fanning is an extremist, offering six
subcategories o f actional types.” Even Fanning admits verbs
“may have actional force according to their contextual
meaning” (T ayior,pp. 199, 2 0 4 ,2 0 5 et ai.). Evans says,
“Where the perfect tense fits into the picture of

Greek aspect is becoming an increasingly sharp
question. Traditional responses are under
challenge. Does the perfect really manifest a
third fundamental aspect? How accurate is the
notion that it essentially expresses a continuing
state resulting from prior occurrence?
Comparison o f Porter’s and Fanning’s
approaches, which both mix conservatism and
innovation, will indicate the volatility o f current
research into these matters.” (T ayior.p. 205).
Errors & Heresies in Greek Grammar Books & Software
To academics the Bible is a history book, not the living

breath o f God. New versions, such as the NKJV, copy their
dead verb choices such as, “For by grace you have been saved”
instead o f the KJB’s “For by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2:8).
The life of the Bible is shown in its verbs and Satan s scribes
have pointed their “hurtful sword” at the Bible’s very heart. The
errors, heresies, and faulty translations in Greek grammars will
be examined throughout this book. A few brief glances show:
• Students no longer need to be perplexed by the variation in

the principal parts of Greek verbs. Books listing the
principal parts o f verbs do not even agree. Laurence Vance,
author o f Greek Verbs in the New Testament and Their
Principle Parts observes that, “many of these lists contain
g r o ss e r r o r s ” (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 2006, p. ix).
■ An heretical form o f progressive works salvation is taught in

all Greek grammars. Their incorrectly translated marching
orders, “you are being saved,” instead o f “you are saved,”
have mustered a works salvation army, enlisting religionists
of every creed.
- Students are also not taught that all Greek grammar books
are based on the corrupt Nestle-Aland or the UBS Greek
texts, with verb frequency counts and other particulars
varying from the Textus Receptus and its historic translation.
For example, J. Gresham M achen’s New Testament Greek
For Beginners followed “Moulton and Geden s
Concordance to the Greek Testament” which followed
“Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English
Revisers [Revised Version]” (Taylor, pp. 93, 91). Machen admits
his English translations come from “the Greek-English
Lexicon o f the New Testament of Grimm-Thayer.” Machen
also followed “Moulton, A Grammar o f New Testament
Greek." See the individual chapters in this book on the
heresies o f Moulton and J.H. Thayer. Machen also used the
German “Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Griechisch” (New York: M acm illan Publishing, 1923,

p. x).
■ In their English translation all Greek grammars ignore the

inflected endings on Greek verbs. Why memorize these
endings, if they are to be ignored? In Essentials o f New
Testament Greek Summers’ translation ignores the inflected
endings on both the Greek second person singular and the
Greek second person plural. He translates them both as
“you,” instead of differentiating them as the Greeks and the
KJB do by the singular “thou” and the plural “ye” (Summ ers, P.
36 et ai.). In the KJB “you” is correctly used to express only
the plural objective case. Greek grammars ignore the various

inflected Greek endings and use the word “you” for plural
nominative, plural objective, singular objective, and singular
nominative. God has provided equivalent English words
which are as specific as the Greek Bible, which these
textbooks refuse to translate into English. The Bible is a
legal document; the words in the KJB are not archaic words,
they are Bible words (See In Awe o f Thy Word, pp. 446-
452). If it is important to see that these Greek verbs are
different in their endings for each person (I, thou, he, we,
ye, they et al.), why do they not translate the endings. They
are so apt to say, “The Greek really says...” in other cases,
why not with verbs?
■ The translations in Greek grammars also do not express

other aspects of the inflected endings seen in Greek. For
example, the KJB accurately translates the first person, “I
write” and second person, “thou writest,” but the translation
of first and second person in all Greek grammars is “write”
for both first and second person; this is not a reflection of
the inflected Greek verb endings.
Charges of ‘archaic’ language in the KJB (‘Ye,’ ‘thee’ et

al.) can hardly be made by those who memorize monstrously
archaic 2,000 year old Greek inflected endings. The fruit of the
Spirit will not be produced by pruning the KJB’s verbs.
Preposition Preview
Errors in Greek grammars are not limited to verbs.

Prepositions provide another pathway away from the straight
and narrow path. The English translation o f prepositions can
open the door to every heresy imaginable. For example, in
Essentials o f New Testament Greek by Ray Summers dia (by,
through et al.) is incorrectly translated as “through in John 1.
‘Through’ can mean ‘by means o f and is best expressed
succinctly in this context as ‘by.’ But Summers blasphemously
translates it as “through” and that denies Christ is God saying,
““The world was made through him.” Here

Christ is looked upon as the intermediate agent
of creation; God is the original agent” (Nashville, m
Broadman Press, 1950, p. 36).
The verse clearly states that “the Word was God. That is,
Jesus is God. Summers is separating God and Jesus in a verse
whose clear purpose is to teach that Jesus Christ is God and he
made the world. Summers’ comment shows the heretical results
of not translating contextually. This context demands the word
‘by.’
“In the beginning God created. .” (Genesis 1:1)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and the Word was God. The
same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by him;” (John 1:1-3)
(.Elohim and “us” are plural (Gen. 1:1, 26), but Summers is
wrong to separate Jesus from God.) Prepositions will be
covered fully in the chapter on Vine.
No One Agrees on Greek Grammar
Should we wait for the latest A+ Greek grammar to spring

up, like Aphrodite or Apollo from Hades, and solve the
confusion? Hardly, since as long as there are different minds
seeking to be “as gods,” there will be different opinions. M an’s
conflicting ideas about tense, aspect, voice, mood, person,
number, augment, thematic vowels, reduplication, principle
parts, tense formatives, personal endings, and deponency are as
endless as new versions which put them in print. Newer
grammars hold no hope as Generation X grammarians slide
further and further from the A BC’s o f the KJB (ABC = Always
Based on Context). Evans closes showing the widely divergent
disagreement among linguists. He says,
“By way of further contrast, my own views are

somewhat different again. I accept with Porter
that the perfect essentially expresses stativity, but
agree with Fanning that this is to be understood
as an Aktionsart value, not an independent
aspect...Such contradictory responses clearly
show the need for further study o f the Greek
perfect. It remains one of the verbal system’s
most difficult problems, and the new approaches
just sketched raised their own share of
questions” (Taylor, 206).
“The result is that contemporary theoretical

models rest in places on a shaky framework of
assumption” (Taylor, pp. 202, 203).
He concludes,
“However, numerous key questions remain
Open” (Taylor, p. 206).
“Our aim must be...to attain the strongest grasp

possible (at our remove of so many centuries)
on the way in which aspect and the Ancient
Greek verbal system function” (Taylor, P . 206).
What!...the “strongest grasp possible”! He is saying that Greek

linguists and grammarians cannot really know how ancient or
‘Koine’ Greek verbs were used “at our remove of so many
centuries” or how they might correspond to our present and
very different system of English verbs. The babes with Ho y
Bibles can know, however.
“With men this is impossible; but with God all

things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).
Scholars change their minds about Greek grammar as often

as verb tense stems change. Why waste God’s time memorizing
variations in the principal parts of Greek verbs? Today’s Greek
grammarians put the standard Greek grammar through a paper
shredder, add some linguistic confetti and turn the fan on,
blowing away much of what the standard Greek grammar states.
The standard Bible school’s paint-by-numbers approach gives a
jagged connect-the-dots picture of the New Testament. Gree
grammars are like mummies when compared to the living,
breathing photographic realism portrayed in the King James
Bible.
Memorizing the misdirected English translations of verbs in
any current Greek grammar will be as fruitful as memorizing a
medical textbook from the 1700s that calls for the bleeding of
living patients. George Washington died from such a doctor’s

‘cure’ and so will the Bible expire, by lancing the living oracles
o f God of their inflected endings and correct contextual
translation. While medical textbooks written by fallible men of
the 1700s were instructing doctors to ‘bleed’ their patients, the
Bible sat ignored as it said, “for the life o f all flesh is the blood”
(Lev. 17:14).
Greek grammar makes dead believers, as well as dead

Bibles. Buth’s definitions of baptidzd as “wash” and “dip” will
have the same deadly results (Tayio r ,P. 195).
■ If you are ‘dipped,’ you drown because you are not brought
up to “walk in newness of life...in the likeness of his
resurrection” (Rom. 6:4, 5).
■ If you are ‘washed’ only, you do not go under to be (“buried

with him by baptism... planted together in the likeness o f his
death”).
■ Only the word ‘baptize’ means to put under and to bring
back up.
A.T. Robertson’s Grammar o f the Greek N ew Testament
Robertson’s Grammar was the broth that simmered the sin

seen in most of today’s Greek grammars. He admits his use of
the corrupt lexicons and grammars cited elsewhere in this book.
He lists the following works, which are so tainted that each
name in bold merits an entire chapter in this book:
Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, (1882)

Buttm ann-Thayer, A Grammar o f the N.T. Greek (1880)
G rim m -Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon o f the N.T. (1887)
J. H. T hayer, Greek-English Lexicon o f the N.T. (1887)
W iner-Thayer, A Grammar o f the Idiom o f the N.T. (1869)
13 2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
R.C. T ren ch , Synonyms o f the New Testament (1890)

J. H. M oulton, A Grammar o f the N.T. Greek, (1908)
W.F. M oulton, A Concordance to the Greek Testament (1897)
G. M illigan, The Greek Papyri, (1912)
W iner-M oulton, A Treatise o f the Grammar o f the N. T. Gk (1882)
B.F. Westcott, Language o f the N.T. (Sm ith’s B.D.)
Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece (1910)
Gesenius-Kautzch, Hebrew Grammar, F. J. A. Hort, Notes on Orthography,
(1882) (A.T. Robertson, Grammar o f the Greek New Testament, NY: Hodder & Stoughton,
1914, pp. xxi, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxix, xxxi, xxx, xxix, xxxii, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxix et al).
Robertson’s Steps to ‘Understanding the Bible’
Caravan to heathen India, and locate a Sanskrit-English

dictionary. Then hike over the Himalayas west to pagan Greece
to buy some bawdy ancient literature. Unearth buried Egyptian
grocery lists on your way, as you continue west to search the
libraries o f the infidels in Germany. Then ask a Unitarian to
translate all o f your findings. Complete the circle by consulting
a Revised Version committee member’s son, who writes books
praising fire-worshiping Zoroastrianism and its god Mazda. If
you do not think that solid Christians will want to read your
travelogue, call it a ‘Greek Grammar’ and put it in a book with
the name o f a ‘good’ Southern Baptist on the cover. Though
this all sounds absurd, every detail will be documented in this
book.
■ Sanskrit: Robertson applauds the work of New Ager Max

Muller. Like him, he believes that the discovery o f the
Indian Sanskrit language “revolutionized” grammar. This
linguistic switch from a Hebrew origin o f language to an
Indian origin mirrored the late 18th century shift from
Western Christianity to Eastern mysticism and from
creationism to evolution. Robertson bought the new theory
of the ‘Indo-European’ origin of language, which
“revolutionized grammatical research” in his mind.

Robertson admits that “the Old View” that “Biblical Greek
is thus a language by itself’ was subject to a “full revolt.”
He joined those who were “against the theory o f a Semitic
or biblical Greek.” He says, “The old view of Hatch is dead
and gone” (Robertson, pp. 24, 25, 10; See chapter on Liddell for m ore on Muller; see
the chapters on M oulton and Thayer).
■ German-Greek: Before Robertson, Greek grammar had

been based upon a German edition by Winer, that was in
turn translated by two English-speaking heretics. These two
corrupt scholars, Thayer and Moulton, are exposed in their
own chapters in this book. Thayer revised an old translation
o f W iner’s German-Greek Grammar by Masson. Moulton
further revised Thayer’s edition. Robertson admits, “The
various editions o f Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have
served nearly two generations o f English and American
scholars” (Robertson, p. 4). Imagine, a Christ-rejecting Unitarian
like Thayer, giving English interpretations from a German
grammar. That does not sound like the ‘original’ Greek to
me.
■ Pagan Greeks: Robertson says the pagan Greeks, such as

“Homer, Aristotle, Plato, not to say Aeschlyus, Sophocles
and Euripides are still the modem masters o f the intellect”
(Robertson, p. 13). (The chapter on Thayer demonstrates the vile
debauchery o f Robertson’s “masters.”)
* Secular papyri: At the root o f Robertson’s “revolt” is

Adolph Deissmann. The by-products o f his graveyard
robbery began infiltrating the pages o f lexicons and
grammars by Robertson, Moulton and Milligan. Robertson
admits, “Some will not know how to assimilate the new
facts and to co-ordinate them with old theories.. . ” (Robertson, p.
134 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS__________ _____________
30). He applauds this new “wider outlook,” which Jesus calls

the “broad” way. J.H. Moulton, the son of F.W. Moulton of
the RV committee, wrote the Introduction to N.T. Greek
and a Greek lexicon. His books, which are sympathetic to
Zoroastrianism, would be a real eye-opener to fans of his
lexicon. He “used the papyri for grammatical purposes,
which Deissman found rooting around in Egyptian rubbish
piles (Robertson. P. 6). Like a lost puppy in a bone yard,
Robertson tracks Moulton.
- From English Only to Greek Only: The use of Greek to

study and teach the New Testament is a rather new
phenomenon. Robertson’s preface even concedes,
“In England, no less than in the rest of Western

Europe, the knowledge o f Greek had died away,
and here also, it was only after the conquest of
Constantinople that a change was possible [c.
450-1450]”
“Western Christians had been afraid of the

corruptions of paganism if they knew Greek, and
of Mohammedanism if they knew Hebrew (being
kin to Arabic!)” (Robertson, p. 45).
The Confession:
Robertson admits,
“It is not possible to parallel the Hebrew

tenses, for example, with the Greek, nor, indeed,
can it be done as between Greek and English.
The English translation of a Greek aorist may
have to be in the past perfect or the present
perfect to suit the English usage, but that proves
nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist

tense....G ood Greek may be very poor
English...A literal translation o f this neat Greek
idiom makes barbarous English” (Robertson, P. 47).
The Conclusion: Greek Grammar
The harsh allegations about the dated character o f both

lexicons and grammars proves only that there is no agreement
among the last four centuries’ finest minds — I said ‘minds’ not
hearts. There are no authorities, outside o f G od’s word, merely
opinions, like Adam’s, Eve’s, and Satan’s. The purpose of this
first section o f the book has not been to show that recent
grammarians and lexicographers have discovered something
valuable and new; the purpose is to show that the old ‘scholars’
do not agree with the new ‘scholars’ and the new ‘scholars’ do
not agree with each other. This has been amply demonstrated.
The conclusion is simple: toss your Bible remodeling tools. Do
not replace them with the new chainsaw views o f Generation X,
since their Nintendo-warped grandchildren will change them
again and the cycle will continue.
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

1 Thes. 5:21
The remainder o f this book will prove faulty the most used
Bible Study tools and find the reader holding fast to the King
James Bible. (Greek grammar and verbs will be discussed in
detail in the chapters on Vine and Trench. See also The
Language o f the King James Bible, pp. 108-109.)
C h ap ter 6
Metzger’s Lexical Aids

&
Greek Text
are Deadly:
Dr. Bruce Metzger:

Lexical Aids fo r Students
o f the Greek New Testament
x Nuggets in the Greek Or Fool’s Gold?
x Fooled By English Words with Greek

Derivatives?
x United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland

Greek Text
x Metzger’s RSV and NRSV

METZGER’S LEXICON & TEXT 137
Summary: Bruce Metzger

Lexical Aids For Students o f the New
Testament
According to Princeton’s Bruce Metzger

45% of the most often used New
Testament Greek words have English
derivatives that will ‘ring a bell’ when
heard.
These English words look and sound just

like their Greek counterpart. When an
English speaker hears these Greek words,
his mind immediately recognizes them
and their general meanings in English.
It is this recognition that tricks students o f

New Testament Greek into falsely
believing that they have found a ‘nugget’
in their Greek studies.
The ‘nugget’ is simply a Greek word that

is already recognized, because it already
exists in the English vocabulary. Nothing
new has been learned!
Documentation to follow.
13 8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Nuggets in the Greek or

English Words With Greek Derivatives
hile stumbling blindly, groping for ‘the’ Greek,
W some have been hood-winked by a slight o f hand

trick which this chapter will uncover. The sinister
snare built into Greek study tools is best seen in Bruce M.
M etzger’s Lexical Aids For Students o f the New Testament
written in 1946. What he calls a “psychological principal” is
tucked up his sleeve to trick young men into questioning the
English Bible and re-directing their attention to the English
words in Greek lexicons. Notice the shell game was to replace
the B ible’s English translation with his English translation—
English for English, not English for the ‘original’ Greek. In his
Lexical Aids For Students o f the New Testament Metzger says,
“According to the psychologists, man learns by

associating the new with the old, the strange with
the familiar. In studying a foreign language,
therefore, the beginner will do well to observe
whatever similarities may exist between his own
and the other language.”
“Part I of the following Lexical Aids makes use

o f this principle o f associative learning by
supplying, after the English definition o f Greek
words, such English derivatives as may be of
assistance in remembering the meaning o f the
Greek vocabulary” (Bruce M. M etzger, L exical A ids fo r
Students o f New Testament Greek, Princeton, NJ: Bruce M. Metzger,
1976, Preface, p. vii, 1946 edition).
How does this trick work and why has it been so very
effective in convincing students that there are insights to be had
through the study o f the Greek New Testament? There are

approximately 5,436 different words in Metzger’s Greek New
Testament. However, most o f it is made up o f a core o f words
which are used over and over again, making the focal
vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament about 1,100 words.
These 1,100 words are used in the New Testament ten times or
more. Metzger gives a list o f 1,066 o f these most-used words,
excluding proper names. He then lets his black cat out o f the
BAG,
“[A] surprisingly large proportion o f the
following words can be supplied with more or
less well-known English derivatives.”
“To be exact, 467 o f the 1066 words that occur

ten times or more are provided with English
derivatives. This is about 45 percent” (M etzger, p.
2, footnote 1).
This means that half o f the words a student o f New

Testament Greek frequently sees will already be familiar to him
since they have English counterparts. No wonder the delusion is
so strong that ‘light’ can be garnered from the study o f Greek!
Students are getting light from studying English, not Greek!
The English language is generally a mix o f early West
Germanic words (Anglo-Saxon and Gothic) and Latin (some via
French). These languages in turn came from or match the Greek
language in many cases. Metzger admits, “Greek and English
are sister languages” (M etzger, P. 76). Therefore many English words
have a Greek origin or counterpart. For this reason most secular
colleges teach a course called ‘The Greek and Latin Roots of
English W ords.’
According to Metzger, 45% of the most often used New

Testament Greek words have English derivatives that will
‘ring a bell’ when heard. These English words look and
sound just like their Greek counterpart. When an English
speaker hears these Greek words, his mind immediately
recognizes them and their general meaning in English. It is
this recognition that tricks students of the New Testament
Greek into falsely believing that they have found a ‘nugget
in their Greek studies. The ‘nugget’ is simply a Greek word
that is already recognized, because it already exists in the
English vocabulary. Nothing has been learned!
M etzger’s 1946 book, Lexical Aids fo r Students o f New

Testament Greek, bases its entire Lexicon on this
“psychological” principle. He says,
“The [English] derivative, which is italicized and

enclosed within parentheses, is not to be
confused with the definition of the Greek word.
The definition is to be memorized; the [English]
derivative is intended to be of assistance in
remembering the definition. Although many
other examples of English derivations from
these Greek words might be cited, those which
are given were chosen with an eye to the
probable interests of the type of student who
will make use of this booklet. That is, whenever
it was possible to do so, derivatives were
provided that involve theological, ecclesiastical,
or patristic terminology” (Metzger, p. 2).
We have all heard these pointless gems over and over. Like
all nuggets, they are hard, with more lumpy syllables than babes
can swallow. These ‘meanings,’ given to help define the simple
Anglo-Saxon words o f the KJB are college-level vocabulary

words. Look at the following list o f typical English derivatives
that are used to ‘define’ words (which Metzger said should not
be done). The word on the left (the KJB word) is always easier
to understand. No one seeking to define a word, should ever
define it with a more difficult, longer, less-used word. But this
is what is done. I have cringed every time I have heard teachers
define Bible words for over 30 years. The definition given is
usually the word in the modem versions! (I do not know if there
is any other subject among Christians on which there is so much
agreement as a general distaste for references to Greek. There
are 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to hail Baal and the
Greek veil he throws over the words o f the Bible.) I have never
heard them define a word with an easier word than the one
already in the Bible or given nearby in the context. My view
from the pew has seen babes dodging these ‘nuggets’ from the
Greek (on the right). (The nuggets are not even the same part o f
speech as the word defined! This is a must when ‘defining’
words!).
KJB Hard Greek Nugget
on (epi: epidermis)
God (theos: theology)
under (hypo: hypodermic)
heart (kardia: cardiac)
throw (ballo: ballistics)
power (dunamis: dynamite)
discemer (kritikos: critic)
place (topos: topography)
devil (diabolos: diabolical)
Revelation (apokalupsis, apocalypse)
whore (porne, pornography)
store (thesauridzd, thesaurus)

thief (kleptes, kleptomaniac)
rock (petra, petrify)
naked (gumneteud, gymnasium)
table (trapedza, trapeze)
fool (moros, moron)
old (archaios, archaic)
Double trouble: Greek derivatives pile up 61 syllables and

154 letters to barely hint at what the KJB clearly said in 29
syllables and 93 letters. It does not get better than the KJB.
you understand the words on the right, you most certainly
understand the words on the left. If you do not understand the
words on the right, Greek-speak will not help you Either way,
the listener has learned nothing that he did not already know
and must bear through the seemingly barbarian
mispronunciation of the Greek words (1 Cor. 14.11).
To further pull the student o f Greek into his trap, Metzger

finds words which came into English from Latin, which match a
Greek word. He says,
“In some instances the derivative is not direct but
is from a closely related word in Greek. In these
cases the English word is introduced by the
abbreviation ‘c f ( = ‘compare’)...In a few
instances, when not even this sort of indirect
derivative is available in English, a cognate word
is cited” ( M e tz g e r , p . 2 ).
For example, he says, “the English word [ ‘p a t e r n a l ’] is derived

from the Latin ‘pater,’ which is in turn a cognate of the Greek
word.” Voila! The student now thinks that he can not on y
speak and understand Greek, but he knows how to expound a
Greek New Testament word so that listeners, who speak

English, can get its meaning — all a mountain o f syllables away
from the easy KJB.
Nuggets in the Spanish ;)
The Greek game can be proven to be a spoof by playing the

same game with Bibles from many languages. Because English
is based on numerous languages, one can get ‘nuggets’ from
Bibles in many different languages. There are English
derivatives which can be seen in Latin, Italian, French, Spanish,
Romanian, Dutch, Norwegian, and German Bibles. Simply
point out a foreign word that has an English equivalent that
everyone will recognize. The light will go on and everyone will
think that they got a nugget from ‘the original’ Spanish, French,
or German Bible. An examination o f Matt. 1:1 unearths the
following nuggets in the Spanish Bible {V aiem 1602 P unficada).
book (libro: library)

generation (generation: genesis, generate)
begat (engendro: engender)
wife (esposa: espoused, spouse)
carried away (transmigration: transmigration)
birth (nacimiento: nascent)
public (infamia: fame, infamous)
together (juntasen: conjunction, join)
just (justo)
privily (secretamente: secretly)
thought (pensando: pensive)
appeared (aparecio: apparition)
saying (diciendo: dictate)
fulfilled (cumpliese: accomplish)
be with child (concebira: conceive)
God (Dios: deity)
bidden (mandado: mandate)
A few of the derivatives or cognates that appear in the German

Bible in Matthew 1 and 2 include:
dream ( 7 Gn mm’s Law says that ‘d and ‘f are interchangeable
between German and English.)
Son (Sohn)
fear (furchte)
conceived (geboren: be bom; from the Gothic language)
us: (dm : ‘uns all’; from the Gothic language)
east (Morgenland: morning land)
child (Kindlein: kindergarten)
people (Volk: folk)
night (nacht: nocturnal)
fulfilled (erfiillet)
Scandinavian nuggets bounce out of the Bible as every page

turns with words such as ‘sky,’ ‘fellow, husband s ,
‘wing,’ ‘root,’ ‘skill,’ ‘angry,’ ‘low,’ ‘happy, take, and call.
Etymology and cognate words are interesting, but this is

hardly God’s method of growing “in grace and i n _ e
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pete
3-18). (For God’s method of understanding the Bible see New
Age Bible Versions, Appendix C and In Awe o f Thy Word,
chapters 22 and 26 et al.).
Some will ask, ‘Yes, but isn’t the Greek the only ‘°ngm al’?
The chapter “The Wobbly Unorthodox Greek Orthodox Crutch
will examine why the Greek Bible crutch is not always a safe
one to lean upon.
More Greek with English Derivatives
Observe the poverty of replacing the KJB with English

derivatives of Greek words:
S Why trade ‘Revelation,’ our rich ‘revealing’ and self-

defining word, for its English derivative from Greek,
‘apocalypse’?
S The English derivative ‘pom ,’ we are told, will help us to

understand the English words ‘whore’ and ‘fornication,’ but
it actually mis-defines it. The real English root for ‘fom ’ is
much more descriptive as it describes the actual ‘arching
over,’ (e.g. fort, fortify) which porn does not entail. The
word ‘fornication’ may really come from the words fornax
and furnus, meaning ‘to burn.’ This perfectly parallels the
Bible verse, “[F]or it is better to marry than to bum
(fomicate) (1 Cor. 7:9) (Skeat, p. 372, s.v. fornication; The Oxford
D ictionary o f English Etymology, C.T. Onions, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966, p.
372).
The Greek does not give us the auditory or visual keys f-rn-
c, which will pull up the words ‘burn’ and ‘furnace’ in the
mind. The children of this world can be wiser than the
children o f light. Cambridge University came up with the
following:
“Aoccdmig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde

Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the
ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is
taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll
raed it wouthit a porbelm.”
God made the mind and only he can make a Bible to match
it.
^ We are told that the Greek word for ‘place’ has the English
derivative ‘topography.’ From this we are to rejoice that
146 HAZARDOUS M ATERIALS
heaven is a real ‘place.’ Whoops, there’s that simple Anglo-

Saxon word ‘place’ again.
Words such as “Spirit,” are quickly secularized with the hot

air of English derivatives such as ‘pneumonia an
‘pneumatic drill.’ The ‘Spirit’ blows out the window with a
new version ‘wind.’ Greek words do have multiple
meanings, as discussed in a previous chapter, but lexicons,
new versions, and derivatives major on the secular usage
only.
We are told that the New Testament Greek word underlying
the English word 'pow er' is the Greek word from whence
the English word ‘dynamite’ comes. Any young Englis
speaker who does not know what ‘power’ means will hardly
have the word ‘dynamite’ as a part of his vocabulary yet
either The word ‘power’ is a much more widely used
English word than ‘dynamite.’ No one would have any
trouble understanding it. They are not being told anything
they did not already know.
We are told that the Greek word underlying the word

“sorcery” in Revelation is pharmakeus, from whence we
derive our word ‘pharmacy.’ Are we to suddenly re-defme
sorcery (magic) as ‘drug abuse’? Why didn’t God say, ‘drug
abuse’ all along? The context of Rev. 18:23 equates sorcery
with deception, which is just what ‘magic’ and sorcery are
(“for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. ) T e
compounding of potions and the brewing of cauldrons is
merely the visible part. Involvement with devils always
requires an outward expression since devils cannot read
minds. When devils see someone performing magic
ceremonies, sitting in the lotus position, doing yoga,
guzzling twenty beers, or using drugs, they know what the

participant is thinking. Skeat suggests that sorcery may
come from the root for ‘sort.’ The devils hope to sort one’s
“fortune” or “lot” in life, controlling their affairs to their
liking, just as a fortune teller sorts out the tarot cards.
(Skeat, s.v. sorcery, sort). The words ‘sorcery’ and
‘sorcerers’ are defined by the Bible’s own dictionary. The
first usage and almost all subsequent ones connect sorcery
to ‘bewitched,’ ‘deception,’ ‘magicians,’ ‘enchantments,’
and ‘diviners.’
“sorcery, and bewitched” “bewitched them with sorceries” (Acts 8:10,

11).
“sorceries...enchantm ents” (Isa. 47:9).
“enchantm ent...sorceries” (Isa. 47:12).
“diviners.. .enchanters, nor to your sorcerers.. .lie” (Jer. 27:9, 10).
“sorcerers...false swearers” (Mai. 3:5).
“by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” (Rev. 18:23).
“sorcerers...all liars” (Rev. 21:8).
G od’s clear meaning is gathered from the context. If sorcery

meant ‘drug abuse’ the Bible would have inferred it
somewhere. We may not know exactly what pharmakeus
meant to the Greeks, but it obviously had at least one
meaning that related directly to sorcery and its potions. The
making o f drugs evolved from that or was a second
meaning.
Interestingly, one of the Bible’s usages o f the deception of

sorcery involves doing something “ in lik e m a n n e r ” (e.g.
sympathetic magic, pins in voodoo dolls, homeopathy).
“sorcerers: now the m agicians...did in like m an n er with their

enchantm ents...” (Ex. 7:11).
148 HAZARDOUS M A T E R I A L S ________________
H a v e m e n b e e o m e so rc e re rs b y imitating God's role as

w o rd -d e fm e r, ju s t as th e E g y p tia n so rc e re rs im ita te d M o se s
(E x . 7 :1 1 )?
A n o th e r u se o f “ s o rc e ry ” in v o lv e s “ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ”
“m agicians.. .sorcerers.. .interpretation" (Dan. 2:2,4).
H a v e m e n b e c o m e s o rc e re rs by b e in g c a lle d to g iv e an
“ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ” o f G o d 's w o rd s , a s th e s o rc e re rs w e re in
D a n ie l’s d a y (D a n . 2 :2 -4 )? H m m m m .
T h e o n ly th in g th a t is b e in g le a rn e d w h e n G re e k to o ls are
c o n s u lte d is th at th e E n g lish B ib le is n o t ju U e
im p lic it q u e s tio n arise s in th e liste n e r s h e a rt - I f th e O re
w o rd m e a n s ‘su ch a n d s u c h ,’ w h y d id n ’t th e K JB sa y th at
Oh m y B ib le is w r o n g ...’ A n o th e r b o o k , a n o th e r so u rc e o r
a n o th e r m a n m u st b e fo u n d to g et G o d ’s in te n d e d m e a n in g . T h e
b o o k s to re s a n d in te rn e t are full o f s u c h Bible-biting b u g s.
T o d a y m an y te a c h e rs -tu m e d -tra d e rs w ill s w a p th e ir slic k salv e
fo r liste n in g , itc h in g c a rs. H a v e n o n -C a th o lic m en b e c o m e
•a lte r’ h o y s, try in g to rise h ig h e r th a n th e B ib le b y ste p p in g o n
it? A ll fa lse re lig io n s sta c k th e ir m a n -m a d e b o o k s h ig h e r th a
th e H o ly B ib le.
The B ib le is G o d ’s im m u n e sy ste m , w a rd in g o f f all

h e re sie s. L e x ic a l ‘A id s ,’ o rig in a lly c a lle d G R ID (G re e k -R e la te d
Im m u n e D e fic ie n c y ), w ill lo w e r im m u n ity to h eresy , o p e n in g
th e d o o r to a n y m a n ’s c o n ta m in a te d c re e d s. O n e la st E n g lish
d e riv a tiv e , i f y o u w ill
T h e G re e k w o rd fo r ‘d is c e rn e r,’ kritikos, h a s th e E n g lish

d e riv a tiv e ‘c r itic .’ H o w I w ish th e B ib le ‘c ritic s w ou
n o tic e th a t th is G re e k w o rd is o n ly u s e d once in th e N e w
Testament. It is used o f the word of God, which is the only

true ‘critic.’ As the Bible says, “let one interpret.” The KJB
is the only English interpreter. (See the chapter on Trench
for details.)
Metzger’s United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament
Metzger thinks that even the ‘originals’ contain errors. In

M etzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
he says that Matthew penned “erroneous spelling” in the
‘original’ edition, in both Matthew 1:7 and 10, in the genealogy
of Christ (New York: U nited Bible Societies, 1941). In M etzger’s
autobiography, The Reminiscence o f an Octogenarian, he
confesses that his critical approach to the Bible sprung from —
“a remark I had heard a visiting minister make

one Sunday, to the effect that the meaning o f the
original Greek o f the text for his sermon that
morning was not fully brought out in
translations commonly available.”
That one instance o f casting doubt upon the Holy Bible was
to spread its cold shadow over M etzger’s young and moldable
mind. Upon entering college his professor then introduced him
to the dangerous “Codex Vaticanus...as well as Westcott and
Hort’s volume 2.” He admits, “Early in my study o f New
Testament Greek I acquired a copy o f J. H. Thayer’s Greek-
English Lexicon o f the New T e s ta m e n tthe work o f a Unitarian
(see upcoming chapter on Thayer). He also studied the works of
“R.C. Trench” (see upcoming chapter on Trench). He later
attended Princeton Seminary, where German textual criticism
had prospered under professor Charles Hodge (Bruce Metzger,
Rem iniscence o f an Octogenarian, Peabody, Mass.: Henderickson Publishers, 1997, pp. 8, 9
11, 12, 15).
M e tz g e r’s p ro fe ssio n a l in v o lv e m e n t w ith q u e s tio n in g the

B ib le e m e rg e d in 1949. A lo n g w ith C a th o lic a n d o th e r lib eral
sch o la rs, h e w a s th e re c ip ie n t o f a fin an c ial g ra n t fro m th e
R o c k e fe lle r F o u n d a tio n to e x p lo re variants in G re e k
m a n u s c rip ts fo r th e In te rn a tio n a l G re e k N e w T e sta m e n t P ro ject
(M etzger, Reminiscence, pp. 57, 59, 63).
M e tz g e r’s e c u m e n ic ism fo u n d h im tra v e lin g to sp re a d h is

c ritic a l v ie w s o f th e B ib le. H e “ w e n t o n to R o m e in o rd e r to
a tte n d th e an n u a l m e e tin g o f th e In te rn a tio n a l S o c ie ty o f N e w
T e s ta m e n t S tu d ie s.” L a te r h e w e n t to a m e e tin g n e a r “ R ed
S q u a re a n d th e K re m lin ” in R u ssia . H e say s, “ T h e re w as,
h o w e v e r, so m e re sista n c e a m o n g e c c le s ia stic a l a u th o ritie s to th e
id e a o f re p la c in g th e tra d itio n a l B y z a n tin e T e x tu s R e c e p tu s ...”
(M etzger, Rem iniscence, pp. 72, 74-75).
M o st n ew v e rsio n s a re b a se d u p o n th e G re e k te x t c re a te d in
th e 1950s b y M e tz g e r fo r th e U n ite d B ib le S o cieties. H e ad m its
th a t th e “ G e rm a n w o rd fo r “ b u tc h e r” is M e tz g e r.” H e is w e ll-
n a m e d , b e c a u s e h is G re e k te x t c a rv e s, c h o p s, a n d g rin d s to
m in c e m e a t n e a rly 8 ,0 0 0 w o rd s fro m th e R e c e iv e d T ext.
M e tz g e r jo in e d fo u r o th e r b ib le c ritic s to c re a te th is c ritic a l text.
It w a s fo u n d e d , as h e ad m its, “ O n th e b asis o f W e stc o tt a n d
H o r t’s e d itio n .” In ad d itio n to th e c o m m itte e o f fiv e, th e re w e re
th re e o th e r m e n w h o p artic ip a te d : “ J. H a ro ld G re e n le e , R o b ert
P. M a rk h a m , a n d Harold K . Moulton.”
M o u lto n is th e e d ito r o f h is fa th e r’s c o rru p t G re e k -E n g lish

le x ic o n , The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Revised). M o u lto n ’s
g ra n d fa th e r h ad b ee n a m e m b e r o f th e W e stc o tt a n d H o rt R V
c o m m itte e . M o u lto n is th a n k e d p ro fu se ly fo r h is “ w ise c o u n s e l”
in th e p ro d u c tio n o f th e “ G re e k -E n g lis h D ic tio n a ry ” in c lu d e d in
M e tz g e r’s U n ited B ib le S o c ie ty ’s G re e k T ex t, 4 th e d itio n . T h e
D ic tio n a ry ’s P re fa c e say s, “ th e m e a n in g s are g iv e n in p re se n t-
day English, rather than in accord with traditional ecclesiastical

terminology.” This diluting and secularization o f the Holy
Bible’s words is characteristic o f all lexicons. (M etzger, Rem iniscence,
pp. 2, 69, 70; Barbara Aland, Kurt A land, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M aria M artini, and
Bruce M etzger, The Greek N ew Testament, 4th Revised Ed.; U nited Bible Societies, 1993, A
Concise Greek-English Dictionary, Preface, after p. 918 ).
When one o f the central five committee members resigned,

“[I]t would happen, of course, that occasionally the vote on a
problem was two against two’ (M etzger, Reminiscence, p. 70). Imagine, a
Greek text upon which no general consensus could be formed,
being used unwisely by some as the fin a l authority. Readings
are given either an A, B, C, or D rating, based upon their
certainty. Their ever-evolving second edition appeared in 1968
and included, at his admission—
“forty-five changes in the evaluation o f the

evidence... eleven alterations involving
brackets, and five modifications o f text or
apparatus. For the preparation o f the second (and
subsequent) editions, the committee had been
enlarged by the addition o f [Roman Catholic
Cardinal] Carlo M. Martini o f the Pontifical
Biblical Institute in Rome. The third edition,
published in 1975, incorporated a thorough
revision of the Greek text...A s a result o f these
discussions, more than five hundred changes
were introduced into the third edition” (Metzger,
R em iniscence, p. 71).
The actual 765 differences between the second and third

editions are indicted by daggers. These necessary changes
generally were brought about by the collation o f recently
discovered ancient papyri from the second and third centuries
A.D.. These papyri exposed 544 places where the Textus
Receptus h ad b ee n rig h t all alo n g . T h e y e x p o se d sta n d in g erro rs

in the first a n d s e c o n d e d itio n s o f M e tz g e r’s U B S tex t. T h e
critical tex t, m a d e p o p u la r in 1881 b y W e stc o tt an d H o rt, an d
fu rth er fo m e n te d in 1898 b y E b e rh a rd N e stle , w a s n o w p ro v e n a
failure. T h e K in g Ja m e s B ib le w a s v in d ic a te d . In th e th ird
edition o f th e U B S tex t, th e s e 5 4 4 p la c e s w e re c h a n g e d back to
the re a d in g s o f th eTextus Receptus. A d a m s an d G ip p list the
fo llo w in g n u m b e r o f re in tro d u c tio n s o f Textus Receptus
readings: M a tth e w (1 0 3 ), M ark (6 2 ), L u k e (6 4 ), Jo h n (7 5 ), A c ts
(84), R o m an s (2 8 ), 1 C o r. (1 8 ), 2 C or. (1 1 ), G al. (9 ), E p h . (5),
Phil. (6 ), C ol. (3 ), 1 T h es. (6 ), 2 T h es. (3 ), 2 T im . (2 ), T itu s (4),
P h ilem o n (0), H eb . (1 1 ), Ja m e s (1 1 ), 1 P e te r (1 2 ), 2 P eter (4 ), 1
John (5), 2 Jo h n (1 ), 3 Jo h n (0 ), Ju d e (5), an d R ev. (1 9 ) (For the
exact changes, order the follow ing book from A.V. Publications: Bobby Adams and Samuel C.
Gipp, The R eintroductions o f Textus Receptus Readings in the 26th Edition & B eyond o f the
Nestle/Aland Novum Testamentum-Graece. M iamitown, OH: DayStar Publishing, 2006, pp. iii,
iv, 69).
A larg e sto re o f p a p y ru s fro m th e first th re e c e n tu rie s is n o t

a v a ila b le to c h e c k all o f th e re a d in g s in th e N e w T estam e n t.
T h erefo re, M e tz g e r’s U B S te x t w ill re m a in p o c k -m a rk e d in
m an y other p la c e s, as it fo llo w s la te r fo u rth c e n tu ry
m a n u sc rip ts, su ch as th e V a tic a n u s a n d S in a iticu s.
T h e p re p a ra tio n o f th e fo u rth e d itio n (U B S 4), issu e d in

1993, saw th e re p la c e m e n t o f M e tz g e r’s o th e r U B S e d ito rs,
W ilg re n and B lack, w ith B a rb a ra A la n d an d Johannes
K a ra v id o p o u lo s. A lth o u g h U B S 4 m ad e n o te x tu a l c h a n g e s, it
o m itte d im p o rta n t e v id e n c e in its fo o tn o te s (c ritic a l a p p a ra tu s),
w h ich p re v io u sly sh o w e d su p p o rt fo r th e R e c e iv e d T ext. E v en
M e tz g e r a d m its, “ O n th e n e g a tiv e sid e w a s th e e lim in a tio n , for
some unexplained reason o f th e e v id e n c e o f th e G o th ic
v e rsio n , m a d e by U lfila s about A D 3 8 5 .” T h is e v id e n c e
su p p o rts th e K in g Ja m e s B ib le an d th e R ece iv ed
Text and weighed too heavily on the already embarrassed

critics. The letter ratings (A, B, C, or D) given variant readings
differ greatly between the UBS 3rd and 4th editions. Yet, no
reason is given for the change and the rating is often in direct
contrast to the accompanying comments (e.g. Mk. 1:41, 2 Cor.
1:10, Luke 7:10, 24:47, John 8:34, Acts 4:6, and 21:1).
This fourth edition o f the UBS text replaced the Nestle-

Aland text, “leaving only the apparatus to continue the Nestle
tradition” (M etzger, Rem iniscence, pp. 72, 73-74). To Secure this
documentation which supports the Received Text (which is now
removed from UBS3 and UBS4) secure old copies o f the UBS1
or UBS2 editions and the Nestle-Aland 25th and 26th editions.
Kurt Aland admits on page 46 o f his introduction to the 27th
edition that “several uncial fragments,” which support the
“Majority text,” have been omitted from the critical apparatus.
Page 47 includes further omissions o f manuscripts supporting
the Received Text.
(The first edition o f Nestle’s text had been edited by

Eberhard Nestle in 1898. His son Erwin took over the work in
1927 and edited the text through the twenty-fifth edition. Kurt
Aland became co-editor, beginning with the twenty-first edition
o f 1952. He took over completely upon the death o f Erwin
Nestle in 1972. The twenty-fifth edition was published by the
United Bible Society. The twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh
editions o f the Nestle-Aland text are identical to each other and
to the UBS third and fourth editions. All four contain the 544
changes back to the Textus Receptus. The introduction to the
Nestle-Aland twenty-seventh edition admits,
“The text shared by these two editions was

adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and
following an agreement between the Vatican

and the United Bible Societies it has served for
the basis for translations and revisions made
under their supervision. This marks a significant
step with regard to interconfessional
relationships” (p. 45).
Dr. Nico Verhoef o f Switzerland visited the European

headquarters o f Kurt Aland’s United Bible Society and was
shocked to see that its walls were plastered with Roman
Catholic icons throughout.)
M etzger’s RSV and NRSV
Metzger traces the history of his New Revised Standard

Version back to its origin, as an adaptation o f the Revised
Standard Version of 1946 (NT) and 1952 (OT), which was in
turn a revision of the American Standard Version o f 1901, all
done under the “Standard Bible Committee.” Metzger says, “I
became chairman o f the committee” for the RSV in 1977.
Metzger edited a study edition o f the RSV, called The Oxford
Annotated Bible. He says, “Because o f the growing acceptance
o f his study Bible in Catholic circles...Cardinal Cushing
granted his endorsement in the form o f an imprimatur...
Metzger confesses that he worked with the Vatican secretariat
for Christian unity together with the United Bible Societies” to
“issue an edition of the Revised Standard Version as a
“common Bible”” for Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants
(M etzger, Rem iniscence, pp. 77, 83, 80, 82, 81). This brought him a personal
audience with the pope.
“In 1973, shortly after the Collins publishing

house [now NIV], joined by Thomas Nelson and
Sons in the United States [now NKJV], had
issued its Common Bible, Lady Priscilla Collins,

a convert to Catholicism, arranged to present a
specially bound copy to Pope Paul VI at the
Vatican. Consequently, on May 9th o f that year
the pope granted a private audience to Lady
Priscilla and Sir William Collins, joined by
Herbert Man and myself.”
“The story o f the making o f the Revised

Standard Version of the Bible... is an account o f
the slow but steady triumph o f ecumenical
concern over more limited sectarian interests”
(M etzger, Rem iniscence, pp. 84, 86).
In the transformation o f the RSV into the NRSV, Metzger

joined Jesuit priest, George MacRae, S.J., secular Jew, Harry
Orlinsky, Lucetta Mowry, and others “in eliminating masculine-
oriented language” and coming up with “the least unsatisfactory
rendering.” Interestingly, one debate arose among members
about the translation o f doulos, which in the KJB is rendered
“servant.” Some wanted to use the word “slave,” but others
pointed out that in the Greek Septuagint it was sometimes used
in a much higher way to mean, “official” or “servant” (Metzger,
Rem iniscence, pp. 8 9 , 9 i). Even a reprobate such as Mark Twain knows
that “The difference between the right word and the almost right
word is the difference between lightning and a lightening bug.”
Although the revision committee failed in their efforts, they
discussed the need for “euphony” and “reducing unpleasant
hissing sounds” (This is thoroughly discussed in In Awe o f Thy
Word and my other books.) In seeking a title for their revision,
they considered calling it the “Ecumenical Standard Version” or
Improved Revised Standard (IRS), but settled for the New
Revised Standard Version (M etzger, Reminiscence, pp. 93, 94). Working
with Metzger on the Standard Bible Committee were Eugene

Ulrich of the [Catholic] University of Notre Dame, Alexander
Di Leila of the Catholic University of America, Allen Wikgren,
of the UBS Greek New Testament committee, Katherine
Sakenfeld, J. Cheryl Exum, Phyllis Bird and a host of other
professors from liberal universities. Metzger says that in 1990
he had an audience with yet another pope.
“ [T]he New Revised Standard Version had

received the imprimatur from Roman Catholic
authorities...and Professor Di Leila and myself,
were granted a private audience with Pope John
Paul II in the V atican...w ho expressed his
appreciation that such an edition was now
available” (Metzger, Reminiscence, p. 97).
Metzger did his job as “butcher” in making “block cuts”

from the RSV to create The R eader’s Digest Bible. He admits
that when it was published, “Not a few inquired whether I had
never read Revelation 22:18-19, where woe is pronounced
against those who “add to or take away from the words of the
book o f this prophecy.” He dismissed their warnings, charging
that the ending was merely “like a copyright notice” (M etzger,
Reminiscence, pp. 117, 121).
Part II
Greek & Hebrew Lexicons:

Who’s Who
Greek &
Hebrew
Lexicons
by Members
of the Corrupt
Westcott-Hort
Revised Version
Committee of 1881:
STRONG,
SCOTT,
& THAYER
STRONG DELUSION 159
Chapter 7
Strong Delusion:
James Strong’s
Dangerous Definitions
in the back of his
Strong’s Concordance
Image courtesy of StanKlos.com

STRONG DELUSION 161
Summary: James Strong of Strong's Concordance
1. Strong was a member of the Westcott and Hort

Revised Version Committee (RV) of 1881 and
worked in masterminding this corrupt version.
2. Strong was also a member of the American Standard

Version Committee, finally published in 1901. It said
that Jesus Christ was a creature, not the Creator.
3. On these committees Strong joined Unitarians (e.g.

Thayer), a child molester (Vaughan), followers of
Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky (e.g. Ginsburg, Schaff), and
a horde of Bible critics (e.g. S. R. Driver), who
together changed nearly 10,000 words of the text.
4. Strong’s Concordance definitions are often the very

words of these corrupt versions and also the
Koran.
5. Strong also gathered his definitions from Gesenius’

corrupt Hebrew Lexicon. His work also accesses the
corrupt lexicons of Liddell-Scott, Thayer, Brown,
Driver, and Briggs. All merit chapters in this book.
6. Strong’s Greek text is not always that which underlies

the King James Bible.
7. Strong’s various definitions may not give anywhere

near a literal translation of the Greek.
8. Some of the latest editions of Strong’s Concordance

are not even Strong’s original. In the Greek and
Hebrew lexicons in the back section, they contain even
more corrupt definitions from new version editors. In
the main body of the concordance, which originally
was correct, new editions omit important KJB usages
of the word ‘Jesus’ in order to match corrupt new
versions.
James Strong’s Concordance Greek and Hebrew Lexicon
ames Strong (1822-1894), author of Strong's
J Concordance, has been elevated to the position o f fourth

member o f the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and
Hebrew definitions pepper today’s preaching, as if his lexicon
was the final and 67th book of the Bible. His liberal definitions
are used as quick and weak patches to fill a void in sermons.
The space would be better filled by a laborious looking up of all
the Bible’s usages of a word.
James Strong of the Corrupt R S V and A S V Committees
Strong’s liberal views got him a Committee seat on the

corrupt Revised Version (RV) o f 1881 with Westcott, Hort
and Vaughan, as well as a seat on the American Standard
Version (ASV) committee with Schaff and Unitarian J. Henry
Thayer (finally published in 1901). Westcott and Hort sought
American Bible critics to join them in their work on the
Revised Version. In 1870 the British Committee voted “to
invite the cooperation o f some American divines” (Matthew Brown
Riddle, The Story o f the R evised New Testament Am erican Standard Edition, PhiUde p, la.
Strong became “a member of the

The Sunday School T.m es, 1908, P. l i ) .
Old Testament company o f revisers” (New Schaff-H erzog Encyclopedia o f
Religious Know ledge, N ew York: Funk and W agnall’s Com pany, vol. XI, p. 115). Strong
was hand-selected by American RV chairman Philip Schatt,

who was also a participant in the new age Parliament of World
Religions.
“The Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor

of Sacred Literature in The Union Theological
Seminary, New York, by invitation o f the
English New Testament Company prepared a
draft of rules for cooperation, and a list of names
STRONG DELUSION 163
o f biblical scholars who should probably best

represent the different denominations and literary
institutions in this movement. The suggestions
were submitted to the British Committee and
substantially approved” (Introduction by Dr. Schaff to The
Revision o f the English Version o f the New Testament, 1872).
Philip Schaff denied the inspiration o f the Bible and only

chose committeemen who agreed that the Bible had never been
inspired; he called ‘inspiration,’ “the moonshine theory o f the
meiTant apostolic autographs (See N ew A ge Bible Versions for more details, p.
458; D avid Schaff, The Life o f Phillip Schaff, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1897, pp. 439, 351, 357,
Their ASV Preface jabs that, “The Hebrew text is

434-435).
probably corrupt...” (p. vii).
Strong “was able to sympathize with the modem movement.”

An article expressing Strong’s desire to draw young men into a
“Seminary” where they could learn such liberalism “provoked
both criticism and opposition.” One wise soul wrote “in reply to
Doctor Strong’s proposition,” that “there should be one
professor at least with the title ‘P.P.R.,’ that is, ‘Professor of
Plenty o f Religion (Charles Sitterly, The Building o f D rew University, NY: The
M ethodist Book Concern, 1938, pp. 82, 255, 41).
Strong and the American Committee o f the RV worked with

Westcott and Hort on the details o f the Revised Version “and
the results of the deliberations were exchanged across the sea”
(Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Bible V ersions, vol. II, p. 139). I h a v e a R e v is e d V e rs io n
dated 1881 entitled The Parallel Bible, The Holy Bible ...being
the King James Version Arranged in Parallel Columns with the
Revised Version, published by H. Hallett & Co., Portland,
Maine. It lists both the British and the American committee
members, placing Strong on the same page as members o f the
British revision committees (see Old Testam ent prefatory pages, no page
numbers). The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica tells the whole story.
Philip Schaff
1819-1893
Courtesy of Palmu Publication

STRONG DELUSION 165
The ancient occult ceremony wherein a lion's paw resurrects an initiate from a coffin (See p. 401) is
represented by the hand signals o f men from as early as the Egyptian ruler, who built the pyramids, to
modem masons, occultists and others. 1) Egyptian ruler, Khufu 2) Origen, first Bible corrupter,’ 3)
Richardson 's M onitor o f Freemansonry 4) Luciferian, Annie Besant 5) Karl Marx, 6) Baron Rothschild, 7)
Billy Graham, 8) Pat Robertson, Time, Feb. 17, 1986, 9) Satanist Anton LaVey, 10) Mr. Spock, 11)
Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor. The split fingered version, seen under Philip SchafTs vest, is called
“The Real Grip o f a M aster Mason” and represents the wicked Cabalistic use o f the Hebrew letter shin. The
hand o f lexicographer Henry Liddell, seen on page 204, may evidences this split.
(Revised Version New Testament Committeemen, who worked

with Westcott and Hort and also wrote lexicons or other
reference books cited herein include Trench, Scott, Vaughan,
Milligan, Moulton, and Thayer. RV Old Testament revisers and
lexicographers include Driver and Ginsburg.)
STRONG DELUSION
“Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of

the Protestant denominations in America, with the
result that similar companies were formed in the
United States. The work o f the English revisers was
regularly submitted to their consideration; their
comments were carefully considered and largely
adopted, and their divergences from the version
ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to
the published work [1881], Thus the Revised Version
was the achievement of English-speaking Christendom
as a w hole...The reviser’s first task was to reconstruct
the Greek text...the revisers were privately supplied
with installments o f Westcott and H ort’s te x t...”
(E ncyclopedia Britannica, 1911, vol. 3, p. 903).
Strong Contentions Brings the A S V
When Strong began working with the

Vaughan RV committee, there were plans for the American
participants .0 produce their own edition. However, host me
eventually ensued as a few o f the suggestions by these
A m e r i c a n s were not accepted by the Brit,sh participants.
Westcott and Hort had changed approximately 9,9 wor s

from the traditional Greek New Testament. But the A“ ns
wanted to make more changes by watering down and further
secularizing the remaining vocabulary. The ensuing clash an
le a, battles between the British and American p art.ip an ts in
the RV are revealed in New Age Bible Versions anc1 The Life oj
Philip Schaff. Strong and the Americans finally published their
c o ^ p t i d e f in a revised Revised Vers,on, called
Standard Version. Strong's liberal ASV is the backbone o f the
now distorted New American Standard Version.
“When the English Company had completed the

first revision of a portion o f the Bible, it was sent
to the American Company for consideration and
advice...[T]he English companies were not able
to concur in all of the preferences expressed by
the American companies and so when the
English Revised Bible was published it included
by agreement a statement of all o f the non-
concurred-in American preferences,
consideration o f which the American companies
bound themselves not to print or encourage the
issue of any other revised bible until after t e
expiration of fourteen years from the date of the
publication of the English Revised Bible” (Frank i
S h The Holv Gospels: A Comparison o f,h e Gospel Tex, a s t s G ^ e n
T , h e P rotestant and Roman Catholic Bible Versions in ,he EnS Ush
Language in Use in America, N ew York: Flem ing H. Revell, 1911, p. 9).
STRONG DELUSION 169
“The revised New Testament [RV] was

published in England May 17, 1881...America
had a peculiar reason for complaint, seeing that
many an expression which American scholars
had preferred was to be found only in the
appendix, and they were bound not to issue a
new edition within fourteen years. That time was
up in 1896, and the American edition
[ASV]...appeared in New York in 1901” (Schaff-
Herzog, s.v. Bible Versions, vol. II, p. 139).
Even the original preface to the NASB, which was taken

from the ASV, said o f the ASV/RV connection,
“The British and American [RV] organizations

were governed by rules... The American
Standard Version, itself a revision o f the 1881-
1885 edition, is a product o f international
collaboration...”
One lexicon editor admitted,
“The AV, has maintained its hold on the English

Protestant world until the present time. The RV,
o f 1885 [Old Testament completed], prepared by
a joint British and American Committee, under
the authority o f the convocation o f Canterbury,
has thus far been unable to replace it” (Charles Briggs,
The International Critical Commentary, The B ook o f Psalms, NY:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. cix, cx).
“The work o f the revisers has been sharply criticized from

the standpoint o f specialists in New Testament Greek,” notes
the Encyclopedia Britannica (s.v. Bible, English, 1911, vol. 3, P. 904).
Strong with Westcott & Hort’s Revised Version Committee
Strong called it the “Anglo-American Committee on Bible

Revision” [RV/ASV]. He states,
“The textual examination o f the New Test, in

particular has received a powerful stimulus by
the labors o f the Anglo-American Committee on
Bible Revision, who had necessarily to
reconsider the Greek text. Although they have
not directly put forth any new edition, yet the
results o f their criticism have been embodied in
The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted
by the Revisers o f the Authorized Version
(Oxford, 1881, 12 mo), which may be regarded
as the most mature and impartial fruit of the
combined scholarship of the times, and
probably nearer the autograph than any other
text extant....A fierce attack has been made by
some scholars, especially opposed to Bible
revision, on the conclusions arrived at in the
foregoing productions. It has been claimed that
they unnecessarily depart from the textus
receptus, and unduly lean upon the few great
uncial MSS., to the exclusion of all other copies
and to the neglect of the early versions” (M cC iintock
and Strong, Cyclopaedia o f B iblical " 2
Literature, NY: H arper & Brothers, Publishers, 1867-1887, vol. 12,
Supplem ent, p. 171).
STRONG DELUSION 171
Strong Heresy in the ASV
G o d w ill n o t p ro m o te a b ib le th a t te a c h e s h e re sy . T h e
R V /A S V C o m m itte e in c lu d e d se v e ra l U n ita ria n s (th o se w h o
d e n y th e T rin ity a n d o th e r c e n tra l d o c trin e s). O n e su c h m a n w as
A m e ric a n B ib le critic, J. H e n iy T h a y e r, a u th o r o f T h a y e r’s
h e re tic a l Greek-English Lexicon (se e u p c o m in g c h a p te r on
T h ay e r). T h e re fo re it is n o su rp rise th a t th e A S V m a rg in a l n o te
fo r Jo h n 9 :3 8 states th a t Je su s C h rist is ju st a m an , a “ c re a tu re ,”
a n d n o t G o d , th e “C re a to r.” (A lso see th e A S V n o te in M att.
2 :2 ). T h e A S V n o te fo r th e v e rse , “A n d h e said , L o rd , I b eliev e ,
A n d h e w o rs h ip p e d h im ,” says,
“ 'T h e G re e k w o rd d e n o te s an a c t o f re v e re n c e ,
w h e th e r p a id to a creature (as here) o r to th e
C re a to r . . . ”
E v e n m o re s h o c k in g ly , th e A S V h a s a sim ila r n o te in L u k e 4 :6 ,
7 re fe rrin g to th e w o rsh ip th a t th e d e v il re q u e sts. (“A n d the
d ev il said u n to h i m .. .I f th o u th e re fo re w ilt w o rsh ip m e . . . ” )
H ere th e A S V n o te omits the parenthetical (as here).
n
“ T h e G re e k w o rd d e n o te s an ac t o f re v e re n c e ,
w h e th e r p a id to a c re a tu re o r to th e C re a to r . . . ”
T h e re fo re , S tro n g ’s A S V sp e c ifie s th a t in th e ir o p in io n Je su s is
a “ c re a tu re ,” n o t th e C rea to r. B u t it d o es n o t sp e c ify th at th e
d ev il is a “ c re a tu re ” a n d n o t th e “ C re a to r” ! A g a in , in M att. 4:9,
th e A S V leav e s th e c h o ic e to th e re a d e r as to w h e th e r th e d ev il
is a c re a tu re o r th e C rea to r. T h e A S V states e m p h a tic a lly th at
J e su s is a “ c re a tu re .”
Ja m e s S tro n g re v e a ls h is w e a k C h ristia n c o n v ic tio n s an d

lack o f d is c e rn m e n t b y h is p a rtic ip a tio n in th e R V a n d A S V ,
b o th o f w h ic h d e n y th e d eity o f C h rist in n u m e ro u s p la c e s (F o r
ex a m p le s, see th e u p c o m in g c h a rts, as w e ll as New Age Bible
Versions, fo r A S V o m is sio n s still see n in th e N A S B ). W h y
w o u ld to d a y ’s C h ristia n s lu rk in th e b ac k se c tio n o f Strong’s
Concordance to u n e a rth th is o ld h e r e tic ’s lib era l d e fin itio n s fo r
B ib le w o rd s?
Strong’s Weak Definitions
A s a m e m b e r o f th e c o rru p t R V a n d A S V co m m itte e s, he
p re fe rre d h is o w n “ p riv a te in te rp re ta tio n ” o f th e sc rip tu re s, ev e n
m a k in g h is o w n v e rs io n o f th e b o o k o f E c c le sia s te s in 1877
(Schaff-Herzog, p. 115, s.v. James Strong). T h e d e fin itio n s in th e G re e k a n d
H e b re w L e x ic o n s in th e b a c k o f Strong’s Concordance are
o ften not literal re n d e rin g s o f G re e k o r H e b re w w o rd s. F o r
e x a m p le , th e G re e k w o rd deisidaimonia, u se d in A c ts 17:22, is
m a d e u p o f tw o w o rd s, ‘fe a r’ a n d ‘d e v il’ ( daimon ). T h e K in g
J a m e s B ib le c o rre c tly in te rp re ts ‘fe a rin g d e v ils ’ as b e in g “ to o
s u p e rstitio u s .” P ro p e lle d b y v ie w s th a t ‘o th e r’ re lig io n s are to
b e re sp e c te d , S tro n g ’s Concordance a n d h is A S V pretend the
w o rd is “v e ry re lig io u s .” B o th th e ASV and Strong’s
Concordance tu rn a s te m w a rn in g in to a h ig h c o m p lim e n t. (T h e
w o rd deisidaimonia is d isc u s se d in d ep th in th e c h a p te r ab o u t
R .C . T re n c h , th e o rig in a to r of th e m istra n s la tio n “ v ery
re lig io u s ” a n d th e a u th o r o f an an ti-K JB book w ith the
L u c ife ria n se rp e n t lo g o on th e first p a g e .)
STRONG DELUSION 173
When reading the so-called definitions in Strong’s

Concordance (in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons in the back),
one is really often just reading the liberal and watered-down
words from Strong’s corrupt American Standard Version (and
sometimes also his 1881 Revised Version). Such corrupt words
are now echoed in versions such as the NIV, TNIV, NASB,
NKJB, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NJB and others. Note the following
examples:
James Strong’s &

King James Bible Strong's
J. Henry Thayer’s
Concordance
Am erican Standard
Corrupt Lexicon
Version of 1901
‘Definition’ (See corresponding corruptions
in most places in the NIV,
TNIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB,
NRSV, NAB, NJB, CEV, etc..)
Godhead divinity divinity

one is your Master, teacher one is your teacher
even Christ
charity love love
follow imitate imitate
temperance self-control self-control
too superstitious very religious very religious
heresy party party
curious magical magical
bottomless pit abyss abyss
hell Hades1 Hades
devils demonic being1', demons
deity
Lucifer morning-star day-star
1 I f S tro n g in te n d s to u se a tra n sla tio n th at still n e e d s to b e

tra n s la te d (i.e. u sin g a tra n s lite ra tio n o f G re e k w o rd s, su ch as
‘H a d e s ’ o r ‘d e m o n ’), w hy d id he not leav e th e K J B ’s
tra n s lite ra te d w o rd s su ch as h e re sie s ( hairesis ), h e retic,
(hairetikos), J e su s (Jesus in H eb . 4:8 & A c ts 7 :4 5 ), o r m arty r,
(martur)? S tro n g ’s A S V o m its w h a t h is fe llo w c o m m itte e
m e m b e rs c a lle d “ fe a rfu l” te rm s a n d “ e x c e ss iv e c o n s e rv a tis m ,”
su c h as th e w o rd s ‘h e re s ie s ,’ ‘m a rty r,’ ‘h e ll,’ a n d ‘d e v ils ’
(Alexander Roberts D.D., Companion to the R evised Version o f the English New Testament with
Explanations o f the Appendix by a M em ber o f the American Committee, NY: Cassell, Peter,
Galpin & Co. 1881, p. 204; Preface, ASV, p. iv).
P ile s o f o th e r su c h n o n -lite ra l o r s e c u la riz e d d e fin itio n s ca n

b e fo u n d b y th o se w h o are n o t ju s t playing G re e k -sp e a k . S tro n g
a d m its in his “ D ire c tio n s a n d E x p la n a tio n s,” on th e se c o n d p ag e
o f h is Concordance, th a t in h is C o n c o rd a n c e “ a d o u b le o b e lisk
m a rk s a c h a n g e b y th e A m e ric a n re v ise rs o n ly ( American
Standard Version 1901)” ; th ese o b e lisk s, s h o w in g A S V ch a n g e s
in th e B ib le , le a d th e w a y to fin d in g w h e re Strong’s
Concordance d e fin itio n s m atch h is A S V . W ith an A S V in h a n d
th e facts b e c o m e all to o clear. W e ll-m e a n in g p a sto rs an d B ib le
stu d e n ts are u n k n o w in g ly q u o tin g fro m th e d e p ra v e d A S V o r
R V , w h e n th e y th in k th e y are ‘d e f in in g ’ a w o rd u sin g S tro n g ’s
G re e k o r H e b re w L ex ic o n . S tro n g ’s sy ste m o f a ste risk s a n d
sin g le o b e lisk s w ill also lead to m a n y m a tc h in g W e stc o tt an d
H o rt Revised Version w o rd c h o ic e s. (S lip p e ry n e w e d itio n s o f
Strong’s Concordance m a y h a v e sly ly re m o v e d th e se re v e a lin g
sy m b o ls.)
“ A n a s te ris k ca lls a tte n tio n to th e fa ct th a t in the

te x t q u o te d th e le a d in g w o rd is c h a n g e d in the
R e v ise d V e rsio n s; w h ile a n o b e lisk sh o w s th a t a
c h a n g e h as b ee n m ak e b y th e B ritish R ev isers
o n ly (E n g lish R e v ise d V e rs io n s 1 8 8 1 -8 5 )” (James
Strong, Strong's Concordance, Iowa Falls, Iowa: W orld Bible Publishers,
no page num bers; see second page).
STRONG DELUSION 175
Strong’s Source Lexicons
Although Strong published the body o f his Concordance in

1849, it was not until 1890 that he added the lexicons in the
back matter. These were entitled, “A Concise Dictionary o f the
Words in the Greek New Testament” and “A Concise
Dictionary o f the Words in the Hebrew Bible.” His admitted
access to the corrupt lexicons o f Thayer, Liddell-Scott, Brown,
Driver, and Briggs tainted his new appended dictionaries of
1890, which are still seen in Strong’s Concordance today
(M cClintock and Strong, vol. 2, p. 456; see preface page o f both Dictionaries in the original
1890 edition.).
■ The McClintock-Strong encyclopedia’s article on “Greek

Language” points to “Thayer’s” Unitarian Greek lexicon of
“ 1887,” including it in its list of the “best” and the “latest”
lexicons (vol. 3, p. 988). Even the old K itto’s Cyclopedia (Dr.
Donaldson’s article) concedes the error o f defining words
by using the context o f the pagan classics, as Strong and
Thayer do. O f the Holy Bible’s “Vocabulary,” Donaldson
admits,
“The new thoughts [Christian] demanded new

modes o f expression, and hence the writers did
not hesitate to use words in senses rare, if not
entirely unknown to the classical writers.”
Donaldson adds, “ ...the grand moral ideas that were expressed

by some o f them are unique in the age in which they were
Uttered (as cited in M cClintock and Strong, vol. 3, p. 987).
Strong calls Thayer’s corrupt edition o f W iner’s Greek

grammar the best (M cClintock and Strong, vol. 3, p. 988).
■ Strong’s encyclopedia also recommends the work on New

Testament Synonyms by R.C. Trench, whose blasphemous
views and proposed changes to the Bible merit an entire

chapter in this book (M cClintock and Strong, vol. 3, p. 988).
- He recommends at least eight German-based lexicons,

which stem from the German schools led by higher critics
and infidels (M cC lintock and Strong, vol. 3, p. 988).
■ He cites under his list of “best” lexicons, the edition of 1829

from John Parkhurst, who labored in the 1700s, writing
polemics against John Wesley. It has been suggested that
this lexicon may contain “ridiculous etymologies bearing
traces o f the Hutchinsonian opinions o f their author”
(M cC lintock and Strong, vol. 7, p. 694; vol. 4, p. 426).
■ In his encyclopedia, just as in the Strong’s Concordance

Lexicon, there is an admission of his use of G esenius’
Hebrew Lexicon, whose dangers and heresies merit an
entire Chapter in this book (e.g. M cClintock and Strong, vol. 1, p. 3, vol. 2 ,
p. 75, vol. 4 , p. 168 et ai.). He even admits that “Gesenius was an
outspoken adherent of the Rationalistic school,” and as

such, he “began a new era,” revolutionizing and secularizing
Hebrew study (M cClintock and strong, vol. 3, p. 839). He includes
Gesenius with a list of German higher critics (M cClintock and
Strong, vol. 2, p. 568).
■ Strong exhibits his ready access to the pagan infested

Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. He mentions, The
learned authors of Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lex....
(M cClintock and Strong, vol. 4, p. 166).
S trong’s W eak G reek Text
Strong’s ASV and RV derived definitions are not the only

snares set to pull Bible students away from their King James
Bibles and toward his revised versions. Strong’s “Greek” text is
not in all points the “Originall” to which the King James
translators had reference (see KJB 1611 original title page). For
STRONG DELUSION 177
example, in Acts 19:20 Strong pretends that the Greek word is

kurios (Lord), the reading in his RV. In fact, the KJB’s
“Originall Greeke” word was theos, ‘God,’ as seen in Greek
manuscripts from as early as the 5th and 6th centuries (i.e. D and
E). These represent a much older text. The word “God”
dominates the most ancient versions and vernacular editions,
such as the Syriac, syrp (fifth century), the Armenian Bible,
written in the 300s by Chrysostom, and the Old Itala, itd, itw
(MS dated in the fourth century and representing the original
Old Latin reading). Beza’s Codex Cantabrigiensis uses “God”
in both its Greek and Latin text (Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, ed. Frederick H.
Scrivener, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1864).
M ore Strong Heresies in the ASV
The following chart shows just a few o f the places where

James Strong and fellow ASV member and Unitarian friend, J.
Henry Thayer, denies the deity o f Jesus Christ. Most new
versions echo their heresy.
Verse King James Bible James Strong’s &

J. Henry Thayer’s
American Standard Version
(Check the NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV,
HCSB, and most new versions, which
usually omit the same words.)
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that and every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus confesseth not
Christ is come in the Jesus is not of God
flesh is not of God
Col. 1:2 our Father and the our Father

Lord Jesus Christ
Verse King Janies Bible Janies Strong’s &
J. Henry Thayer’s
(Check the N IV , T N IV , N ASB, ESV,
H C SB , and most new versions, which
E p h . 3:9 G o d , w h o c re a te d all G o d w h o c re a te d all th in g s

th in g s by Jesus
Christ
E p h . 3 :1 4 I b o w m y k n e e s u n to I b o w m y k n e e s u n to th e
th e of our
F a th e r F a th e r
Lord Jesus Christ
G al. 4 :7 an h e ir of G od an h e ir o f G o d
through Christ
G al. 6:15 For in Jesus Christ F o r n e ith e r is c irc u m c isio n

n e ith e r c irc u m c isio n a n y th in g
a v a ile th a n y th in g
1 T im . 2 :7 I s p e a k th e tru th in I sp ea k th e tru th
Christ
1 Jo h n T h e se th in g s have I T h e se th in g s h a v e I w ritte n
5:13 w ritte n u n to y o u that u n to y o u , th a t y e m a y k n o w
believe on the name th a t y e h a v e e te rn a l l i f e ...
of the Son of God;
th a t y e m a y k n o w th a t
y e h a v e e te rn a l l i f e . ..
R ev . 14:14 the S o n o f m an a son o f m an
R ev . 1:13 the S o n o f m an a so n o f m an
STRONG DELUSION 179
Verse King James Bible James Strong’s &
J. Henry Thayer’s
(Check the NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV,
HCSB, and most new versions, which
John 6:47 He that believeth on He that believeth hath

me hath everlasting eternal life
life
Mark and come, take up and come follow me

10:21 the cross, and follow
me
Acts 8:37 I believe that Jesus omit

Christ is the Son of
God
Romans For I am not ashamed For I am not ashamed o f the

1:16 of the gospel of gospel
Christ
Acts 22:16 calling on the name of calling on his name

the Lord
1 Tim. God was manifest in He who was manifested in

3:16 the flesh the flesh
Phil. 4:13 I can do all things I can do all things in him

through Christ
1 Cor. If any man love not If any man loveth not the
16:22 the Lord Jesus Christ Lord
Verse King Janies Bible Janies Strong’s &
J. Henry Thayer’s
(C h eck the N IV , T N IV , NASB, ESV,
H C SB , an d m ost new versions, w hich
usually om it the sam e w ords.)
A c ts 19:10 Lord Jesu s L o rd
2 Jo h n 1:3 the Lord Je su s C h rist Je su s C h rist
2 T im . 4:1 the Lord Je su s C h rist C h rist Je su s
2 C or. the Lord Jesu s Jesu s

4 :1 0
O .T . LORD Je h o v a h
(By usually om itting the LORD from the

O.T. and om itting ‘L ord’ from the title of
Jesus Christ, Strong has m anaged to deny
that Jesus is the Lord God o f the Old
Testament. The A S V ’s preface called it
“Jew ish superstition” to call him "G od”
or “ LORD." This ASV idea fits perfectly
with the Higher Criticism o f their day
which believed that Jehovah (not the
K JB ’s all capital JEHOVAH ) w as the
nam e o f a tribal god, not THE only GOD
(Preface, p. iv.)
M a s te r T e a c h e r (w h a t a d e m o tio n !)
STRONG DELUSION 181
Unitarianism pocks many pages o f Strong’s ASV. The

denial o f the virgin birth is seen in the ASV and new versions in
Luke 2:33. They change the K JB’s “Joseph and his mother” to
“his father and his mother.” Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The
idea of God’s blood being shed is omitted twice by Strong’s
Unitarian-influenced ASV. By saying the Lord’s “ ...blood”
instead o f God’s “blood,” the ASV skirts around admitting that
Jesus is God.
Verse King Janies Bible Strong’s & Thayer’s

ASV
(Check new version for identical
corruptions.)
Col. 1:14 In whom we have in whom we have our

redemption through redemption
his blood
Acts 20:28 the church o f God, the church o f the Lord

which he hath which he purchased with
purchased with his his own blood
own blood
To further deny the deity o f Christ, the ASV, as in most

new versions in Phil. 2:6, moves the important word “not.” In
the ASV and new versions Jesus believed he has
“not...equality with God.” The KJB affirms that, for Jesus, it
was “not robbery to be equal with God.” (Confused? Diagram
the sentence and see which words modify which words.)
Strong’s ASV, like new versions, has no “Holy Ghost.” See

the following ways Strong and Thayer’s ASV denies the
Trinity.
Trinity

ASV
corruptions.)
1 J o h n 5:7 For there are three o m it

(In 1 John 5:7 the NIV steals some
that bear record in
of verse eight to pretend they have a
heaven, the Father, verse seven. The NASB steals some
of verse six to pretend they have a
the Word, and the
verse seven. But both omit the real
Holv Ghost: and these verse 7, as do most new versions.)
three are one.
R o m . 1:20 G odhead d iv in ity *

(T h e G o d h e a d is th e
The ASV note for Acts 17:18
th re e p e rs o n s o f th e equates note 8 “foreign divinities”
with note 9 “demons” !
T rin ity . It is in th e K JB
3 tim e s!)
A c ts 17:23 THE U N K N O W N AN U N K N O W N
GOD GOD
A c ts 14:15 the liv in g G o d a liv in g G o d
H eb . 9 :1 4 Christ, w h o th ro u g h A S V m a rg in su g g e sts
th e e te rn a l Spirit re p la c in g “the S p irit,”
o ffe re d h im s e lf w ith o u t th e th ird p e rso n o f th e
sp o t to God T rin ity , w ith “ h is
[the T rin ity ] sp irit.”
T h is c h a rt sh o w s ju s t a fe w o f th e p la c e s w h e re S tro n g ’s
A S V a n d n e w v e rs io n s te a c h th e in n ate g o o d n e ss o f all m e n a n d
s a lv a tio n b y w o rk s, in ste a d o f rig h te o u sn e s s b y G o d ’s g ra c e
th ro u g h fa ith in th e L o rd Je su s C h rist alo n e. T h e y o m it g ra c e in
STRONG DELUSION 183
Romans 11:6 and teach that obedience, faithfulness, and self-

control saves.

ASV
corruptions.)
Rom. 11:6 But if it be of omit

works, then is it
no more grace
John 3:36 believeth obeyeth
Gal. 5:22 faith faithfulness
Gal. 5:22, 23 the fruit o f the the fruit o f the Spirit is

(Acts 24:25, Spirit ...self-control
2 Peter 1:6) is...temperance (Is it ‘s e lf or ‘Spirit’
control?)
Strong’s ASV and new versions teach the equality o f all

religions, as evidenced here.
Verse King James Bible Strong’s &

Thayer’s ASV
(Check new version for
identical corruptions.)
Acts 17:22 I perceive that in all I perceive that ye

things ye are too are very religious
superstitious ...I found an altar
.. .1 found an altar with with the
this inscription, TO THE inscription, TO AN
UNKNOWN GOD UNKNOWN GOD
Rev. 21:24 And the nations of them And the nations

which are saved shall shall walk amidst
walk in the light of it the light thereof
Gal. 5:20 seditions, heresies divisions, parties

(negative) (neutral)
Titus 3:10 heretick factious (Since the ASV

editors did not believe
(wrong beliefs) anything could be ‘wrong’
doctrinally, then there can be
no ‘heresy.’ In their
‘ecumenical’ mindset the
only ‘error’ would be to be
divisive or factious.)
Strong replaced ‘hell’ with Sheol in the Old Testament. One

“member o f the American Committee” said he believes in a
“spirit-world” called Hades and agrees they should omit “the
fearful WOrd hell” (Roberts, Companion, p. 204).
Verse King James Bible Strong &

Thayer’s ASV
Deut. 32:22 hell Sheol (Their ASV

(and all o f Old even used Sheol 35
Testament) times more than the
RV.)
Mt. 11:23, 16:18, hell Hades

Luke 10:15, 16:23,
Acts 2:27, 2:31,
Rev. 1:18, 6:8,
STRONG D 3LUSION 185
20:13, 14
Rev. 9:1 etc. bottomless pit abyss

(too “fearful”?) (non-descriptive)
N.T. & O.T. judgment justice or ordinance

(a negative penalty) (no negative
connotation)
Did Darwin’s notion of evolution or the Hindu idea o f

cyclical ages prompt these men to deny the creation by God and
a ‘beginning’ of the world?
Verse King Janies Bible Strong’s &

Thayer’s ASV
Luke 1:70, from the beginning o f old

Acts 3:21, 15:18 o f the world
Titus 1:2 the world began times eternal (note:

long ages ago)
Strong’s bible, along with most new versions, has no

‘Lucifer’ (Isaiah 14:12). Lucifer becomes the “day-star,” of
Roman mythology, which equates Lucifer with Christ. Ideas
from Roman and Greek mythology permeate lexicons (see
chapter on Thayer). Their note for Isaiah 14:12 (where ‘Lucifer’
should be) gives the reader a cross reference to Jesus Christ in 2
Peter 1:19, Rev. 2:28, and 22:16! This makes Jesus Christ the
devil “fallen from heaven,” “cast down to the ground,” “down
to hell” and “abominable.”
T h e u se o f th e w ritin g s o f p a g a n a n d se c u la r a u th o rs (as in
Isa. 14:12) to stu d y ‘w o rd m e a n in g s ’ fo r th e B ib le is d isc re d ite d
e v e n b y th e Encyclopedia Britannica. It q u o te s o n e sc h o la r as
s ay in g ,
“ [T ]h e G re e k o f th e N e w T e sta m e n t m a y n e v e r be
u n d e rs to o d as cla ssic a l G re e k is u n d e rs to o d ,” an d [Dr.
R u th erfo rd ] a c c u se s th e re v ise rs o f d isto rtin g the
m e a n in g “b y tra n sla tin g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith attic id io m
[old c la ssic a l G re ek ] p h ra se s th a t c o n v e y in la te r G re e k
a w h o lly d iffe re n t sen se , th e se n se w h ic h th e e a rlie r
tra n sla to rs in h a p p y ig n o ra n c e h a d re c o g n iz e d th a t the
c o n te x t d e m a n d e d ” ( 1911, s.v. Bible, versions, vol. 3 , p. 904 ).
H a v in g b e e n so dishonest in d e a lin g w ith th e “h o ly

s c rip tu re ,” S tro n g ’s A S V shrinks w h e n it g e ts to th e w o rd
“ h o n e s tly .”
Verse King James Bible Strong &

Thayer’s ASV
H eb . 13:18 h o n e stly h o n o ra b ly
1 T h es. 4 :1 2 h o n e stly b e c o m in g ly
T h e A S V , lik e m o st n e w v e rsio n s, h as no ‘c o n d e m n in g ’
w o rd s, su ch as d e v ils, w itc h e s, h e a th e n , o r w h o re s. In 1 C or.
2 :1 4 a n d 15:44, 4 6 th e o c c u lt w o rd “p s y c h ic a l” fro m th e o c c u lt
S o c ie ty fo r P sy c h ic a l R e s e a rc h ’s p o p s u p in th e A S V ’s m a rg in s
in p la c e o f th e K J B ’s w o rd “ n a tu ra l.” S tro n g ’s d elu sio n
c o n tin u e s o n p a g e a fte r p ag e o f th e A S V a n d h is C o n c o rd a n c e ’s
G re e k an d H e b re w lex ico n . A n d sad ly , S tro n g ’s A S V m a tc h in g
d e fin itio n s fall o n ea rs w ith in c h u rc h w a lls a n d ec h o into
fe llo w s h ip h alls.
STRONG DELUSION 187
The McClintock - Strong

Cyclopedia o f Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature
In 1853, at the young age o f thirty-one, Strong began a ten-

volume encyclopedia with John McClintock, who “lived to see
only three volumes through the press.” Therefore, Strong
completed the remaining seven volumes “alone.” They were
published between 1867 and 1881, with a Supplement in two
volumes published between 1885 and 1887. Strong and
McClintock’s friendship arose because of their mutual criticism
o f the KJB. McClintock had participated in the American Bible
Society’s “completely new translation” of the Bible between
1847 and 1856. It made “thousands o f changes in the text,”
including the omission o f “God,” was manifest in the flesh in 1
T im. 3:16. (Schaff-H erzog Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge, N Y : Funk and Wagnalls
Company, 1910, vol. 7, p. 107; vol. 11, pp. 114-115; John M cClintock and Jam es Strong,
Cyclopaedia o f Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, NY: H arper & Brothers,
Publishers, 1867-1887, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981 reprint, vol. 5, p. 937;
James Sightler, A Testimony F ounded F or E ver, p. 35).
The “Prospectus” preceding the first page o f the 1869

edition of volume one states, “Every article has been revised by
the editors themselves.” “Biblical Literature has been wholly
superintended by DR. STRONG.” The Preface o f volume three
describes Strong’s solitary input for volumes one through three:
“It may be proper to add that this department

[Strong’s area o f “Biblical Literature”] embraces
not merely Bible names, but also all branches of
Biblical Introduction, including such articles, for
instance, as Canon o f Scripture, Commentary,
Concordance, Criticism, Cross, I., II., Ethnology,
etc.: also, Biblical philology, manuscripts and
versions, and many cognate subjects such as
English Versions, Eschatology, Essenes,
Ethiopic Language, Fortification, Geology,

Government, etc.’'
After the death o f McClintock, Strong was responsible for

the entire work o f volumes three through ten, as well as the
remaining two supplements. Therefore, any citations m jh ts
chapter which are attributed to Strong alone wtll be taken
exclusively from those subjects and volumes over which
alone exercised control.
The C y c lo p e d ia 's original “Prospectus” begins with a jab at
the then “common English translation,” the King James Bi e,
which the en cy clo p ed ia charges with having, erroneous
ren d erin g s” (vol. 1,1869 H arper edition).
Where does James Strong get his definitions? He gets some

o f them from the Koran! He believes the higher critics fa se
theory that the Hebrews got their Bible words, not from God
but from the neighboring pagans. He cites hig er
Eichhom to prove that the word ‘Babylon, seems to
connected” to Babel “to confound,” “but the native etymology
(see the Koran, ii, 66) is Bab-il, “the gate o f the god. He
concludes, “[T)his no doubt was the original intention o f
appellation” (vol. i , p . 595).
Strong and McClintock’s use of the sometimes questionable

K itto’s Cyclopaedia o f Biblical Literature and Smith
Dictionary o f the Bible is compounded by their own hber
editorial bent. (Note the following nineteen exa™Ple
heterodoxy in the McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia, cited by
volume and page number:
1 Unchallenged Occultism
The extensive article on the occult “Cabala in vo ume
contains not even a whisper of censure against this vile system
STRONG DELUSION 189
o f Jewish mysticism. It instead schools the reader in all o f the

Cabala’s particulars, even saying, “We find that in olden times
secret philosophical science and magic went hand in hand.”
Instead o f impugning the Cabala, it impugns as “rigid” a literal
interpretation o f the Bible and adds —
“It is no wonder, then, if the Jewish cabalists o f the

latter part o f the Middle Ages transmitted the
conception o f their science to their Christian
adepts.. .in plain English, that they connected with it
the idea that a true cabalist must at the same time be
a sorcerer.”
The article says adherents o f the Cabala, “Being unable to

go to the extreme of the rigid literalists o f the north o f France
and Germany, who, without looking for any higher import,
implicitly accepted the difficulties and anthropomorphisms
of the B ible...” [i.e. Bible descriptions o f God, using what are
also human characteristics. For example, God said, “thou shalt
see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” (Ex. 33:23).]
The article references Strong’s fellow R.V. committee member,
C. Ginsburg, whose heretical book on the Cabala and textual
changes, seen in the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Hebrew text,
merit an entire chapter in this book (vol. 2, PP. 4 , 3,6 , s.v. cabala).
2. Strong’s Encyclopedia equates Lucifer with Jesus Christ
Strong’s encyclopedia charges that Lucifer is not Satan, but

Lucifer is Jesus Christ. It quotes one “Dr. Henderson,” whom
Strong notes, “justly remarks in his annotation:”
“The application o f this passage [Isa. 14:12] to

Satan, and to the fall o f the apostate angels, is
one o f those gross perversions o f Sacred W rit...”
His encyclopedia states that in Isa. 14:12, the word ‘Lucifer

means “morning star” (which is impossible since the Hebrew
word for ‘star’ is not used). It continues saying, “The scope and
connection show that none but the king o f Babylon is meant,
thereby eliminating any connection to Satan. After denying that
Lucifer is Satan and that Isa. 14 describes his fall, Strong’s
encyclopedia blasphemously insists that Lucifer is Jesus Christ!
It quotes the apostate Delitzch saying,
“In another and far higher sense, however, the

designation [Lucifer, whom he believes is the
morning star] was applicable to him in whom
promise and fulfillment entirely corresponded,
and it is so applied by Jesus when he styles
himself ‘The bright and morning Star’ (Rev.
xxii, 16). In a sense it is the emblem also of all
those who are destined to live and reign with
him. See STAR” (vol. 5, p. 542-543).
The pentagram (star) is the “emblem” of witchcraft and

Satanism, not Christianity! His encyclopedia goes on to say that
the Hebrew word for Lucifer is the same word that is used in
Ezek. 21:12 [17]. A Jewish child who knows the Hebrew
alphabet can see that these words do not have the same letters
and are clearly not the same word (vol. 5, p. 542).
3. Hell
His encyclopedia says there is “ample” evidence that hell is
“ ...the abode o f both happy and miserable beings.” It speaks of
“the happy part o f H ades...” (vol. 4 , p. 168). In truth, Abraham s
bosom, which is also called ‘paradise,’ is never referred to as
hades. By enveloping Abraham’s bosom within the definition
o f “Hell,” the encyclopedia, in essence, redefines ‘hell.’ It
describes as “figurative” the Bible’s fearful words which
STRONG DELUSION 191
describe hell. It says Christians were wrong who took the

Bible’s description o f hell “in an entirely literal sense, and
supposed there would be actual fire, etc, in hell” (vol. 4,P. i68).
Strong’s encyclopedia generally has a weak view o f ‘hell.’

It says that, at its worst, it is a “dark and gloomy world.” It calls
“doubtful” the KJB’s use of the word “hell” in some places,
saying hell “does not here mean a place o f torment” and is “not
necessarily a place o f torment.” It says, “Our English version in
this passage renders sheol as “hell;” but, clearly, the place of
torment cannot be m eant...” The article leaves open the
possibility that sheol, which can mean the grave, means
“extinction” (vol. 9, PP. 662,663).
4. Fanatical or Faithful
Strong’s approved ‘friends’ and foes reveal much about his
thinking. The article entitled “Fanaticism” says, “ In the
Protestant world we find fanaticism in the A nabaptists of
M unster...” (vol. 3, P . 482). These good Anabaptists, o f course, were
the forerunners of today’s Baptists, whose doctrine is
characterized by orthodoxy, piety, and an adherence to the
scriptures. The article on “Anabaptists” repeats his charge of
“fanaticism.” His own works-based religion lead him to include
what he calls “the Anabaptist fanatics” in the article on
“Antimonianism.” He reports that one of them “persuaded the
people to devote their gold, and silver, and movable property to
the common use, and to bum all their books but the Bible” (vol. 1,
PP. 2 10,265).
5. Essenes
In an upcoming chapter the man-made practices o f the
Essenes will be exposed. They were in total disobedience to
God’s commandments to the Hebrews. Strong, on the other
hand, has much to say to commend them. Strong suggests that
Jesus “refers to them in Matt, xix, 12...” He erringly calls them
a “ G o d -fe a rin g a n d s e lf-d e n y in g o rd e r.” H e cla im s th a t “ Jo h n

th e B a p tis t w a s a p a ra lle l to th is h o ly o r d e r ...th e B a p tist h ad
re a lly a tta in e d to th a t sp irit a n d p o w e r w h ic h th e E sse n e s stro v e
to o b ta in in th e ir h ig h e st stag e o f p u rity ” (vol. 3, p. 303).
6. Infant Baptism
S tro n g w a s e v id e n tly a p ro p o n e n t o f in fa n t b a p tism . T he
a rtic le say s, “ In th is in sta n c e , th e rite is th e a p p lic a tio n o f w a te r
in a c e rta in w a y to a ch ild ; th e id ea is a c e rta in re la tio n o f
c h ild re n to th e C h u rc h , n a m e ly , th a t th e c h ild re n o f C h ristia n
p a re n ts, b y v irtu e o f th e ir p a re n ta g e , are b ro u g h t in to su ch a
re la tio n to th e C h u rc h th a t th e y are re g a rd e d as in a c e rta in
sen se w ith in its m e m b e r s h ip ...” It q u o te s a n o th e r a u th o r w h o
c h im e s, “ W e c a n n o t b u t th in k it a lm o st d e m o n s tra tiv e ly p ro v e d
th a t in fa n t b a p tism w a s th e p ra c tic e o f th e a p o s tle s .” It ad d s,
“ T h e p re s e n c e o f th e idea o r principle u p o n w h ic h in fa n t
b a p tis m is g ro u n d e d , w e m a y say, is an in d isp u ta b le fact in th e
N e w T e s ta m e n t...” H e sh e e p ish ly m u st a d m it th o u g h , “A ll
B a p tists a sse rt th at th e re is n o g ro u n d fo r th is p ro b a b ility ” (vol. 7,
pp. 5 2 i, 523). H is b a b y -s p rin k lin g a rtic le o n “ B a p tis m ” c h id e s the

K JB say in g o n e sh o u ld b e b a p tiz e d “ w ith ” w a te r, n o t “ in ”
w a te r. H e say s th e p re p o sitio n , “ w h ic h h a s u n fo rtu n a te ly , in th e
A u th . E n g l. V e rs., o fte n b e e n re n d e re d b y th e a m b ig u o u s “ in ,”
w h e re a s it re a lly (in th is c o n n e c tio n ) sig n ifie s o n ly with o r by,
o r at m o st m e re ly d e sig n a te s th e lo c a lity w h e re th e act is
p e rfo rm e d ” (vol. i, P. 63).
7. Works Salvation
T h e sin , w h ic h re sig n s a m a n to h ell, is re je c tin g th e
sa lv a tio n o ffe re d th ro u g h th e s a c rific e o f Je su s C h rist (Jo h n
1:29). S tro n g ’s e n c y c lo p e d ia sa y s h o w e v e r, “ th e sin s [p lu ral]
w h ic h sh u t o u t fro m h e a v e n v a ry so g re a tly in q u a lity a n d
d e g r e e ...” ( v o i .4 ,P. 169).
STRONG DELUSION 193
8. Jesuit?
Although Strong does not seem to be in favor o f Roman
Catholicism, the encyclopedia includes some strange comments.
One states that “a Jesuit college and several convents were
erected, and the province o f Jaffna became almost wholly
Christian” (vol. 2 , P. 192). In reality, Jesuits and Catholic convents
do not generate ‘Christians.’
9. Salvation
Strong’s encyclopedia article on the ‘Heathen’ makes it
clear that he believes that the heathen will be saved, regardless
o f his religion and lack o f personal faith in Jesus Christ. The
article rejects what he mockingly calls “the extreme evangelical
theory, which assumes the certain damnation o f all who have
not learned the name and faith of C hrist...” It chides the man
who “confines that mercy within an exceedingly narrow
compass.” It adds, “Even Mohammed did not go to this degree
of exclusiveness.” To support this view it misuses another
author, who said, “ [N]or do I conceive that any man has a right
to sentence all the heathen and Mohammedan world to
damnation” (vol. 4 , pp. 121, 122). The encyclopedia’s article on
“Universalism” applauds and calls “judicious” the following
quotation: “As to the heathen and others who, entirely without
their own fault, have missed the way o f life, Holy Scripture
nowhere compels us to believe that these should summarily, and
on that account alone, be the victims o f an eternal damnation”
(vol. 10, P. 657). This is contrary to much o f the scripture that says
the gospel is preached to “every creature” and they are “without

excuse” (Romans 1 et al.).
10. Trinity
The encyclopedia’s article on the “Trinity,” alleges o f the
Trinitarian proof text, “ 1 John v, 7, 8 are generally admitted to
be spurious...” (vol. 10, P. 552).
11. Chop Verses

The encyclopedia recommends removing from the Bible a
large portion o f the book o f Mark, specifically the last twelve
verses. It rejects the “the closing portion (xvi, 9-20), where it
says the evidence, both external and internal, is somewhat
strong against its having formed a part o f M ark’s original
Gospel...” (vol. 5, p. 762).
12. Nazi
Strong’s encyclopedia says, “German theologians are
strongly imbued with the feeling that the history o f the Hebrews
has yet to be written.” This is a frightening statement,
considering the fact that it was made in the pre-Nazi era and
assumes that the Bible does not give an accurate description of
Jewish history (vol. 4, p. 277).
13. Booze
Strong contends that Jesus approves of and made fermented
alcoholic beverages for his first miracle. He claims, “But for the
excessive zeal o f certain modem well-meaning reformers, the
idea that our Lord used any other would hardly have gained the
least currency (vol. 5, P. 514).
14. Racism
Strong provides a forum for the views and rationale of
racists, including a lengthy article entitled “PreAdamites.” It
speaks o f the “inferior psychic and bodily endowments o f the
Black races.” It charges that “Blacks” are o f a “lower grade.” It
concludes, “The name Adam, signifying red, would imply that
he was not the parent o f the Black Races.” Strong, as editor,
inserts several dissenting footnotes disavowing some o f what is
said by “(A.W.),” the author o f the article. However, ninety-
nine percent of the eccentric article goes uncontested by Strong.
Inclusion o f such a strange article was totally at Strong’s
discretion and it includes ideas such as:
STRONG DELUSION 195
■ The “First Men were created before Adam” and this is a

“scientific fact.”
■ “The Jews are descended from Adam, the Gentiles from
Preadamites.”
■ “The deluge o f Noah was not universal, and it destroyed
only the Jews.”
■ “The conclusion is indicated, therefore, that the common
progenitor o f the Black and other races was placed too
far back in time to answer for the Biblical Adam” (vol. 8,
pp. 484, 485, 486).
15. Textual Criticism

Strong calls the corrupt “Vatican Manuscript,” the “most
valuable MSS. o f the Greek Testament” (vol. 10, P. 7 3 1). He chides
Beza for not being acquainted with the “criticism o f the New
Testament” (vol. 2 , P. 429). O f the Bible defiling “Germans” he says,
“In the lower criticism we willingly sit at their feet and learn”
(vol. 2, p. 432).
He recommends a “very superior edition o f Schmid’s”

concordance and its “correspondence with Griesbach’s edition,”
the precursor of the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text ( v o i.2 , P.
455). O f Griesbach’s corrupt Greek edition he says, “It is
indispensable to every critic and intelligent theologian (vol. 2, P.

57i). He adds, “Critical examination o f the text o f the Bible was
then much in favor, and young Griesbach followed the
current...Griesbach’s name is inseparably connected with the
criticism o f the text o f the N .T ....” (vol. 3, PP. 1008, 1009). He admits,
“Griesbach’s innovation excited great alarm among the
partisans o f the existing texts” and he was subsequently
“attacked.”
Strong boasts that Griesbach, “constantly displays a very

decided preference for the Alexandrian class” o f manuscripts.
“His ultimate choice o f reading is consequently determined by
the testimony o f O rigen...” (vol. 3, p. 1009). (New Age Bible

Versions describes in detail the depravity o f both Origen and the
Alexandrian manuscripts.) Strong admits that “Griesbach
was long and severely attacked by Trinitarian writers as an
opposer of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity...In consequence
of these and other points in his critical works, the
commendation and patronage of the Unitarians were
bestowed upon him” (vol. 3, p. 1010). Why would Christians seek
Strong’s definitions for Bible words, when he reveals his
admiration for Griesbach’s critical Greek edition and shows
himself most unworthy of our confidence by his membership on
the RV/ASV committees.
Why is so much missing from Strong’s RV and ASV? Like

Westcott and Hort, he recommends “the most ancient”
manuscripts, such as the old corrupt “uncials.” He says,
“We cannot believe, with the editor (Martin

Scholz), that the Byzantine family is equal in
value or authority to the Alexandrine, which is
confessedly more ancient, nor can we put his
junior codices on a level with the very valuable
documents o f the Oriental recension.”
The encyclopedia’s article on “Criticism” closes saying, “Were

we disposed to follow the text o f any one editor absolutely, we
should follow Lachmann’s” Christ-rejecting text (vol. 2 , pp. 571, 572).
Strong bemoans the “impossibility o f any satisfactory
restoration of the Hebrew of the O.T., or any settlement o f the
Greek o f the N.T.” (vol. 3, p. 220).
16. Unholy Lexicons vs. the Holy Bible

Strong recommends “Roman Catholic Dr. Geddes,” who
charges the King James Bible with “falling short” o f the “true
principles of translation” (vol. 3, P. 219). He cites several who chide
STRONG DELUSION 197
the KJB translators’ “superstitious adherence to the Masoretic

text” (vol. 3, P. 219). He commends his readers to the diabolical
“book by Dr. Trench,” who says that “a revision ought to come”
(vol. 3, pp. 2 2 i, 220). Trench and his book are thoroughly exposed in a
chapter to follow later in this book. Strong charges that,

“Grammatical inaccuracy must be noted as a defect pervading”
the KJB. He says, “Instances will be found in abundance in
T rench...” (vol. 3, P. 221). This wrong view is thoroughly swept
away in the chapter, “Mortal Sins: Living Verbs Wounded in
Grammars,” as well as in other chapters in this book.
17. Strong’s Weak on Hebrew

In upcoming chapters, readers will learn that modern
Hebrew ‘scholars’ construct word meanings based upon the
secular and distorted usage o f surrounding pagan nations.
Strong admits that in the KJB, “The forms o f cognate Shemitic
languages had not been applied as a means for ascertaining the
precise value of Hebrew words.” “ ...H ebrew was more studied
in the early part o f the 17th century than it is now” (vol. 3, P. 222). In
other words, earlier English translations, such as the KJB and its
predecessors, were not tainted by the use o f distorted lexicons
that define Hebrew words based on pagan usage.
Strong’s encyclopedia directs the reader to one o f the most

extreme works o f the higher critics, “Ewald’s Hebrew
Grammar” (vol. 4 , P. 131). The encyclopedia denies that the original
Hebrew text had vowel points, saying “the vowel sounds
formed no part.” This belief often enables Strong to write his
own Bible, “when a change o f the points [vowels] would give a
better sense...” ( v o l.4 . pp. 133, 137). That the vowel points are in fact
original is proven in In A we o f Thy Word.
18. Inspiration
Philip Schaff selected only ASV committee members w o
denied the inspiration of the originals. Strong’s article, entitled
“Criticism, Biblical,” notes, “ ...it is possible that some clerical
errors may have existed in the original autographs themselves,
and others probably crept in at the earliest date in copying” (vol.
2 , p. 567). Strong’s article on the inspiration of the “Canon” of the
scriptures notes his doubts and says it is “difficult to adjust in

every respect with their human features” (vol. 2 , P. 85). Without a
clear standard o f scriptures before him, Strong staggers on a sea
of variants, alleging “corruption of the text.” He says,
“discrepancies, are apparently insoluble, owing to the loss o f the
original data” (vol. 2, pp. 290, 2 9 1).
His article on “Inspiration” denies the verbal inspiration of

the statements in the Bible. It says, “ .. .nay, we must, in the light
o f just criticism - admit that the phraseology in which these
statements is couched is oftentimes neither elegant nor exact.
Yet this does not impair their essential truth." His belief in
concept, not verbal inspiration, leads him to find a
“discrepancy” in its records. He says that to use the terms
“Plenary Inspiration” and “Verbal Inspiration” are “incorrect”
and “extravagant.” He says, ““Plenary Inspiration” is a phrase
nowhere warranted by the Scriptures as predicated of
themselves.” He adds, ““Verbal Inspiration” is an expression
still more objectionable as applied to the Scriptures. He
concludes, “Words, as such are incapable o f inspiration... to say
that God makes use of them is only evading the point. He does
not directly supply them nor authorize them; he only suffers
them” (vol. 4 , p. 614).
STRONG DELUSION 199
19. The Genesis Record

The article on “Cosmology” says, “ .. .the simple narrative of
creation omits much that scientific research has since
supplied...” “Creation was regarded as a progressive work - a
gradual development from the inferior to the superior order of
things.. ,[T]he term “day” alone may sometimes refer to an
indefinite period...” (vol. 2, pp. 526, 527).
The article, which Strong wrote on “Geology,” gives

expanded credence to the evolutionary model, which generally
disavows the Genesis record o f six days o f creation and tries to
adapt the Bible to the meager evolutionary science available in
the 1800s. He charges those who “ascribed the existence o f
fossil remains to the flood in the days of Noah” with relying
upon “false and absurd principles” (vol. 3 , PP. 794-8O8). The article on
“Skepticism” discusses other aspects o f the evolutionary model
in a more Biblical way (vol. 12, P. 821 et ai.).
The encyclopedia says,
“It will sometimes become necessary to modify

our conclusions as to particular passages in
consequence o f the discoveries and deductions o f
MODERN SCIENCE. Instances in point are the
theories respecting the creation and deluge,
arising from the progress o f astronomical and
geological knowledge. All truth is consistent
with itself; and although the Bible was not given
for the purpose o f determining scientific
questions, yet it must not, and need not be so
interpreted as to contradict the “elder scripture
writ by God’s own hand” in the volume o f
nature” (vol. 4 , p. 206).
Strong’s Delusion and God’s Conclusion
The book of Revelation records that Jesus Christ charged

with heresy, certain churches that were composed o f true
Christians. It would be wrong to presume that even today there
are not true Christians who are deceived in some way and the
harbingers o f heresies as severe as those denounced in the book
o f Revelation. Strong and a few of the other lexicographers
discussed in this book (e.g. Vine) may be just such Christians,
as their writings periodically show a glimmer of truth. It is
impossible for a person to know another man’s heart and judge
whether their statements o f orthodoxy are based on a real
relationship with Jesus Christ or are merely religious rhetoric,
which serves as the sheep’s clothing which all wolves must don.
Strong’s heresy is a Christian’s warning to “withdraw thyself’
from the Greek and Hebrew “private interpretation” in the back
o f Strong s Concordance. The front matter o f his concordance,
in which Strong lists the PLACES where a given word is used,
is still perhaps the most valuable tool Christians have to
“compare spiritual things with spiritual.”
The Latest Strong Delusion
The latest editions o f Strong’s Concordance have been

corrupted to further match the corrupt new versions. The
Complete Strong’s Concordance and its Greek Dictionary had
King James Bible critic, Gregory Stephens, among its editors.
The latest fiasco is called The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance. Its editor is new version fan, John Kohlenberger.
It is published by NIV publisher, Zondervan, therefore it is sure
to make its definitions match the NIV and TNIV. Zondervan is
a subsidiary of Harper-Collins, the publisher o f The Satanic
Bible.
STRONG DELUSION 201
Although the front concordance (not back lexicon) in

Strong’s Concordance has been very useful in the past in
finding where Bible words occur (since it was more
comprehensive than Young’s or Cruden’s concordances), the
New Strong’s Concordance is less dependable than the original
edition. New editions are beginning to conform the main
concordance to new version corruptions. For example, the
word ‘Jesus’ is no longer listed as occurring in Heb. 4:8. This is
because Thomas Nelson, its publisher, also publishes the
corrupt NKJV which omits ‘Jesus’ in that verse. This omission
o f the pre-incamate Christ follows all corrupt new versions,
which replace ‘Jesus’ with ‘Joshua’ in that verse. The KJB is
the only Bible which accurately translates, instead of
‘interprets’ that word in that verse. The “Instructions to the
Reader” o f this New Strong’s Concordance says, “The New
Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance o f the Bible - Red-
Letter Edition enables the reader to locate any Scripture passage
in the King James Version, as well as every Hebrew or Greek
word behind the English words.” This is a misleading statement
as the Greek word for ‘Jesus’ is in Hebrews 4:8 in all Greek
manuscripts and printed editions, both corrupt and pure.
Furthermore, it admits it has “Expanded” entries in which its
“Dictionaries include contributions by John R. Kohlenberger.”
T h lS IS a Very dangerous trend (The N ew S tro n g ’s Expanded Exhaustive
Concordance o f the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001, p. 453, title page, et al.).
The fro n t concordance (not back lexicon) in Strong’s

Concordance is still the best Bible study tool, outside o f the
Holy Bible, as it usually shows each occurrence of a word,
thereby enabling one to see how God uses each word in other
contexts. (The Greek and Hebrew definitions throughout
Young’s Concordance are just as corrupt as those in the back o f
Strong’s lexicon and Young’s main concordance is less
comprehensive.)
Holy Bible’s Built-in Dictionary
Definitions from corrupt lexicons, like Strong s and

Young’s, are not necessary; the King James Bible defines all of
its own words. Even the reformer Philip Melancthon said,
“[I]t is a duty to abide by the pure and simple

meaning of Holy Writ, as, indeed, heavenly
truths are always the simplest; this meaning is to
be found by comparing Holy Writ with itself.
On this account we study Holy Writ, in order to
pass judgment on all human opinions by it as a
universal touchstone” (iCont. Eckium Defensio, M elancthonn
O pera, ed Bretschneider, I, 113 cited by Neander, H istory o f Dogmas
[Ryland], p. 623 and Strong and M cClintock, vol. 3, p. 462).
In centuries past, British theologian Bishop Lowth wrote of

“the correspondence of terms,” wherein one verse’s words are
defined by another parallel verse. He noted that “ ...parallel |
lines sometimes consist o f three or more synonymous terms,
sometimes of two, sometimes only of one... Parallels are formed
also by the repetition of the first part of the sentence.” Even
earlier, Schottgen wrote about “the conjunction o f entire
sentences signifying the same thing; so that exergasia bears the
same relation to sentences that synonymy does to words.” Jebb
“suggests as a more appropriate name for parallelism o f this
kind, cognate parallelism ^ Even antiquated Hebrew Grammars,
such as Mason and Bernard’s Hebrew Grammar, show how the
Bible expresses “the same idea in different words. [I]f you
translate” the Bible “into another language,” verses “still keep
and retain their measure” and the word-defining parallelisms
remain (M cC lintock and strong, vol. 8, pp. 323, 324). My books, In Awe o f Thy
Word and The Language o f the King James Bible, document
and demonstrate just how easily this built-in dictionary can e |
found.
C h apter 8
Logos Bible Software’s
Liddell-Scott
Greek-English
Lexicon
“THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS” Rev. 17:5

Henry George Liddell

1811-1898
Courtesy of Palmu Publications
(See bottom o f page 165 for split finger hand sign, which may or may not be used by Liddell.)
LIDDELL-SCOTT GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON 205
The First Bite Might Kill You
“But o f the tree o f the knowledge o f good and

evil, thou shalt not eat o f it: for in the day that
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” Gen.
2:17
iddell and Scott took the first big English bite from this
L tree of “knowledge.” At the bottom o f every Greek-to-

English New Testament Lexicon lies the residue o f the
pagan Greek civilization. Stirred up by Robert Scott and Henry
Liddell in 1843, this scum is mixed with their cooked-up
English definitions and served today as spiritual food to
starving baby Christians, crying out for the pure milk o f the
word. Their poison spreads from generation to generation, as
Vine’s Expositoiy Dictionary tells readers it follows Thayer’s
Greek-English Lexicon, which in turn informs readers that it
followed Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. The NIV
editor, Kenneth Barker, cites the Liddell-Scott Greek-English
Lexicon as one o f the “works referred to” to support his NIV
(K enneth Barker, The Accuracy o f the NIV, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996, pp. 7, 8, 114
et al.).
These cooks, Liddell and Scott, hide back in hell’s kitchen

and their names are rarely seen in the acknowledgements in
today’s lexicons. Subsequent lexicon authors and Bible
software developers have taken Liddell and Scott’s definitions
for Greek words and passed them off as their own. Only Logos
Bible Software o f Bellingham, Washington, brings them out of
the closet, boldly parades their ‘Greek Pride,’ and names
Liddell and Scott on their CD-Rom version o f the 9th
unabridged edition o f the Greek-English Lexicon.
The lexicon’s English definition for ‘bird’ may be

‘good.’ Their pagan definition for ‘soul,’ ‘spirit,’ heaven and
‘hell’ will be ‘evil.’ Only those who think that they are “gods,”
dare try to discern “good” from “evil” definitions. It was the
devil who lied, saying, “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
evil” (Gen. 3:5). Their fellowship with God will wither and will
“surely die” from the serpent’s lie. Our fellowship with the
living God is through his book which “liveth” (1 Peter 1:23).
The whole tree o f knowledge, where God’s words are tested,
questioned, refined and re-defined, casts a questioning shadow,
not an illuminating light, over what “God said. It is a lifeless
counterfeit for comparing “spiritual things with spiritual” (1
Cor. 2:13).”
People who want to ‘correct’ the Holy Bible generally

do so because they find it much too holy for their tastes.
Lexicographer Dean Henry Liddell of Christ s Church, Oxford,
is one such man. The Victorians, by A.N. Wilson, warns,
“Alice Liddell, whose father was Dean o f Christ

Church, Oxford, befriended a don called the Rev.
Charles Dodgson. The results were some
photographs in questionable taste and Alice s
Adventures in W onderland’ ( a . n . W ilson, The Victorians,
New York: W.W. Norton & Com pany, 2004, photo copy betw een pp.
148-149)
Dean Liddell and “The dons wives seemed content to

allow this stammering clergyman to photograph their daughters
completely nude, though only when they were very young [pre-
teens]” (W ilson, pp. 324, 325). Liddell and his coterie provided the
children and Dodgson, the pedophile, provided the camera.
“Dodgson’s photographs, which might produce

queasiness in the eyes o f some, conform to that
horrible cliche o f paedophile fantasy - the little
child who wants it’ is leading on the voyeur.”
The details o f Liddell’s involvement are
documented in detail in the Appendix at the end
o f this chapter. (A.N. W ilson, The Victorians, New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 324, 325, photo between pp. 148-149).
As the reader will discover, nice people do not re-word the

Bible.
Henry Liddell (1811-1898), the Real Humpty Dumpty
Henry Liddell’s upbringing, or lack o f it, makes it all too

clear why he grew up to be a man who wanted to make the
Church o f England “broader and more liberal” through his
Gl eek-English Lexicon (Encyclopedia B ritannica, New York: Encyclopedia
Britannica, inc., 1911, vol. 16 p. 588). When all too tender to think for
himself, he was shuttled off to “the rough discipline” of

boarding school for brainwashing. Liddell’s mother and father
traded parental guidance for training in the pagan Greeks.
There, students were obliged to learn all the Odes and Epodes
of Horace by heart, and to be able without book to translate
them .. (H enry L. Thompson, H enry George Liddell, London: John M urray, 1899, pp. 2,
7). The diet, no doubt, was a mix o f gruel paste and “Greek
plays...Satires...and Plato’s Apology.” He said the school
had, “not much o f religion in it...” and “was not a place to
foster religious im pressions...” There, the heartless dead
skeleton o f Church o f England formality was given a shroud of
liveliness with the lurid tales and wicked plays o f the twice dead
pagan Greeks. With no indication o f his own spiritual
awakening, Liddell says that at “fifteen years o f age, I was
confirmed with others by Bishop Bloomfield” (Thompson, PP. 11, io).
With yet no testimony of salvation, at the age of 18, he

was “entered on the books of Christ Church,” when he enrolled
at Oxford. Here he “was now first introduced to the intricacies
of T h u c y d i d e s . . . and...Aristotle.” Here he met fellow student
Robert Scott, with whom he hatched the lexicon scheme.
(Thom pson, pp. 13, 14, 15).
Wine Washes Away “pure theology”
As a substitute for the true Spirit o f God, Liddell and

Scott imbibed yet another kind o f ‘spirits,’ as many college
students do. He claimed ‘membership’ in a church and then a
drinking club. The ten members “consumed, in four nights, less
than four bottles o f wine” (Thom pson, p. 18).
“In 1832 Liddell became one of the original members

of a club which, from its consisting of ten
members...was called the ‘Ten Tribes.’ The club
met o f an evening after Hall dinner, for wine and
talk ...” (Thom pson, pp. 17, 18).
What could college students do with a Bible which warns in

Prov. 20:1, “Wine is a mocker”? The evil ‘spirits balked,
“Yea, hath God said ...?”
Why, w ine’s not a mocker.
There’s more to that meaning.
The Greek’s in your locker.
The Septuagint word
means ‘gregarious talker.’
Toss the old solid Rock.
Use much more supple talk.
Think how smart one could sound
if the Greek word he found.
Who will know its true meaning,
with a lexicon leaning
back to old pagan Greece,
where the fold we can fleece?
Soon the wine and talk” turned to a scheme to silence the

talking book, which gawked at their every evil move. These
“two young students,” Liddell and Scott, at the baby-faced age
o f 23, began working on the first (of its kind) Greek-English
lexicon in 1834 (Thompson, pp. 65, 66).
O f course the spirit, “that now worketh,” had a publisher

that now walked on the scene, knocked on the door o f their
dreams, and made them an offer from Satan’s deep coffers
(Eph. 2.2). The evil purpose o f the whole lexicon is openly
admitted in a Liddell letter. He “regrets” to see a mind “running
too much to pure theology.” His solution is a secularized
Greek-English lexicon, which would bastardize pure New
Testament words, smearing them with meanings with pagan
Greek leanings. It would have to “explain all words contained in
the New Testam ent...All tenses and forms o f words in the
G o s p e ls (A Lexicon: A bridged From L iddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, prefatory material, no page number).
“In a letter to Vaughan Liddell writes:”
“ ...the authors were first encouraged to their

task by the suggestion o f William Sew ell...”
“ ‘Sewell thinks the Oxford mind is running

too much to pure Theology: if you
think so too, and also like him regret it,
you will be glad to hear that some o f us are -
in all likelihood - about to close an
engagement with Talboys [a publisher] for a
Lexicon founded chiefly on Passow; indeed
I dare say it will be nearly a translation. This
sentence is rather arrogant, for the “some of
us,” after all, is only Scott and myself. At
present you need say nothing about it. ..”

(Thom pson, pp. 66, 67; H. H. Vaughan).
When the lexicon was finished, they wrote in the

preface:
“...w e shall be content if it shall in any sort
serve that end of which we spoke in the
OUtSet.. . ” (Thompson, p. 77).
Was “that end” to rid themselves and others of pure

theology,” as they wrote at the outset? Imagine, young students,
still im b le to live on their own outside o f a dorm room, paid for
by their parents, spelling out what they thought, after a wine
and talk” session, ‘what English word might’ fit ‘what Greek
word.’ A less serious, less scholarly enterprise cannot be
imagined.
“He describes how Scott and he used to meet in

his rooms at the south-west comer of the Great
Quadrangle (Staircase III. 4) and work away
from seven till eleven each night, one holding the
pen, the other searching for authorities in
b o o k s . . . ” (Thom pson, p. 73).
The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon is available in

100% proof, 80% proof, and 12% proof. Their spirits all carry a
kick— right back to pagan Greece.
1. A Greek-English Lexicon (now in the 9th revised edition

(unabridged)
2. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, which is a
condensed version o f the 1882 7th edition
3. A Lexicon: Abridged From Liddell-Scott s Greek-
English Lexicon
4. Logos Software Greek-English Lexicon on CD-Rom
Liddell & Cecil Rhodes’ Spreading Monster n
As Liddell mocks the Bible’s words, a “monster” mocks

him. He admits,
‘“ Behold the monster, as he has been mocking

my waking and sleeping visions for the last
many months’” (Thom pson, pp. 74, 75).
The monster takes the form o f the Greek letter 7T (Pi).
“In July 1842 he writes to Scott: ‘You will be

glad to hear that I have all but finished II, that
two-legged monster, who must in ancient times
have worn his legs a-straddel, else he could
never have strode over so enormous a space as
he has occupied and will occupy in Lexicons.’”
His biography contains his actual sketches:
‘Y ou will be glad to hear th a t I have all bu t

finished TT, th a t two-legged m onster, who m ust in
ancient tim es have worn his legs a-straddle,
else he could never have strode over so enorm ous
He then draws a picture o f the creature in human form.

‘ Behold th e m onster, as he has been m ocking

my waking and sleeping visions for th e last m any
months.’
Liddell’s mind was entombed in the ancient world o f the

Greek myth, art and architecture. He saw the Greek letter 71 (Pi)
come to life as the Greek statue called, The Colossus o f Rhodes,
one o f the seven wonders o f the ancient world. The statue
represents the pagan Greek sun god, Helios, from whence we
get the English word hell CGail Riplinger, The Language o f the K ing Jam es
Bible, Ararat: A.V. Publications, 1998, p. 121). This ‘god o f hell’ Can Only be
the devil. He was represented in a statue about 110 feet tall,

whose widely spread legs once straddled the harbor o f the
Greek island of Rhodes, many affirm. The pose represents the
occupation and spreading dominion o f the pagan sun god, Baal,
always represented by the circular shape o f the sun (and from which
we get the word ‘b all’; the football goal posts connecting the horizon line over which the kicked
The arms and legs o f Liddell’s sketch also depict radii
ball ‘sets.’)
o f a circle; the monster’s left (evil) eye is the circle’s center

point. (The circumference o f a circle equals ti [the monster] times
the radius squared.) The pagan temples o f the Greek gods were
built using n (3.14), since they thought it was a magical
number.
In precisely the same telling pose, with arms and legs
outstretched. Cecil Rhodes, a protege o f the Greek lexicon, is
depicted in a Punch cartoon in 1895, over 50 years later. The
cartoon is titled, “Rhodes Colussus” [sic]. Rhodes was
“shouting Colossus,” that is world dominion, until the end,
notes his biographer. The end o f this chapter will tell the full
story o f how the Lexicon became Baal’s bible for Cecil Rhodes,
the man who founded his “Secret Societies” and Rhodes
scholarship to spread the rule o f this pagan Greek god o f hell.)
(Sarah Gertrude Millin, Cecil Rhodes, N ew York: Grossett & Dunlap, 1933, p. 346); Elisabeth
Floyd and G eoffrey Hindley, M akers o f History, NYC: Galahad Books, 1980, p. 190).
The Lexicon Monster’s Mistakes
The L id d e ll-S c o tt A Greek-English Lexicon w as

p u b lis h e d in 1843. T h e e ig h th e d itio n w a s p u b lish e d in 1897.
T o d a y its m ista k e s lu rk in s o -c a lle d ‘B ib le ’ so ftw a re.
‘“ I regret,’ w ro te L id d e ll in 1853, ‘to fin d h o w

m u ch b e tte r th e L e x ic o n m ig h t b e ! ...” ’
W h e n h e w a s a m a rrie d m an , “ a fte r th e c h ild re n h ad

g o n e to b ed , h e w a s a c c u s to m e d to w o rk fo r a n h o u r o r m o re,
c o rre c tin g th e L e x ic o n .” H e a d m itte d it h ad , “ m an y , m an y
errors” (Thom pson, pp. 7 9 , 250 ). W h e n h e w a s v e ry o ld , h e said ,
“ Y o u h av e fo u n d m e at th e v e ry e n d o f a life ’s
ta sk ; fo r I am w ritin g th e last sh ee t o f th e last
e d itio n o f th e L e x ic o n w h ic h I sh all u n d e rta k e . I
sh all h e n c e fo rth le a v e it to o th e rs to correct... he
c o n fe s s e d th a t h e c o u ld n o t k e e p h is h a n d s o f f it;
th a tso many p e o p le h ad se n t h im
corrections...” (Thompson, pp. 80-81).
H is b io g ra p h e r w ro te o f L id d e ll’s “unending task of

correcting” th e L ex ic o n . So m a n y erro rs, a life tim e w o u ld n o t
p e rm it th e m to b e fix ed . Y e t th is d o rm ro o m p ro je c t o f p im p le -
p o c k e d p re p p ie s is u se d as T H E a u th o rity to c o rre c t th e H o ly
B ib le . E v e n w h e n h e w a s in h is eig h tie s, “ H e still w o rk e d , as
h a s b e e n re c o rd e d , at th e L e x ic o n , m a k in g m a n y c o rre c tio n s
th r o u g h o u t...” (Thompson, pp. 121, 268 ). So m u c h fo r a u th o rita tiv e
d e fin itio n s.
In 1940 S tu a rt Jo n e s a n d R o d e ric k M c K e n z ie trie d to

p a tc h u p th e L e x ic o n a n d p rin te d a n in th ed itio n . It is so m e tim e s
c a lle d th e L id d e ll-S c o tt-J o n e s G re e k -E n g lish L ex ic o n . B e tw e e n
1940 and 1968, so many additional errors remained that an

entire Supplement was printed to contain them. Errors
continued to be found to such an extent that Oxford University
Press had M. L. West (1981) and P.G.W. Glare (1988) add to
the Supplement edition. The most recent edition o f the error
Supplement, printed in 1996, contains 320 pages o f corrections
to the main text. Imagine all o f the Greek-o-philes who have,
since 1843, mistakenly used an edition o f this ever-changing,
error filled Lexicon to find fault with someone’s unchanging
Holy Bible. The Bible has always had the word “Holy” on its
cover; the Lexicon has wisely never made that claim.
In fact, an entire book has recently been written

exposing the errors o f Greek-English lexicography, and the
huge volume o f errors found particularly in Liddell-Scott, which
is at the foundation o f all Bible lexicography. It is entitled
Lexicographica Graeca, by Cambridge University Professor
Chadwick.
Lost in Translation: German to English? Latin to German?
Greek-English Lexicons give the false impression that

they go from the ‘original’ Greek right into English, supposedly
taking today’s reader even closer to the ‘originals’ and the mind
o f God. In fact all Greek lexicography comes first through
German Lexicons, the cesspool o f Higher and Lower Biblical
Criticism. The Liddell lexicon was based upon one used “in
Germany for the old Epic Greeks” (Thom pson, P. 69).
“It was upon this work o f Passow that the new

Oxford Lexicon was avowedly based: and in the
first three editions his name appeared on the title
page” (Thompson pp. 68-69).
Liddell was not an experienced German translator; he was

not even an inexperienced German translator. He was not a
German translator at all. At the age of 24, when he was just
commencing his work on the lexicon, “he spent some weeks at
Heidelberg [in Germany], in company with H. Haltord
Vaughan, and worked hard at G erm an...” so that he could try
to figure out Franz Passow’s German Handwdrterbuch der
griechischen Sprache (1819-1831 editions) and the German
lexicon from which Passow’s was taken, Johann Gottlob
Schneider’s Kritisches griechisch-deutsches Handworterbuch
(Thom pson, P . 27). Visits to Germany to uncover its hot-bed of
Biblical criticism could scarcely have brought him closer to t e

Christ of the Bible.
“The Preface to the first edition is now so little known,
admits his biographer. In addition to plagiarizing Passow,
Liddell’s original preface admits his other sources. There, we
can trace the words as they travel from the pagan Greek mind,
blinded by looks at Catholic-touched Latin-Greek lexicons,
shadowed by the dark forest of German unbelief, then stagger
into the dorm room of a wine-blushed English student, who was
not a native speaker of German. English words devised this way
are not pure, holy, nor given by inspiration, the words which
God uses to describe his words.
Liddell’s sources include, as he admits in the preface,

the same profane Greek names given in J. Henry Thayer’s
Greek-English Lexicon. (For a lengthy description, see chapter
on Thayer). They include Plato, Aristotle, the “comic Poets,
Aeschylus, Sophocles and the whole bag of Greek filth, murder,
adultery, homosexuality, debauchery, violence, drunkenness,
idolatry, and sadism. Liddell also makes reference to what he
calls, “the Alexandrian version o f the Old Testam ent...”

(Thom pson, pp. 68-71).
Liddell, a ‘Priest’?
The “monster” o f religious cynicism stalked Liddell his

entire life. Yet a w olf needs to feed his belly and warm his cold
soul with sheep’s clothing. So he caught the scent o f assembled
sheep and said, “I have resumed my original intention o f being
ordained Priest...” (Thom pson, p. 49).
“A few weeks before the Ordination he writes in

answer to his father:...W ould I could feel as
deeply as it deserves the depth and breadth o f its
importance! But I am sorry to say that my
mode of life has a strong tendency to attach
my first thoughts to other subjects of a too
worldly kind.. . ” (Thompson, p. 40).
He continues saying, “we know that in some measure

our salvation depends on our mutual efforts...” He seemed to
have an odd mix o f faith and works. “ [H]e entered Holy Orders
at Christmas, 1836.” He said, “ ...I kneeled this day before the
Bishop,” and hoped God would “so exalt my being while I am
left h ere...” He echoes Lucifer, who said, “I will exalt my
throne above the stars o f God” (Isa. 14:13) (Thom pson, PP. 39, 41).
As we shall see, Liddell’s ‘Christ’ is not “the Lord’s

Christ” (Luke 2:26). Liddell’s Christ is that o f Strauss, who said
man was Christ; it was “this Christ,” which was meant, if ever
Liddell spoke o f ‘Christ’ (See upcom ing section on Max M uller for a further
description; Jam es Sightler, A Testimony Founded Forever, G reenville, SC: Sightler
Publications, 2 nd ed., 2001, p. 58).
His biographer adds,

“Liddell’s tastes were at no time ecclesiastical.
He was now busily occupied with his pupils and
his own studies; and his leisure hours were
devoted to the improvement of his artistic
knowledge and skill” (Thompson, pp. 41-42).
With the black and white pages of the Bible grayed by

his lexicon, no view point could be all ‘good’ or all, ‘evil.
Liddell spoke to an audience where the shadows of the gray
goats darkened any stray sheep. In 1844 he wrote to his mother,
“ ...I preached my last University sermon

yesterday...The subject was Unity, not
Uniformity, an attempt to persuade people to
agree to differ...” (Thompson, p. 52).
Liddell’s family supported him in his form of

godliness.” His friend and uncle, Robert Liddell, was a Hig
Church pastor who enjoyed the Catholic priest’s robe and
surplice, the high altar, golden candlesticks and fancy altar
coverings, so abhorred by true Christians. The Surplice Riots
as they were called, were protests by true Christians outside of
such services. Mr. Westerton took Robert Liddell to court an
won in having much o f this removed (The Church in England,
pp. 358-359).
Liddell: Professor of Moral Philosophy and Dean
What encompassed the study of “Moral Philosophy in

England during the nineteenth century? The Professor of Mora
Philosophy at Cambridge was soon to be Henry Sidgwick
was “favorably impressed” with Luciferian Madame Blavatsky.
Sidgwick’s spiritualistic activities were identified as Satanism
by the evangelical Christians of his day (Janet o PPenheim , The o th e r
World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. I l l , 112, 174; see index under
His counterpart at Oxford was Henry
“Sidgwick, H enry,” and “satanism ” ).
Liddell, who was elected professor o f Moral Philosophy in

1845. Like Sidgwick, his lectures were not from the Bible. “O f
his work as Professor,” one observer o f Liddell said,
“ ...the opinions o f ancient Philosophers were

illustrated and explained in their bearings on
questions o f modem days. Liddell used to
illustrate the Ethics by quotations from Jane
Austen’s novels and other modem writings”
(Thom pson, p. 53).
“Liddell was never a popular preacher.. (Thompson, p. 55).

To the chagrin o f many, in 1855 he was chosen to be the Dean
o f Christ Church College at Oxford. The conservatives
“dreaded” to see a man they called a “liberal,” given this
authority.
“At Christ Church itself, however, there

prevailed an old-fashioned conservatism, which
had regarded with dislike and apprehension the
changes recommended by the Commission, and
which dreaded the experience of the rule o f one
who had been a prominent member o f the body.”
“Many of us at that time were strong

conservatives as regards the affairs o f Christ
Church, and little wished to have one who was a
liberal, and had been an influential member o f
the University Commission, to be our ruler...”
A contemporary wrote o f Liddell, ‘“ There was, I think, he

writes, ‘a certain turn in the course o f the Dean’s life and
interests. In the midst of the theological fray at Oxford between
the Oxford school and its opponents, he preached one or two
very able sermons of a liberal and philosophic kind... He
commented further that Liddell “seemed afterwards to turn
aside and to devote himself entirely to Classical pursuits...”
[pagan Greek literature and mythology, et al.]. His biographer
continues saying, “Whatever cause may be assigned, it is
undoubtedly true that after Liddell’s return to Oxford in 1855 he
rarely preached before the University except on Good Friday
and Christmas Day, when it was his duty to do so.” His
biographer states, “But there is no doubt that, as he grew older,
he shrank more and more from theological discussions” (Thompson,
pp. 246- 248).
As Dean, his personal and home life found place for the
murder and witchcraft o f Shakespeare and the Greek plays. He
said, we “hope to throw open our doors for an evening musical
party next week. They are intending to get up the ‘Macbeth’
music, with choruses, some glees, and other music, by the help
o f some of the young men and some ladies, if they are not too
prudish to join” (Thompson, p. 148).
No doubt the conservatives, whom he disliked,

whispered about such things, as he admits,
“This is a strange place for rumours. It has been

reported that Mrs. Liddell is getting up private
theatricals, and that Dr. C- permits his daughter
to personate one of the witches, while the Dean
is expected to represent Macbeth!” (T hom pson,p. 149).
No doubt rumor travels, as Mrs. Liddell had coached

male students earlier who “had acted female parts” and “she had
taught them as to their gait...” (Thomspon, p. 133). Can you just
picture that?! Some of Liddell’s students and friends, as we
shall soon see, would have been in their ‘element.’
Liddell’s Rowdy Friends
“[A]ttack was made in the newspapers as early as December

1859,” against Liddell, for preferential treatment o f those who
were likeminded (Thompson, pp. 180- 181). Liddell’s ungodly circle of
like-minded friends is brought back to life through the medium
o f his official biography, Henry Liddell, which was sanctioned
by his wife and written by a friend and admirer. Liddell chose to
surround himself with imps and wimps from Satan’s inner
circle of mind-molders and nation-makers. (Documentation will
follow.) These include:
1. George Eliot (aka Mary Ann Evans) (pantheist

and libertine)
2. Arthur Stanley (consoler of Luciferian Annie
Besant, Revised Version host and translator)
3. John Ruskin (Socialist, racist, New World Order
Utopian, fascist, alleged pedophile, and member
of the Metaphysical Society and Sidgwick’s
Society for Psychical Research (contacting the
dead through seances)
4. Charles Kingsley (universalist, whose
endorsement appeared in Darwin’s Origin o f the
Species)
5. Benjamin Jowett (pantheist and heretic)
6. Max Muller (professed atheist, lecturer on
Hinduism, author o f Theosophy (1893), who had
a “generous estimation” of Luciferian, Madame

Blavatsky)
7. C. L. Dodgson (pen-name, Lewis Carroll,
alleged pedophile and author o f Alice In
Wonderland, a book named such because of
Dodgson’s prurient ‘interest’ in Liddell’s child,
Alice; see also Appendix A, following this
chapter.)
8. Robert Scott: Member o f Westcott and Hort’s
vile Revised Version Committee o f 1881
A look into the minds of Liddell’s choice for friends lends little
credibility to the mind that made his lexicon jump from German
to English.
Ladies First: George Eliot
George Eliot was the pen-name behind which Mary Ann Evans
hid her heresies. Liddell’s liberal outlook was a mirror
reflection o f Eliot’s and A.P.
Stanley’s. Their distorted
image of philosophy should be
looked into, Liddell stated to
one correspondent—
“As to faith, I suppose

you mean that the old
provinces o f faith are
being invaded by
conviction o f new facts
inconsistent with their
maintenance. Must this
not be so ...”
“I have been reading Scenes o f Clerical Life, by

George Eliot. . . How different all our religious
squabbles and doubts would be, if such
questions were treated as she or Arthur
Stanley treated them ... I did not know she was
so powerful, and so completely fair to all
varieties of religious thought and feeling”
George Eliot was also a friend o f A.P. Stanley. If

Liddell would have liked to see “religious squabbles and
doubts” treated as Eliot and Stanley treated them, let’s see what
ideologies Liddell promoted (Sightier, P. 2 5 1).
George Eliot Denied Every Doctrine of Christianity
■ George Eliot’s live-in consort, George Lewes naturally

wrote o f her, “laxity in religion” (Sightier, P . 253).
■ It has been said that necromancer and chloroform addict,

Edmund Gurney, became the inspiration for her book
Daniel Deronda, (Sightier, pp. 251-252).
■ She and Lewes attended a seance with Charles Darwin. Her

biographer said that something “took possession o f her”
when she wrote. He said that she was only “the instrument
through which the spirit, as it were, was acting” (Brian ingiis,
Natural and Supernatural, A H istory o f the P aranorm al From E arliest Times to 1914,
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1977, p. 308 as cited in Sightier, p. 256).
To promote her heretical, pantheistic, and monistic beliefs,

she translated the writings of German transcendentalist, D.F.
Strauss. Both Eliot and Strauss had bitten o f the forbidden fruit
and swallowed the serpent’s saying, “ye shall be as gods.” Eliot
and Strauss believed that each person that is bom is actually

God becoming a man. Strauss said, “Humanity is the union o f
two natures - God become[s] m an...” Strauss and Eliot teach
that the story o f Jesus is only a myth to demonstrate the divinity
of man (Strauss, D.F., as quoted in Storr, Vernon, F., The D evelopm ent o f English Theology
in the Nineteenth Century, New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913, pp. 225-226 as cited in
Sightler, p. 58-59).
As a youth, Liddell had read this very philosophy

expressed by Plato, who taught that each man’s soul was a
small part o f the Soul o f the World and was therefore divine.
(This philosophy is called monism and sometimes pantheism.
Liddell’s Greek-English Lexicon was the key which opened
Plato’s dark cave o f Greek philosophy to a new generation.
Plato’s view that ‘man is God,’ is the paramount world-view of
today’s New Age movement and is also held by many Hindu
swamis. Both Liddell and B.F. W estcott’s (and Moulton and
M illigan’s) sons followed the footsteps o f Luciferian Madame
Blavatsky and her pilgrimages to India, seeking the original
roots o f this philosophy (Thompson, p. 238). A trip to Genesis chapter
three would have been shorter. Many lost British young men
wandered to India to find a wider religion which escapes the
narrow path o f the Bible. Homes where Hinduism was held
high bid the sons o f men who were lexicon authors and
Revised Version translators (Liddell, Westcott and Moulton or
Milligan) to follow Blavatsky’s path to India (See chapter on
the Moulton & Milligan Lexicon). Many young men broke
through the borders of England to escape the bounds o f the
English Bible (Thom pson, p. 238). India and Germany were two
frequently taken trips to unbelief.
In another letter Liddell adds,

“I have also been reading Lord Roberts’ Forty-

one Years in India with the greatest
satisfaction... Philosophy and, I must add,
theology have no delights for me” (Thompson, p.
273),
In another letter written in his eighties, Liddell said,
“But I think the true Christian spirit is best

evidenced by recognizing what is good in every
man and every system” (Thompson, P. 273).
A.P. Stanley: Liddell’s Opinion Maker & Friend #2:
A. P. Stanley was the Dean o f Westminster Abbey, that

“Decorated Gothic,”
sensuous, and spiritual
vacuum where British
monarchs are crowned,
married, and buried. Its
leadership is never given to
an evangelical or
fundamental Christian. Its
throne fits Stanley, who
belonged to the Sterling
Club, which was called a
club o f “popish” men and
“Germanized Straussians”
(i.e. man is God) (Sightier, p.
192). Liddell’s biographer
reveals,
“No other friend exercised so much influence as

did Stanley over Liddell’s opinions”
“ Stanley’ s friendship was very precious to the

Dean [Liddell]” (Thom pson, pp. 183, 189).
Liddell was Stanley's "close neighbor” and chose him to

be the godfather o f his son. Liddell's biography spoke o f his
“ lose and affectionate intimacy” with Stanley. He was a
lifelong “ close personal friend.” When “ his very dear friend
Arthur Stanley” died, Liddell said, “ Ah me! On, o f my own
dear family no death could so rend my heart... (Thom pson, PP. 1 2 5 ,
182, 186, 259). Liddell’ s biographer said,
“ ...the two had been drawn together in many

ways for many years, and were closely united in
sympathies, religious and political” (Thom pson, P.
259).
What were these “ united” “ religious” “ sympathies ?

What did the conservatives o f his day think o f Liddell and
Stanley? Liddell’ s push to have his liberal, best friend, Stan y,
as an occasional speaker to the students at Oxford, elicited
letter o f “ opposition” from Dean John Burgon, a conserva 1
and supporter o f the King James Bible (Thompson, P. 193). Burg
castigated Liddell for his liberal choice, saying:
“ I cannot think the advocate o f the Westminster

Abbey sacrilegious Communion; the patron of
Mr. Vance Smith, the Unitarian teacher; the
partisan o f Mr. Voysey, the infidel; the avowed
champion of a negative and cloudy
Christianity which is really preparing t e way
for the rejection of all revealed truth; a fit
person to be selected to address the youth o f this
place from the University pulpit” (Prothero, Rowland e „
The Life and Correspondence ofA.P. Stanley, New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1894, Vol. II, p. 226, as cited in Sightler, pp. 194-195;
see also Thompson, p. 192).
Liddell would like “religious squabbles” “treated as

Arthur Stanley treated them,” with a referee with no eyes,
where religious squabbles end in ties. Stanley’s biographer said
that Stanley even opposed the use o f the Christian creed in the
church, because o f its strong Trinitarian statements (Sightler, P. 196;
Thompson, p. 192). Might the Christian Trinity offend his Unitarian
and Hindu friends and sympathizers?
Liddell, in words, is apparently applauding Stanley’s

mind-set — so broad it allowed his comforting visits to
Luciferian, Annie Besant,
soon to be editor o f Lucifer
magazine. She was a
theosophist and protege o f
Lucifer worshipper,
Madame Blavatsky. After
Besant had written a leaflet
denouncing the deity of
Christ, Stanley encouraged
Besant regarding her beliefs
during visits to her home.
Her paper’s introduction
was written by the “infidel,”
Charles Voysey. Stanley
told her during one o f his
visits to her home,
“ ...that conduct was far more important than

theory, and that he regarded all as Christians who
recognized and tried to follow the moral law. On
th e q u e stio n o f th e a b so lu te D e ity o f Je su s h e
laid b u t little s t r e s s ...” (Annie Besant, Autobiographical
Sketches, London: Freethought Publishing Company, 1885, pp. 81-82 as
cited by Sightler, p. 196). (See p. 165 for Besant’s hand sign.)
S ee p a g e 88 0 fo r a frightening p ic tu re o f S tan ley ! B e s a n t said,
“ H e so o th e d a w ay all h e r [B e s a n t’s m o th er]

a n x ie ty a b o u t m y h e re s y w ith ta c tfu l w isd o m ,
b id d in g her have no fe a r o f d iffe re n c e s of
o p in io n w h e re th e h e a rt w a s set o n tru th ” (Besant,
Autobiographical, pp. 81-82 as cited by Sightler, p. 196; he echoes
Muller who said at Stanley’s church “as long as they spring from a pure
and simple heart,” The Collected Works O f Max Muller, London:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1898, p. 377).).
B esant asked S ta n le y h o w h e c o u ld re m a in in th e
C h u rc h o f E n g la n d w ith su ch u n -C h ristia n v ie w s. H e c o n fid e d
h is tru e J e su itic a l style,
“ I th in k th a t I am o f m o re s e rv ic e to tru e re lig io n
b y re m a in in g in th e C h u rc h a n d striv in g to w id e n
its b o u n d a rie s fro m w ith in , th a n i f I le ft it a n d
w o rk e d fro m w ith o u t” (Besant, pp. 81-82 as cited in Sightler,
p. 196).
H ow d id h e “w id e n its b o u n d a rie s ” ? “ S ta n le y h ad
in v ite d “ to p re a c h at a c o u rse o f ‘se rv ic e s fo r th e p e o p le ’ in
W e s tm in s te r A b b e y ,” ” H u g h H a w e is. H e w a s a m e m b e r, w ith
S ta n le y , o f th e S o c ie ty o f P sy c h ic a l R e se a rc h a n d “ atte n d e d
se a n c e s .” H e sa id “ faith in a n d re v e re n c e fo r th e B ib le w as
d y in g o u t” and “ c le rg y m e n ” “ought to be g ra te fu l to
S p iritu a lis m [n e c ro m a n c y ] fo r g iv in g th e m a p h ilo s o p h ic b asis
fo r th e im m o rta lity o f th e so u l.” In 1893, tw e lv e y e a rs a fte r
S ta n le y ’s Revised Version c a m e ou t, H a w e is to ld W .T . S tead ,
e d ito r o f Borderland (a n o c c u lt n e w sp a p e r) th a t, “ O c c u ltis m is
not only a question; it is the question o f the day.” That same

year he “served as an Anglican representative to the Parliament
o f Religions held in Chicago in 1893,” directed by the
Luciferian Theosophical Society. Haweis “denounced
clergymen who delighted in “preaching hellfire and frightened
poor children into fits and sending timid women into lunatic
asylums.”” “ [H]ell hath enlarged herself,” since Stanley invited
such speakers to “widen its boundaries” (Isaiah 5:14) (Oppenheim,
pp. 71-75).
If Liddell and Stanley were “closely united in

sympathies, religious and political,” the Liddell-Scott Lexicon
is haunted with words from a tongue that was set on fire o f hell
itself. Those words lurk in new versions, beginning with the
Revised Version o f 1881, and they infest today’s software.
Liddell, Stanley and Gladstone Support the Revised Version
All the libertines o f England wanted to rid themselves of

the strident English Holy Bible. Liddell, practical head of
Oxford University, Stanley, consort with queens and princes,
and Gladstone, the Prime Minister o f England, joined their
powers with one voice:
“the rulers take counsel together, against the

LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us
break their bands asunder, and cast away their
cords from us” (Psa. 2:3).
The corrupt Revised Version would not have been

published in 1881 without the direct approval and support of
Liddell, who was a director o f the Oxford University Press at
that time. “The financial arrangements with the Revisers were
made while he presided as Vice-Chancellor [of Oxford], so that
there is every reason to assume that he concurred in the

enterprise...” The Oxford University “Press... always
contributed” to the support of the university and Liddell played
a major role in deciding “what was good” for them to publish
(Thompson, pp. 202 , 203 -204 ). Liddell’s Lexicon made the way for a
multitude o f softened meanings for Bible words, thus melting

the metal o f God’s sharp sword. The Revised Version brought
Liddell-Scott’s English words to a broader audience, who
pressed the Press’s tiny purse, which Liddell held.
Liddell’s Lexicon had broken down long-standing

meanings for Bible words in the minds o f some, including the
British Prime Minister Gladstone. Liddell told o f a lecture
Gladstone gave on his visit to Oxford. He said that Gladstone
spoke on “recent discoveries of Assyrian antiquities...” “One o f
these was that the Assyrian Hades had seven gates, through
which the mythical hero Ishtar had to pass.” Gladstone
remarked that “Homer speaks o f ’ a “gatekeeper, so that it is
clear Homer had the seven Assyrian gates in his mind.” Liddell
said that,
“He values this discovery so highly that he has

sent me a note o f it for insertion in the Lexicon”
(Thompson, p. 239).
What a relief for all to discover that the burning hell of

the English Bible is merely a seven gated Assyrian amusement
park! O, how a lexicon, with dark pagan Assyrian mythology,
sheds light upon the English Holy Bible.
Stanley hosted and was a founding member o f the

Revised Version Committee. The Life o f Philip Schaff discusses
the ongoing correspondence between Stanley and R.V. member
and American Standard Version head, Philip Schaff (D avids. Schaff,
The Life o f Philip Schaff, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897, pp. 357-358 as noted in
Sightler, p. 27).
Much earlier, in 1870, Stanley signed a formal protest

against the phrase in Mark 16:16 that says, “but he that
believeth not shall be damned.” It said,
“the passage commonly quoted from the Authorized

Version o f Mark xvi. 16 in their defense is... o f very
doubtful genuineness” (Prothero, Vol. II, p. 233 as cited in
Sightler, p. 196).
Liddell and Stanley allowed the participation of

Unitarians on the RV Committee. Stanley had said earlier that
Unitarians would be included in the “Communion o f Saints,”
which includes, in his mind, “all good men in all ages and
countries,” including the homosexual, “Socrates” (Sightler, P. 194). A
lexicon which cites Socrates so frequently could hardly view
him as a reprobate.
Roman Catholic Sympathies: Liddell and Stanley
When the flames of the R.V. Committee were just

beginning to kindle upon the Bible, firebug, Father ‘M arie’
Hyacinthe Loyson carried his candle o f Catholic hell-fire to
Liddell’s neighborhood in Stanley’s home for a camp-fire
meeting. The purpose o f the Loyson-Stanley meeting was
e c u m e n ic a l (M atthew, H.C.G ., The G ladstone D iaries, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982;
With this spark, the RV members melted

see sightler, pp. 286-287).
down the Protestant Bible, then merged it with the Catholic

version.
Years earlier, Liddell had set the Oxford stage for such
word play. Liddell’s biographer revealed that early on, “He was
an o c c a sio n a l a tte n d a n t at th e m e e tin g s of Dr. P u s e y ’s

T h e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty ...” T o b rin g L id d e ll’s lib era l O x fo rd an d
th e A n g lic a n C h u rc h to a sh e s in th e C a th o lic ca ld ro n , P u sey a n d
N e w m a n ig n ite d th e w ild fire , c a lle d th e O x fo rd M o v em en t.
L id d ell a d m its o f “ b e in g p e rs u a d e d b y N e w m a n to u n d e rta k e
th e tra n s la tio n of so m e p a ssa g e s fro m th e F a th e rs fo r
p u b lic a tio n .” L id d e ll’s b io g ra p h e r n o te s th at, “ T h e y w e re re a lly
so m e p a ssa g e s fro m I g n a tiu s ...to b e fo u n d a m o n g th e [pro-
C a th o lic ] Tracts fo r the Times.” Jo h n H en ry N e w m a n le ft to
“ fin d in th e R o m a n C h u rc h a sa tisfa c tio n a n d a c u re ” fo r his
d is p le a s u re w ith th e C h u rc h o f E n g lan d . O r w e re N e w m a n an d
P u se y Jesu its all a lo n g ? (Thompson, pp. 42, f. 43, 44; For an excellent analysis of
Newman, see Anonymous, Analysis o f Cardinal Newman's “Apologia Pro Vita Sua," London:
E iiiot stock, i8 9 i). L id d e ll p re a c h e d a g lo w in g serm o n a b o u t th e then
Catholic C a rd in a l N e w m a n a n d a P ro te s ta n t m in iste r. H e said,
“ It h a s b e e n m y fo rtu n e to h e a r b o th o f th ese
g re a t p r e a c h e r s ...I t is d iffic u lt to sa y w h ic h w as
th e m o re im p re s s iv e ...T h e e a rn e stn e ss o f b o th
th e se g re a t te a c h e rs w as th e sam e; the
th o u g h tfu ln e s s in sp ire d b y th e m w a s eq u a l. W e
m ay b e p ro u d th a t b o th w e re so n s o f O x fo rd ”
(Thompson, pp. 44-45).
T h e b io g ra p h e r d isc lo se s, “ it sh o w s L id d e ll’s
a p p re c ia tiv e e stim a te o f N e w m a n ’s in flu e n c e ” (Thompson, p. 45).
M o st te llin g ly o f all, L id d e ll’s b io g ra p h e r n o tes th a t L id d ell w as
c o ld to th o se e v a n g e lic a ls w h o re s is te d th is p u s h to w a rd R om e.
“ ...h e g av e b u t c o ld su p p o rt to th e E v a n g e lic a l
p ro te st a g a in st it” (Thompson, p. 45).
H is c lo se frie n d M ax M u lle r ta u g h t th a t R o m an
C a th o lic ism is th e m o th e r a n d P ro te sta n tis m is th e ch ild (Max
Miiller, Collected Works o f M ax M uller, IX, The Hibbert Lectures, London and Bombay:
Only from Anglican heresies, and there
Longmans, G reen, and Co., p. 140).
were plenty, could that conclusion be drawn. In 1867, Catholic

copy-cat, Liddell caterwauled “a very remarkable sermon on the
philosophic basis o f the doctrine o f the Real Presence” (Thompson,
p. 247). The term, the “Real Presence” expressed the Roman
Catholic fable that the communion service was a magic show

where a ‘priest,’ whether Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, or
Lutheran, changed the bread into Christ’s ‘Real’ body.
Christians know such cloaked cannibalism is forbidden in the
Bible.
Broad Church Platonism and Mysticism
“...broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction,

and many there be which go in thereat:” Matt.
7:13
A Greek lexicon, which held up Plato and the Greek

myths as the source for meaning and truth, higher than the Holy
Bible, could not help but place Greek philosophy on a pedestal
shadowing the Bible itself. The backfire o f Liddell’s lexicon,
and the path it provided to the mysticism o f Greece, fueled the
mystical views already nascent in the Anglican Church. Oxford
graduate, Kirsopp Lake, wrote in his book, The Religion o f
Yesterday and Tomorrow:
“ ...the Broad Church party with Maurice,

Arnold, Kingsley, Stanley, and a little later
Westcott as its leaders. These were all, though in
different measure, philosophers and mystics.
They belong to the great tradition which can be
traced back through the Cambridge Platonists,
the Mystics of the Middle Ages, St. Augustine,
O rigen...and still further through Ammonius

Saccas and his predecessors to Plato and
unknown mystics whose names have been
forgotten...”
“The result was the Westcottian [B.F.

Westcott] theology . . .the
skill of the writer
is so great that the reader often fails to
perceive that the words of the historic
theology somehow mean exactly what
they were intended to deny” (Boston: Houghton
M ifflin, 1925, pp. 49-55; For further inform ation, see Sightler).
The Broad Church men who held posts in the Church of

England denied all of the tenets of the Christian faith. But as
Lake said, its members used their pens to etch a church fa?ade
to protect their gilded Grecian posts. Stanley has been described
as “that most liberal of broadchurchmen” (S ig h tle r, P . 2 2 ).
Bibliotheca Sacra's article on “Broad Church Theology listed
those who were part of the “new
mental tendency,” which got added
impetus from Coleridge, the opium
addict, who was followed by
“Stanley.. Kingsley. .Ruskin”.
(H.C. H itchcock, “Broad Church Theology,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. XLV111, 1891, pp. 630, 631 as
cited in Sightler, p. 67). (Another hand sign like p. 165)
John Ruskin: Liddell Friend # 3
Ruskin, Nebraska and

Ruskin, Florida were named for John
Ruskin, the man who inspired their
founders to build a socialist Utopia.
John Ruskin (1819-1900) had been a student o f Liddell’s,

although Liddell was not much older than Ruskin. Even as an
adult, Ruskin would sign a letter to Liddell, “Ever your
affectionate pupil” (Thompson, p. 82). Ruskin inherited his father’s
wine and “sherry business,” which brought him a “large
fortune.” The Encyclopedia Britannica speaks o f his “lifelong
friendships, which include Henry Liddell (Encyclopedia Britannica, New
York: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Vol. XXIII, s.v. Ruskin, John, 1911, pp. 858, 859, 860).
“Mr. Ruskin’s admiration for Liddell in earlier

days has already been referred to. Their
friendship had begun while Ruskin was an
undergraduate...” (Thompson, p. 215).
Ruskin and Liddell shared a fascination with art,

architecture and the Greek classics (i.e. Aristotle), from which
Ruskin got his dreams o f a socialist Utopia. Liddell’s biography
shows that he exercised more devotion to preserving the Gothic
details o f his church building, than in preserving its Holy Bible.
Liddell was like Stanley, who felt that his “love o f music,
painting, and o f stately architecture were the bonds that held
him bound to the Church o f England” (Sightler, P. 196). Ruskin
authored many books on such subjects; Liddell offered to fill
his purse with “profit,” if Ruskin would publish them through
Liddell’s’ University Press. Ruskin responded to Liddell that
his books can already be bought “for the price of a couple o f
bottles o f good Sillery ) (OED Sillery: “A high-class wine"; Thompson, p. 230).
Christians criticized Ruskin for writing books which

promoted the sense-distracting and wasteful omateness of
decorated Gothic architecture and the psychedelic mindset
behind the impressionistic and semi-abstract painters. Many
questioned Ruskin’s support o f the blasphemous painting,
Christ in the House o f His Parents. After writing a highly

criticized book on art, Ruskin wrote to Liddell,
“I need some support, considering the weight

and numbers of those against me; and you will, I
am sure, believe me when I say that I looked to
none in the whole circle of the friends whom I
most respect, with so much anxiety as to
you...Y ou may judge, therefore, of the infinite
pleasure which your kind letter gave m e...
(Thom pson, p. 216-217).
“ [T]he common ground of artistic sympathies which, in

distant days, had united Liddell and Mr. Ruskin,” led Liddell to
select Ruskin for a professorship at Oxford. “ [T]he appointmen
of Mr. Ruskin to the Slade Professorship o f Fine Art was
“brought to pass chiefly through the influence of Dean
Liddell ” “Mr. Ruskin’s acceptance of the Professorship was
due principally, if not entirely, to the influence of his friends
Dean Liddell (who was chairman of the Board of Electors)...
(Thom pson, pp. 228, 214-215, 211).
Ruskin, Burns Bibles?

Liddell selected Ruskin for a professorship because he
knew the halls o f Oxford would echo yet more loudly Liddell s
own soul-damning Greek philosophy and lexicography.
Regarding religion Ruskin says he regrets the naIT°
Protestantism” o f his early years (e b , p . 860). Ruskin based
entire rejection o f the Holy Bible on the private interpretation ot
Liddell and his Lexicon. It was THE vehicle which drove him
away from his religious upbringing, as it is for s o many.
Eavesdropping on one of Ruskin’s lectures shows Liddell s
doting student desperate to actually “bum ” the Bible and its

doctrine o f punishment. Ruskin said,
“How wholesome it would be for many simple

persons, if, in such places (for instance) as Acts
xix.19, we retained the Greek expression, instead
of translating it, and they had read - “Many o f
them also which used curious arts, brought their
bibles together, and burnt them before all
m e n ... (Charles W. Eliot, ed.. The H arvard C lassics: E ssays English
and A m erican, John Ruskin, “ Sesame: O f K ings’ T reasuries,” N ew York:
P.F. Collier & Sons Corporation, vol. 28, p. 104).
O f course the KJB translates the word biblos correctly

and contextually into English, as “books,” not “bibles,” in Acts
19:19. Occult “books,” not Holy Bibles, teach “curious arts.”
Liddell and Ruskin would have Christians bum “their bibles,” if
they could; instead their lexicon does it word-by-word.
They would bum the book that lovingly warns them o f a

lake that bums with fire and brimstone. Liddell taught Ruskin
well how to deal with the English words ‘hell’ and ‘damned.’
Ruskin scoms what he calls, “the English vulgar mind,” which
sometimes translates the Greek word KaiaKpivoo as, ‘damned.’
He mocks saying,
“sermons have been preached by illiterate

clergymen on - “He that believeth not shall be
d a m n e d . .. (The H arvard Classics, vol. 28, p. 104).
Liddell agreed and his presses published the Revised

Version which softens “damned” to “condemned.” Ruskin, a
master o f English prose, knew well the powerful impact o f the
plosive d. (See Riplinger, The Language o f the King Jam es Bible, p. 67).
Ruskin despises sermons that proelaim, He that
believe* shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). He was sorely
irritated by converts from child evangelism and prison
ontreaches. He despises those who believe they can be save .
by” believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. He scome
“converted children, who teach their parents;

your converted convicts, who teach honest men,
your converted dunces, who, have lived in
cretinous stupification half of their lives,
suddenly awakening to the fact that of there
being a God, fancy themselves therefore His
peculiar people and messengers...[and] think
themselves exclusively in the right and others
wrong; and preeminently, in every sect those
who hold that men can be saved by thinking
rightly instead o f doing rightly, by word instead
of act, and wish instead of w o r k . . . blown
bagpipes for the fiends to pipe w ith...”
Classics, V ol. 28, pp. 109-110).
Somewhere Rnskin missed Christ’s statement that

“This is the work o f God, that ye believe on him whom he ha
sent ( J o h n 6:29). Ruskin’s belief in ‘works’ for salvation
makes him quite at home w „h Rome. He ™ , - essay
recommending a return to Rome, where art tmagery an
Gothic architecture keep the workers busy «Construction J
Sheepfolds). Ruskin said of his books,
“I think I shall be pretty sure not to use the

language of any particular Church, for don
know exactly which one I belong to. A Romanist
priest...assured me I was quite as good a
Catholic as he” (Thompson, p. 227).
Ruskin has the same time-worn scheme to rid the world

o f a Bible that says, “by the works o f the law shall no flesh be
justified” (Gal. 2:16). Ruskin drilled:
“Now in order to deal with words rightly, this

is the habit you must fo rm ...[L]earn your
Greek alphabet; then get good dictionaries o f all
these languages [The Liddell-Scott was the only
Greek-English dictionary widely available], and
whenever you are in doubt about a word, hunt it
down patiently. Read Max M uller’s lectures
thoroughly...” [See upcoming section on
Liddell’s New Age friend, Max Muller] (H arvard
Classics, Vol. 28, pp. 104-105).
The artist in Ruskin says, “You have heard many

outcries against sensation lately; but I can tell you, it is not less
sensation we want, but more (Harvard classics, Vol. 28, p. 113). Ruskin
wants to bring the heaven-sent Holy Bible, at every point, down
to the sense-filled world o f Liddell’s pagan Greeks. With the
lexicon Ruskin joins modem Bible translators to secularize,
without reference to context, every Bible word. The “Spirit” is
too “indistinct” for his secular tastes. He says:
“Take up your Latin and Greek dictionaries,

and find out the meaning o f “Spirit.” It is only a
contraction o f the Latin word “breath,” and an
indistinct translation o f the Greek word for
w in d (H arvard Classics, Vol. 28, p. 109).
It is much too distinct, for a man who lives in the world o f his
imagination. Ruskin asked his mentor, Liddell,
“Who is the best metaphysician who has treated

the subject [of the imagination] generally, and do
you recollect any passages in Plato or other of
the Greeks particularly bearing upon it?”
(Thom pson, p. 221).
Liddell wrote back, not leading him to Bible verses

which warn of man’s imagination, but steering him off-course
to yet another of his heterodox friends, “Vaughn” (Thom pson, P ; 227).
Ruskin, along with Stanley, Sidgwick, and Catholic Cardinal
Manning, were members of the Metaphysical Society. Ruskin
was also a member o f Sidgwick’s Society for Psychical
Research and had attended seances (J. o PPenheim, The o th e r World,
Spiritualism, and Psychical Research in England, 1850-1914
University Press, 1985, pp. 127, 35, 12, 13; Sanders, C.R., C olendge and the B toad Church,
1942, as cited in Sightier, p. 247).
Ruskin, the “ever...affectionate pupil” o f Liddell’s

lexicon, is celebrated today as one of the ‘great’ minds, who
mined the ancient Greek mind-sets of Plato and Aristotle,
merging them in his own Socialist-Fascist political plan for a
“new social Utopia.” He joined the occultists of his day in many
of his ideas, and like them, expressed his “indignation” over
vivisection.
No Children, Please
Liddell’s biographer said that he was very involved with

the upbringing o f his children and that, “nothing was complete
without his co-operation and approval” (Thom pson, P. 251 ). One
would need a space shuttle to see the entire breadth of his
liberalness. He permitted his children to become quite involved
with two men who were alleged pedophiles (see also the
upcoming section on Alice in Wonderland’s author, Charles
Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll). Yale University
Press’s definitive two-volume biography o f Ruskin, by Tim

Hilton, asserts that “he was a paedophile.” Ruskin’s
autobiography, Praeterita, details, in part, his relationships with
Liddell’s young daughters. The Victorians, by A.N. Wilson,
describes the incident when Ruskin was caught “sneaking” to
see Liddell’s little daughter, when the parents were away. The
provocative picture, which Dean Henry Liddell had taken o f his
daughter, attracted much o f this wrong kind o f attention (Wilson, P.
325). “For it is a shame even to speak o f those things which are
done o f them in secret” (Eph. 5:12). The lurid details which

have brought historians to draw the conclusion that Ruskin also
was a pedophile, are best not further explored (Tim Hilton, John Ruskin:
The Early Years, Yale University Press, 1985, pp. 253-254 et al.; Tim Hilton, John Ruskin: The
Later Years, Y ale University Press, 2000, Vol. 2, p. 553 et. al).
Needless to say, like

many who have lived on the
outer border o f the broad way,
he spent his last years as a
delusional psychotic. His
“mental malady” is so foreign to
the “sound mind” given by the
Holy Bible, which he unwisely
re-defined with his Liddell’s
Lexicon — whose damnation is
just (Rom. 3:8) ( e b , p. 861). Today
the swastikas on his gravestone
still speak to passersby o f his
strange beliefs.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Cecil Rhodes: His Lexicon & His “Secret Society”
Liddell’s Lexicon and his selection o f Ruskin for a

professorship had an unforeseen and monumental impact on the
world as we now know it. Liddell’s biographer notes,
“Dr. Woods has not exaggerated the deep

impression which Mr. Ruskin’s lectures, from
1869 to 1879, make upon the Oxford world;”
(Thom pson, p. 229).
One student in particular, “heard with awe the words of

Ruskin (Sarah Gertrude Millin, Cecil Rhodes, New York: Grossett & Dunlap, 1933, p.
346). He was the soon-to-be diamond magnate and millionaire,
Cecil J. Rhodes (1853-1902), the man for whom the African

nation o f Rhodesia and the Rhodes Scholarship were named.
Cecil Rhodes carried his Liddell-Scott Greek-English lexicon
with him everywhere. And I mean everywhere. During the three
months o f perilous travel from England to Africa, he carried
three essentials:
“ ...his digger’s tools, some volumes o f the

classics, and a Greek lexicon” (Miiiin, P. 21).
His biographer asks, ‘why would a sixteen year youth carry

such objects.’
“[W]hat was he doing here with his classics and

his Greek lexicon? Why had he brought them
across the seas and carried them by Scotch cart
and oxen, all the slow, lumbering
w ay...just... these books and his digger’s
tools?” (M illin, p. 26).
These were the tools of a young man who was seeking

to unearth buried diamonds, while burying his Christian
upbringing under the titillating pages of the pagan Greek
‘classics’ and myths, rife with homosexuality, murder,
drunkenness, debauchery, and intrigue. The lexicon served to
translate the only bawdy material available to a young man m
his day. The lexicon also served the same function it did for t e
liberal clergy who remained in England - it served as the magic
book that could challenge any Bible charge against a life o
unbelief and sin.
Rhodes longed to attend Oxford, the mother-lode toi his
treasured lexicon and its ‘Father’ Henry Liddell. When he
finally became a student at Oxford, between 1876-1878, he fell
under the direct spell of Liddell’s appointee and ‘Utopia
advocate, John Ruskin. “The Disciple of Ruskin” is the title to
chapter four of his biography, Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes’^ was a
“mind buzzing with the exhortations of Ruskm.
government of the world was Rhodes’ simple desire” (M iiiin, pp.
319). In 1877,
“Inspired by Ruskin’s Inaugural Lecture at
Oxford, he makes out his first will” (Miiiin, P. 354).
As a homosexual, “Rhodes had no wife and children to

whom to leave his money; and although he was passionately
interested in his “young men” and wanted (as his Rhodes
Scholarships prove) heirs to his tradition,” he determined to
leave his yet-to-be-made millions to fulfill his goal o f world-
dominion by blonde men” (M iiiin, pp. 216, 354,356).
Rhodes wanted to experience the unbridled life of the

Greek god-man, as portrayed vividly in his ever-compamon, t e
Greek lexicon and its foundational Greek myths and
philosophies. His ideas o f a one-world government, his elite

secret society, his homosexuality, his drinking, his
megalomania, and his greed can all be traced directly to his
fascination with the Greeks, particularly Aristotle and Zeno.
Rhodes’ One-World Government
Rhodes’ “digger’s tools” started eroding America’s

sovereignty and independent economy many years ago. As a
super-power, America stands in the way o f a one-world
government. America’s mountainous strength must be chopped
away to unearth Rhodes’ one-world white diamond. His
biography (Cecil Rhodes by Sarah Millin), written in 1933, and
his will, The Last Will and Testament o f Cecil John Rhodes
edited by W.T. Stead (London: “Review o f Reviews” Office,
1902) spell out in grave detail, the plan which unfolds with
today’s newspaper. It is being implemented by the latest brood
o f Rhodes scholars. Rhodes said,
“The future is clear - we shall be one.”

“ ...how ridiculous it would appear to you to see
all these divided states, divided tariffs, divided
people...it is merely a question o f the years it
will take to complete.” “[Y]ou cannot live
unless you have the trade of the w orld...It must
be brought home to you that your trade is the
world, and your life is the w orld...” (M illin, PP. 132,
176).
The Ruskin-Darwin-Aristotle theme” was the driving power of

Rhodes, notes his biographer. Ruskin said,
246 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS________ ______________
“I contend that we are the first race in the world,

and that the more of the world we inhabit, the
better it is for the human race” (Millin, P. 34).
When he introdueed the Glen Grey Ac, to push. the native

Africans from their land and when he wrote his will, He still
had in his mind the exhortation of Ruskin,
“She must found colonies as fast and as far as

she is able, formed of her most energetic and
worthiest men; seizing any piece o f fruitful waste
ground she can set her foot on, and there
teaching her colonists that their chief virtue is to
be fidelity to their country and that their first aim
is to be to advance the power of England by land
and sea”” (M iiiin, 173).
Rhodes’ Darwinian racism is in full view when he says,
“If the whites maintain their position as the

supreme race, the day may come when we shall
all be thankful that we have escaped those
difficulties which are going on amongst all the
old races of the world” (M iiiin, p. 234).
Any setback brought out his falsetto, as he whined,
“It is humiliating to be utterly beaten back by

these niggers” (Neil Parsons, A New H istory o f Southern Africa,
2nd edition, London: M acmillan, 1933), pp. 179-181 et al.).
Millin, his biographer notes, “These were also the politics of

Aristotle,” graven in his mind via Liddell’s lexicon (Mim». p. i»)
Millin adds,
“Rhodes did not know it, but he was a

Nietzschean” (M iiiin, P. 135).
Rhodes was also repulsed by Christian missionaries. He

knew that missionaries taught and “insisted that the black
people and the white people were brothers” in Christ. Rhodes
pronounced, “We are to be lords over them.” He was “against
all missionaries.” His approach was “The missionaries must not
convert - not too much” (M iiiin, PP. 59, 6 5 , 354, 102).
Rhodes’ Will and Its ‘Secret Society’
Rhodes’ last will and testament set forth his blueprint for a
secret society to direct the building o f his one-world
government.
“In this particular will a secret society is to carry

out his schem e.. (Miiiin, P. 34).
The exact wording o f the will leaves his money:
“To and for the establishment, promotion and

development of a Secret Society, the true aim
and object whereof shall be for the extension of
British rule throughout the w orld...”
The will called for,
“The whole continent of Africa is to be settled by

Britons, and also the whole continent o f South
America, the Holy Land... the seaboard o f China
and Japan, and, finally the United States. In the
end Great Britain is to establish a power so
overwhelming that wars must cease and the
millennium must be realized” (Miiiin, P. 34).
“The confidant of his maturity was W.T. Stead,” who

published Borderland, a spiritualist journal containing articles
favorable to “occultism” and “palmistry.” Stead, like Stanley
and Ruskin, was a member o f the Society of Psychical
Research; he also used automatic writing. He went down with
the Titanic, a ship of the White Star Line, named after Lucifer
(M illin, p. 23, Oppenheim . pp. 34, 47, 141; Riplinger, The Language o f the K ing Jam es Bible, p.
129).
Rhodes’ last will and his “words to Stead are no more

than a recapitulation of his first will, made fifteen years before,
to the purpose o f “the foundation of so great a power as to
hereafter render wars im possible...”” (M illin , p - 173). “Rhodes went
to England to see Lord Rothschild, and Lord Rothschild
approved of him” (M iiim, „ 86). Rhodes’ open letter to Stead said
he wanted,
“Union with America, and universal peace, I
mean after one hundred years, and a secret
society organized like Loyola’s, supported by
the accumulated wealth o f those whose
aspiration is a desire to do something...to one
language throughout the world, the patent being
the gradual absorption of wealth and humane
minds of the higher order to the object...” (M illin, P.
129,217).
Rhodes’ scheme included:
■ “one language throughout the world” [English]
. “a federation with America (“We could hold your federal

parliament five years at Washington and five at London )
■ “and o f “the only feasible thing to carry out the idea - a

secret society gradually absorbing the wealth of the
WOrld!”” (Millin, pp. 173-172).
Millin quotes Rhodes,
““Being a Free Trader,” he writes to Stead, “I

believe until the world comes to its senses you
should declare war with those who are trying to
boycott your manufacturers...You might finish
the war (the tariff war) by union with America
and universal peace. I mean after a hundred
years, and a secret society organized like
Loyola’s”” (M illin, pp. 173, 174).
Millin adds,
“He felt, perhaps, that Gladstone was not the sort

o f man to whom one might confide one’s
admiration o f Loyola” (M iiiin, PP. 173, 174).
His own “Secret Society” was to supersede the Freemasons, of

which he had been a lifetime member since his Oxford days
(A nthony Thomas, Rhodes: The R ace fo r A frica, London Bridge, Novem ber, 1997, (ISBN 0-
5663-38742-4).
“The discovery o f his patent, as he called it, for

spreading England and unifying the world and so bringing
about the millennium may have been his proven right where
all other rights were merely the experimental rights which could
be thrown away” (M iiiin, p. 170). Rhodes’ last will and testament set
the stage for today’s jobless American. His anti-tariff plans
have been carried out by his Rhodes’ scholar, Bill Clinton. The
tariff walls which would have protected the American economy
have been tom down to allow for Rhodes’ diamond, a world
economy (M iiim , P. m . This is God’s judgment on a blessed

America that has forgotten God. God had blessed America, it is
time for America to bless God.
“Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee:” (Psa.

76:10), as Christians “Honour the king” and as God said,
“humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face,

and turn from their wicked ways; then will 1 hear
from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will
heal their land” (1 Peter 2:17; 2 Chron. 7:14).
The Rhodes Scholarship
His last will and testament charged that his great wealth
(gathered through diamond mining with the sweat of African
nationals) should be spent for the indoctrination and education
o f his “union of blond men.” These scholarship recipients were
to become the leaders, who could facilitate his dream o f a one-
world government. “They are the meaning o f his last will and
the plan behind his scholarships” (M illin, pp. 344, 172- 173).
“ ...the essence of the will, as the world knows is

the Scholarship Foundation. In the end all that
Rhodes can do toward extending British rule and
restoring Anglo-Saxon unity and founding a
guardian power for the whole o f humanity is to
arrange for a number o f young men from the
United States, the British colonies, and Germany
to go to O xford...After thirty years there would
be, in the words o f Stead, “between two and
three thousand men in the prime of life scattered
all over the world, each one of whom would
have had impressed upon his mind in the most
susceptible period o f his life the dream o f the

Founder” - each one o f whom, moreover, would
have been specifically - mathematically -
selected toward the Founder’s purpose...” (Miiiin,
pp. 330,331).
Ruskin told Stead the scholars should have

characteristics such as, “smugness, brutality, unctuous rectitude
and tact” (M iiiin, 3 3 1).
Living Out the Last Page of Liddell’s Lexicon
As Rhodes’ jungled-up soul becomes more overgrown

with sin, “More often than ever his voice breaks now into its
strange falsetto. He cannot restrain his passion.” “He did, of
course, demand the stimulation o f drink” (M iiiin, PP. 339, 142). He
brought to life the pages of Liddell’s Lexicon, with its greed,
megalomania, homosexuality, and debauchery. How much
better it would have been, if he had brought to life the qualities
o f Christ. The Bible says, “Happy is the man that feareth alway”
(Prov. 28:14). How can one be happy when he replaces the
Bible that brings these words, with a lexicon, that casts doubt
upon them? Rhodes said,
“Happy? I happy? Good God, no!... I would give

all I possess to believe what that old man
believes [He was referring to General Booth,
founder of the Salvation Army], (ellipses in original;
M iiiin, p. 334).
And yet, he cannot believe. Liddell’s lexicon took away

his faith and carried him instead to the feet o f the Utopian
dreamers, Plato and Aristotle. The Lexicon bars him forever
from ever reading the English Holy Bible as it is.
“Eight men and no women were with him at his death

a, the untimely age o f forty-eight. The Bible foretold t a t ,
“bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days (Ps.
55:23). His sin-abused dying body left viewers
“ ...shocked to speechlessness. He was

repulsively bloated, with wild grey hair, heavy,
straining eyes that asked those terrible
questions the mouths of the dying dare not
utter, the shape o f his face lost in its swelling,
his skin a livid purple” (M iiiin, P. 350).
— “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” and all it took

was a lexicon (Colossians 2:18).
“The Number of a Man” (Rev. 13.18)
Rhodes Memorial stands on his favorite site on the

slopes of Devil’s Peak in South Africa. A meager bust of
Rhodes is carved at #6 King Edward Street at Oxford, the place
where he met his heroes, Liddell and Ruskin.
No longer standing, like Cecil Rhodes, is his emblem

the 120 feet (60 + 60) monumental statue of the Colossus of
Rhodes, Greece, which “took 12 years to build’ (6 + 6). In fact,
no trace of this “image of the superhuman man can even be
found by archeologists. Pliny’s Natural History said that,
“Sixty-six years after its erection the statue fell

over in an earthquake” (xxxiv i s , 41-2. c. a d so ; Romer, P.
25, 36, 34,42,).
The false gods fall, like Dagon (1 Sam, 5:3). Greek

gods, mythology, and philosophy can not reach high enough to
touch heaven and neither can a tottering stack o f lexicons based

on them.
Charles Kingsley: Liddell’s Universalist-Evolutionist Friend #4
It seems Liddell spent his life, like Stanley, trying to

“widen” the Church o f England
(as if it were not already wide
enough). Liddell used his post to
promote heretics, like Ruskin, to
high positions. Liddell supported
the infidel Charles Kingsley
(1819-1875) for an honorary
degree. Kingsley was charged
“with the heresy o f universalism,
and also with having written
Hypatia, a book not fit ‘for our
wives and sisters to read.’” The
book mixed obscenity with neo-
Platonism. Kingsley’s preface
for Henry Brook’s book, The
Fool o f Quality, promotes their heresy o f universal salvation
(Thompson, p. 186; Thomas W hittem ore, The M odern H istory o f Universalism: Extending fro m
the Epoch o f the Reformation to the Present Time, 1860, p. 378).
Kingsley played a part, along with Charles Darwin, in

inciting Rhodes’ racism. Kingsley’s published endorsement
appeared in Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin o f the Species
by Means o f Natural Selection, or the Preservation o f Favoured
Races in the Struggle fo r Life. The always-swept-away subtitle,
with its reference to “Favored Races,” unmasks the conclusions
carried with Darwin’s theory. Kingsley received a pre
publication copy of Darwin’s book and wrote glowing praise for
it, noting that he now sees that there were only “a few original
forms,” out of which the other forms developed. Darwin placed

Kingsley’s endorsement in the second printing o f his book,
boasting that, “a celebrated author and divine has written to me”
in approval of the theory o f evolution. As a minister (for a short
time), Kingsley’s written endorsement served to make evolution
respectable. Even in an era when Darwin’s racist theory of
evolution and Blavatsky’s Root-race theory were widely
known, it is shocking to find Kinglsey’s snobbish comments
about men of other nationalities (as cited in sightler, P. 21; see also g . a .
Riplinger, New A ge Bible Versions, chapter 41, “The Black Lodge” ). Blinded by
unbridled pride and racism, he writes despairingly of Ireland,
where the true Christianity of its North must have convicted his
sin-sick soul. After a visit to Ireland he writes:
“I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw

along that hundred miles of horrible country. I
don’t believe they are our fault...[T]hey are
happier, better, more comfortably fed and lodged
under our rule than they ever were. But to see
white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were
black, one would not feel it so much, but their
skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as
white as ours” (L.P. Curtis, Jr., Anglo-Saxons and Celts,
Bridgeport, CT., 1968, p. 84).
(If you think Liddell’s friends could not be stranger than

Kingsley, wait until we examine Alice in Wonderland’s author
Dodgson.) Kingsley took much o f his heresy from F.D.
Maurice, the man whose broad brush swept away the creed of
the Church o f England with the palette o f the Revised Version
and its leaders B.F. Westcott and Fenton Hort. The Church in
England notes:
“Mr. M aurice’s teaching was interpreted...by his

devoted disciple, Charles Kingsley...B oth were
attracted by the mystic writers...[T]hey were
violently attacked by the Evangelicals as
represented in their organ, the Record...\T]hey
tended greatly to liberalize both High
Churchmen and Low Churchmen alike...O f
these Dean Stanley was the most
distinguished...” (J. H. Overton. The Church in England, Vol. 2,
London: Gardner, Darton & Co., 1897, pp. 390-393).
Liddell’s constant companions were the wicked god-

men o f the Greek myths. Small wonder he chose such vile
friends and heroes. He and Kingsley’s heroes were not godly
Christians or Bible figures, but the god-men in the Greek myths.
To indoctrinate children into the pagan myths, Kingsley wrote a
book called, The Heroes, in 1856. Given Kingsley’s
dishonorable views, Liddell displays his dishonorable mind in
wanting to “honor’ such an infidel.
Benjamin Jowett: Heretic and Pantheist Friend #5
Liddell was offered a

professorship in Greek, but declined.
He said, “I declined the offer, partly
because I knew there were better
Greek scholars than myself in the
U niversity...” (T hom pson,p. 140). (Why then
are people using his Greek Lexicon?)
Liddell recommended instead,
Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893), who
had translated the pro-homosexual
writings o f Plato.
“ P ro fe ss o r W a rn e r F ite o f P rin ceto n y e a rs ag o

p ric k e d th e b u b b le o f a late V ic to ria n v e rsio n o f
P la to ’s id eal o f love by p o in tin g out to a
g e n e ra tio n ig n o ra n t o f G re e k th a t P ro fe sso r
J o w e tt’s tra n s la tio n (w h ic h w as th e o n e th a t all
w e re th e n re a d in g in s c h o o l) re n d e rs orthos
paiderastein, [ch ild m o le sta tio n ] “th e rig h t k in d
o f p e d e ra s ty ,” as “ tru e lo v e .”
(http://w ww.csus.edU/indiv/v/vonm eierk/5-02ALP.htm 0.
J o w e tt’s tra n s la tio n o f P lato b e c a m e th e p rim e r fo r th e

c rim in a l a c tiv itie s w h ic h are e x p o se d in o th e r c h a p te rs,
in c lu d in g , “ C h ild M o le ste r on N ew V e rsio n C o m m itte e :
V a u g h a n ” a n d A p p e n d ix A “ P e d o p h ile P al o f L id d e ll.”
L id d e ll a n d Jo w e tt h ad b e e n frie n d s sin ce c o lle g e d ay s;

Jo w e tt a n d S ta n le y sp e n t th e su m m e rs o f 1845 a n d 1846 in
G e rm a n y , w h e re th e y b e c a m e ste e p e d in th e H ig h e r C ritic is m o f
th e B ib le, p a rtic u la rly th a t o f F .C . B au r. In 1845 “ T h e fe e lin g s
o f th e y o u n g e r Liberals, M r. S ta n ley , M r. D o n k in , a n d M r.
J o w e tt” w e re s y m p a th e tic to th o se w h o w e re s p e a rh e a d in g th e
b a c k -to -R o m e m o v e m e n t at O x fo rd . T h is g ro u p o f m en , o v e r
m a n y y e a rs w ith L id d ell as D e an a n d V ic e -C h a n c e llo r, w e re to
d iv e s t O x fo rd o f a n y se m b la n c e o f C h ris tia n ity an d ,
“ ...w e r e m u c h bolder a n d m o re in d e p e n d e n t
th a n th e o ld e r fo rm s, less inclined to put up
with the traditional, m o re s e a rc h in g and
in q u isitiv e in its m e th o d s, more suspicious a n d
d a rin g in its criticism.”
“ [T]he Liberal party [Liddell, Stanley, Jowett, et

al.] which was to be dominant in Oxford took its
rise, soon to astonish old-fashioned Heads of
Houses with new and deep forms o f doubt more
audacious than Tractarianism [Catholicism], and
ultimately to overthrow not only the victorious
authorities [High Church Anglicism], but the
ancient position o f the Church [the Creed], and
to recast from top to bottom the institutions of
the University (R.W . Church, The O xford M ovement Twelve
Years 1833-1845, London: M acmillan and Co., 1892, pp. 381, 325, 391 -
393 et al.).
The “prosecution” o f Jowett “for heresy” is a well

known fact o f history (Thom pson, P. 185). In 1860, Jowett was one of
the seven pantheistic authors o f a book titled, Essays and
Reviews. The American Unitarians loved the book and reprinted
it. Sightler notes that, “This book denied the virgin birth, the
Deity and vicarious, propitiatory sacrifice o f the Lord, His
bodily resurrection, and every miracle in the Bible.” Jowett’s
contribution to the book was an article entitled, “The
Interpretation o f Scripture.” “O f course the plenary, verbal
inspiration of the Scriptures was denied as well” (Sightler, PP. 38-39).
Jowett followed Hegel and Kant in their philosophy.
“As a protest against the minimizing spirit o f the

volume, 11,000 clergymen declared their beliefs in the
inspiration o f the Scriptures and the eternity o f punishment, and
the book was at length synodically condemned in 1864.” Bishop
“Wilberforce denounced its liberalism in violent term s...” All
o f the bishops met and “condemned the book” (F.L. Cross and E.A.
Livingstone, eds., The O xford D ictionary o f the Christian Church, Oxford: University Press, 2nd
They wrote o f “the pain it had given them that any
edition, 1977).
clergyman should have expressed such opinions” since they

were “not consistent with an honest subscription to the

formularies of our Church, with many o f the fundamental
doctrines of which they appear to be essentially at variance.”
“What alarmed Churchmen was, not the formidable nature of
the attack on ‘conventional Christianity,’...but rather the tact
that there were clergymen in responsible positions who held
such opinions.” The Westminster Review “called upon the
writers to come out of the Church.” The book contained articles
in which,
“the obvious tendency o f the one was to shake

men’s belief in the accuracy of Holy
Scripture, and o f the other to dispense with any
definite creeds.. (Overton, The O xford Church , pp. 362-365).
There was much Evangelical and Anabaptist dread and

protest about what the college’s Greek class was doing to
destroy the faith of students. Jowett’s earlier study in Germany
and his own methodology for analyzing literature made him one
o f the most diabolical o f England’s critics of the Bible. So his
salary was constrained and in 1864 the Convocation voted
against the endowment o f the Greek chair. (Where is the protest
against Greek professors, who yet today hold hapless students
sway in the grip of Greek lexicography?)
Defending Jowett’s book and heresy by public

comments were Liddell’s friends and RV Committee men,
Fenton Hort and A.P. Stanley (Sightier, P. 39). In spite of constant
evangelical and Anabaptist protests regarding Jowett s
professorship and salary, finally in 1865 his friends and Liddell
found a legal loophole which would enable them to raise his
endowment from 40 pounds a year to 500 pounds! Liddell saw
him not as a heretic, but a hero. Liddell and Jowett were boun
like Siamese twins in their two-headed world o f Greek to

English ‘translation.’ The two passed Greek into English
through their moon-struck minds and published it for all to gaze
at. Jowett translated works by Plato and Aristotle into English.
Liddell and Jowett worked successfully and tirelessly together
to do away with the theological test required o f graduates. They
secularized the college as they secularized the meaning o f
Greek words. In spite o f the heretic’s hood, which hung over
Jowett’s head, Liddell brashly invited Jowett to preach a sermon
in 1871; and he also preached annually for Stanley in
Westminster Abbey until his death (Thompson, pp. 74, 235, 126).
Like Ruskin and Rhodes, Jowett thought, “I should like

to rule the world through my pupils” (as cited in sightier, P. 253 footnote).
Jowett was a perennial bachelor and, like Ruskin, Rhodes, and
Dodgson, had little use for women. It seems that he would
rather take his students on vacation with him to Askrigg,
Tummel Bridget and
WestMalvem. Did their
homosexual idols, the Greeks
Plato and Socrates, steer them
from the Bible’s directives?
(See E.A. Abbot and Lewis Campbell, The
Life and Letters o f Benjamin Jow ett, 1897
and Lionel Tollemache, Benjamin Jowett,
Jowett did
1895 for a com plete history).
receive one woman as a

visitor, the anti-Christian
author o f Silas Marner.
Beginning in 1873, George
Eliot (aka Mary Ann Evans),
accompanied by her male
consort, began making annual
visits to Jowett. A.P Stanley
an d M ax M u lle r e n jo y e d ‘v is its ’ fro m h e r also (Sightler, pp. 252, 253).
B ird s o f a fe a th e r, n e stin g in th e C h u rc h ’s b e ll-to w e r, so u n d e d

S a ta n ’s call to c o m e an d h u m H in d u h y m n s w ith L id d e ll’s n e x t
n e stlin g , M ax M u lle r —
Max Muller: Theosophist? Friend #6

F rie d ric h M ax M u lle r (1 8 2 3 -1 9 0 0 ) w a s th e ath e ist a n d
G e rm a n ax is w h ic h sp u n th e w o rld o f le x ic o g ra p h y o u t o f orbit.
Every le x ic o n , b o th H e b re w a n d G re ek , h a s b e e n jo g g e d b y his
p h ilo lo g y .
B e c a u se o f h is in te re st in A ra b ic , P e rsia n , S an sk rit,
H e b re w , G re e k , a n d L atin , h e w a s se le c te d to b e o n e o f the
e d ito rs fo r the sta n d a rd Hebrew-English Lexicon (se e c h a p te rs
o n G e se n iu s, B ro w n , D riv e r a n d B rig g s). S h o u ld w e ca re h o w
th e se p ag a n n atio n g ro u p s a b u se w o rd s? Im a g in e h a v in g T H E
s ta n d a rd H e b re w -E n g lis h L e x ic o n (G e se n iu s, B ro w n , D riv er,
a n d B rig g s) e d ite d b y a m a n w h o sc o rn s w h a t h e ca lls, “ th e old
H e b re w b e lie f in a p erso n a l J e h o v a h .” H e sees th e O ld
T e s ta m e n t as filled w ith p a g a n “ fe tis h ism ,” w h ile v ie w in g th e
H in d u ’s ‘s a c re d ’ b o o k s, as “ th e lo ftie st h e ig h ts o f p h ilo s o p h y .”
“ [P Jrim ev al m o n o th e is m w a s su p p o se d to h a v e b e e n p re se rv e d
b y th e J e w s o n l y .. . ” M u lle r say s, b u t h e su p p o se s o th e rw ise (f.
Max Muller, Collected Works o f Max Miiller, IX, The Hibbert Lectures, London and Bombay:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1898, pp. 252, 62, 64, 260 et al.). W h y are C h ristia n s
u sin g a H e b re w L e x ic o n e d ite d b y a G e rm a n -tra in e d H ig h e r
C ritic , w h o h a s n o th in g g o o d to sa y ab o u t th e O ld T e sta m e n t?
H e say s,
“ T h e re are tra c e s o f g ro w th a n d decay in the
re lig io n o f th e Je w s, but th e y have to be
d is c o v e re d b y p a tie n t stu d y [G e rm an H ig h e r
C ritic ism ], T h e o b ject, h o w e v e r, o f m o s t o f the
writers on the O.T. see m s to b e to hide th ese
traces rather than to display them. They wish to

place the religion o f the Jews before us as ready
made from the beginning, as perfect in all its
parts, because revealed by G od ...” (M uiier, Collected
Works, p. 134).
Miiller concludes,
“I know I shall be accused o f having defended

and glorified atheism, and o f having represented
it as the last and highest point which man can
reach in an evolution of religious thought. Let
it be SO!' (M uller, p. 315).
Miiller at Liddell’s Christ Church College, Oxford
Muller moved under the shadow o f Liddell’s scepter at

Christ Church in 1851, and fit hand in glove with Liddell’s fairy
circle. Liddell lent a hand in securing for Muller several
professorships at Oxford. Muller immediately began giving
lectures there on the superiority o f the Hindu religion. Under
Liddell’s patronage, M uller’s passion for India’s pagan
Hinduism shifted the entire focus o f Oxford’s linguistic,
religious, and historical study. Muller ripped their roots from
the Hebrews and planted them deep in the mountains o f India,
far from G od’s truth and too close to the Hindu devis (Sanskrit
for devils). Under his (and Skeat’s) influence every word was
now traced back to a supposed Indian root (called Indo-
European), instead of the previously assumed Hebrew root.
From this ‘new’ root, its ‘meaning’ was re-cast (M uiier, Collected
Works, pp. 261-262 et ai.). This revolution in the etymology o f language
affects definitions in every lexicon, and kept Liddell busy

adjusting his. (Etymology: the study o f the origin and history o f words).
Perhaps the Liddell-Scott Lexicon’s closest claim to

infamy is the red-hot round of applause given it by Muller in
1 8 9 9 . He promoted Liddell’s pagan lexicon in the Fortnightly
Review o f January o f 1 8 9 9 (Thompson, P. 72 ). Muller’s hi-jacked
etymology o f language gradually slipped its way into the
definitions in ensuing editions o f the Liddell-Scott Lexicon. The
seriousness o f this cannot be underestimated, as we shall see —
Muller & Blavatsky Believe ‘W e’ Are God (Monism)
From Muller’s mouth, no flattery was too fawning for

Liddell or Luciferian, Madame Blavatsky (also see Thompson, pp. 233 ,
234 ). In 1893, after Blavatsky had published in 1888, The Secret
Doctrine, her tome promoting Lucifer worship, Hinduism, and

Buddhism, Max Muller had a “generous estimation” o f this vile
Lucifer worshiper and head o f the Theosophical Society. He
said,
“Like Schopenhauer, she seems to have
discovered through the dark mists of imperfect
translations (M uller’s own) some o f the brilliant
rays o f truth which issue from the Upanishads
and the ancient Vedanta philosophy o f India” (as
cited in Sightler, p. 308; Oppenheim, p. 164).
Miiller had written India: What Can It Teach Us and

Theosophy (the Gifford Lectures delivered before the
University o f Glasgow in 1891). Teamed with Blavatsky’s
Root-Race theory, Muller helped set the stage for Hitler’s
Aryan racism, calling, “the ancient Aryans o f India, in many
respects the most wonderful race that ever lived on earth” (Muller,
Collected works, p. 5i). He said that the Aryans were, “the origin of all
language and o f all thought” (Muiier, Collected works, p. 188). In a sense,
Muller joined Blavatsky in spearheading the entire New Age
movement. If she was its mother, he was its father. She
interpreted for the common man what he taught from the

podiums and pulpits o f Oxford. He oversaw the English
translation o f the massive 50-volume Sacred Books o f the East,
including the Muslim Quran. From this hub has spun the move
o f Islam and Eastern mysticism into Christianized nations.
Muller believes in a series o f new ages and says we are now in
the Kali age. (Kali is a blood-curdling cannibal Hindu goddess
who is depicted eating her children) (M uiier, Collected Works, p. 159).
M uller’s and Blavatsky’s minds were nearly mirror

images; his beliefs, as seen in his Collected Works, are identical
to those found in her books, the Secret Doctrine and Isis
Unveiled. They believe that primordial Hinduism was the first,
truest, and purest religion (M uiier, collected works, P. 188 et ai.). This form
o f Hinduism, called monism, teaches that there is nothing but
God and that every man is, in fact, a little self inside o f this Big
Self, a spark o f the Divine. Muller echoes Strauss perfectly
saying, “The Divine, if it is to reveal itself at all to us, will best
reveal itself in our own human form” (M uiier, collected works, p. 379).
Like Blavatsky, Muller calls his god, “the One” (M uiier collected
w orks, p. 264, et ai.) He creates meaningless gibberish saying, “there
remains only ‘the One,’ or that which exists, as a neuter, as a

last attempt to grasp the infinite...that One which exists in the
form of the unborn Being (Miiller, Collected Works, pp. 322-323). His
hollow oration drones on spouting, “know thy true Self, that
which underlies thine Ego, and find it and know it in the
highest, the eternal Self, the One without a Second, which
underlies the whole world (M uiier, Collected Works, p. 325). If he defines
a pack o f zippers, a rack o f slippers, and Jack the Ripper as
‘God,’ how can he define for us anything o f a spiritual nature?
(Liddell’s friend Dodgson has been alleged to be Jack the
Ripper). He seems to think that the evolution o f religion begins
and ends with,
“ ...belief in one Being [monism], which is the

Self o f everything... beyond our own finite, Ego,
the Self o f all Selfs” (M u iie r, p. 3 8 4 ).
Muller looks at himself in the mirror, and like his

fellow-countryman, Adolf Hitler, sees himself as God. He says,
“We have been told again and again that a

finite mind cannot approach the infinite, and that
therefore we ought to take our Bible and our
Prayer-book, and rest there and be thankful.. .No,
let us only see and judge for ourselves, and we
shall find that...w e have always been face to
face with the infinite” (M u lle r, Collected Works, p. 4 9 ).
If everything is ‘God,’ for Muller and Blavatsky, there

can be no evil forces opposing God; devils are ‘gods’ too.
Muller uses etymology to transmute “deities” to “devas”
(devils) (I h a v e b ee n stu d y in g S a n sk rit fo r o v e r 3 0 y e a rs.) He SUggeStS changing
the word for God’s ‘deity’ to the Hindu’s ‘devils :
“The best would be to retain the Sanskrit word,

and call them devas” (M u ller, Collected Works, p. 2 2 0 ).
“Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”

with M uller’s linguistic magic (2 Cor. 11:14). We have already
seen new versions, such as the NIV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV,
change Lucifer into Jesus Christ, the Morning Star in Isaiah
14:12. Do we want to tear down all Christian meaning and erect
a pagan counterfeit via M uller’s massive input to both Hebrew
and Greek lexicography?
Muller defines the deva of the Hindu Upanishads as a

god o f “forces.” The Bible warns in Daniel 11:38 o f the false
“god” “o f forces” (“ T h e U p a n ish a d c o n sists o f a d ia lo g u e b etw een a y o u n g ch ild c a lle d
N aA iketas, and Y a m a , the ru ler o f departed sp irits [the d e v il]” ; M u lle r, Collected Works, pp.
Muller says, “neuter names [are] higher than masculine

209 , 3 4 0 ) .
or feminine names. His ‘G od’ is “neither male nor female.”

Consequently, today s New Agers aspire to be androgynous,
like some o f Liddell’s friends seem to be ( M a ile r , Collected works P 319
3 2 0 ).
Muller calls his god o f forces the “predicate God,” that

is, ‘the verb God.' His God is not a person but a force. (This
error is perennial and is still seen in many New Age books, such
as the dangerous book on the Kabbalah, God is a Verb by Rabbi
David A. Cooper. The ‘verb’ god even raises its head in
Catholic Latin-based Romance language bibles which translate
John 1:1, “the Word was God,” using verbo instead o f sermo
(e.g. Latin) or palabra (eg. Spanish). Erasmus fought against
such usage; Catholics have often forged his and other Latin
editions using the wrong reading (M u iie r, Collected works, P . 2 6 4 ) . )
Liddell Promotes Muller’s ‘Name Game’
Liddell promoted Muller at every turn. Liddell said in a

letter, written late in his life,
“Have you read Max Muller in the Fortnightly

on Christianity and Mohammedanism? A great
deal o f it is very striking and humiliating....His
references to the theological points in the Koran
are very remarkable’ (e llip s e s in o rig in a l; T h o m p so n , p. 2 7 2 ).
Liddell would do away with “all dogmatic Christianity”

and focus on the “character o f Christ.” Liddell focuses on the
“Rock” o f the “character o f Christ,” not on Christ’s unique
place in the Godhead and his atonement for sin. The Bible
warns that the same word can be used to mean one thing to the
pagans and another thing to Christians:
“ F o r th e ir ro c k is n o t as o u r R o c k ” (D eu t. 32 :3 1 ).
L id d ell say s,
“ W h a te v e r else Je su s C h rist w a s, h e c e rta in ly

w a s a man: o n e to w h o m nihil humani alienum
erat, o n e w h o c o n so rte d rather w ith p u b lic a n s
and sin n ers th a n w ith sp iritu al t e a c h e r s ...”
(Thom pson, p. 272; See Collected Works, p. 382 their ‘rock.’).
(Is L id d e ll’s m is in te rp re ta tio n o f th is sc rip tu re his

e x c u s e fo r c h o o sin g su ch a v ile c irc le o f frie n d s? ) M u lle r
e x p la in s h o w th e C h u rc h o f E n g la n d clerg y , (su c h as L id d ell,
use Christian terms, su ch as th e
S ta n le y a n d B e rk e le y ) c o u ld
R o ck , C h rist, th e S on, o r th e F a th e r, y e t ap p ly a much different
m e a n in g to th e se w o rd s th a n do C h ristia n s. H e say s,
“ B ish o p B e rk e le y w o u ld n o t h a v e d e c lin e d to
w o rs h ip in th e sam e p la c e w ith th e m o st o b tu se
a n d illite ra te o f p lo u g h b o y s, b u t th e ideas w h ic h
th a t g re a t p h ilo s o p h e r c o n n e c te d w ith su ch
words as G o d th e F a th e r, G o d th e S on, a n d G o d
th e H o ly G h o st w e re su re ly as different fro m
th o se o f th e p lo u g h b o y b y h is sid e as two ideas
can w e ll b e th a t are e x p re sse d b y th e sam e
WOrds” (M uller, Collected Works, p. 374).
So L id d ell a n d h is p o m p o u s frie n d s can ta lk -th e -ta lk o f th e

co m m o n e rs in ‘C h rist C h u rc h ’ a n d m e a n so m e th in g en tire ly
d iffe re n t. M u lle r says, “ [C ja ll h im w h a t y o u lik e, th e in fin ite ,
th e in v isib le, th e im m o rta l, th e fa th e r, th e h ig h e st S e l f ...” (M uller
Collected Works, p. 386). M u lle r g iv e s o n e e x a m p le say in g ,
“ . . . i f w e see k fo r a n a m e fo r th e in v isib le , the

in fin ite , th a t su rro u n d s u s o n e v e ry sid e, the
unknown, the true Self of the world, and the true

Self o f ourselves... can hardly find a better name
than; Our Father... (M utter, C ollected Works, p. 223).
Muller clarifies elsewhere saying, “Let me quote one of

my best friends, whose voice not long ago was heard in
Westminster Abbey...Charles K ingsley...” He suggested that
God should not be called “Our Father” but “All-father,” in other
words, all that there is is the father (M uller, Collected works, p. 222).
Muller insists that all religions and names for God have merit.
He asks, “Do we insist on uniformity?” “ [C]all Him what you
like.” Each man may find and perceive o f God, “each in his
OWn Way (M uller, Collected Works, pp. 376, 386, 313).
Miiller says,
“[T]he chief interest in these comparative studies

in the field o f religion consists in our being able
to see in how many different ways the same
goal could be and has been reached” (M uller,
Collected Works, p. 265).
How contrary Muller is to the Bible which says, “broad

is ^the way, that leadeth to destruction...narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life” (Matt. 7:14). How opposite he is to
Jesus Christ who said, “no man cometh unto the Father, but by
me” (John 14:6). Muller distains this “narrow dogma,”
expressed by the current “Christian Church” and “the religion of
Christ.” He wants instead “a religion o f world-wide love” (Muiier,
Collected Works, p. 380). He and Liddell ignore the fact that love was
shown at the cross o f Calvary because God “so loved the

world.” But there is “world-wide” hatred for the God whose
substitutionary sacrifice, displays man’s sin and pride.
German Atheism Meets Liddell’s Lexicon
For the ongoing correction of his Lexicon, Liddell

needed a native-speaking German friend to help him access the
German lexicon (Passow), of which his was essentially a mere
translation. Muller was that go-between. “Liddell's German
knowledge,” though weak, no doubt helped him converse with
his German underling (Thompson, P. 24).
Muller admitted, “Germans try very hard to be

irreligious and atheistical...” As a youth he attended the hot-bed
of Bible criticism, Leipzig University, in his native Germany
There the Bible was tom from student’s hands by the soldiers of
German Higher Criticism and they were caged in the atheist’s
Z O O (M uller, Collected Works, p. 36). Mtiller marched the ‘High’ Step,
hence his Ph.D. thesis was on Spinoza. As a young man he

studied personally under Friedrich Schelling. He begins his
lectures by dictating a foundation of Strauss, Feuerbach, Hege
and Comte. Hell’s chimney sweeps they were, who swept Go
from generations of minds, blinding their eyes wit
philosophical smoke-screen from their Bible-burning
crematorium Universities (M uiier, Collected Works, p. 2,3 ).
From them and Hinduism Muller learned “to make man

himself, not only the subject, but also the object of religion an
religious worship.” He said “humanity becomes at once both the
priest and the deity” (M uiier Collected works, P. 20). Without an
authoritative Holy Bible to tell man what to do, m a n ^does
become his own God, determining forhim self what isgoo
and evil.” M an’s lexicons replace the Holy Bible, his min
replaces the mind of God, his words replace the words of God.
Such gods have clay feet. Muller joins Liddell with his
Lexicon’s endless corrections by admitting,
“I very seldom approve altogether o f what I have

written myself some years ago” (M uiier, Collected
Works, p. 23).
Muller sought to spread the flames o f unbelief from

Germany to England and he did just that. He and Stanley signed
a highly controversial letter and petition calling England to
adopt the higher criticism and atheism o f German ‘divinity’
(deva\) schools. The letter said,
“ ...divinity schools o f this country are still laid

under traditional restraint...”
“Notwithstanding the traditional restraints

which in England have interfered with an
unprejudiced treatment o f the theory and history
o f religion, a rich literature has poured in from
the liberal school o f G erm any...” (M uiier, Collected
Works, ix, x). *
Stanley and those who signed the letter, sought a series

o f lectures, called the Hibbert lectures, to address the subject of
“Biblical criticism, and comparative theology.” O f course,
Muller, the leading expert on Hinduism, was selected to speak.
His seven lectures on Hinduism were given at Stanley’s Abbey
and published in his Collected Works. They were subtitled,
“Lectures on the Origin and Growth o f Religion as Illustrated
by the R&ligions of India (M uiier, Collected works, pp. ix, x). He said his
lectures were for those who were tired o f the “sermons” o f the
day. He hoped that through his research into the history of
religion in India,
“the Crypt o f the Past may become the Church of

the Future” (Muller, Collected Works, pp. 385, 386).
N o tic e th a t M u lle r’s a th e ism , p a g a n ism , H in d u ism a n d

m o n is m w e re to c o m e into a n d become, “ th e C h u rc h .” (This is what
the Luciferians said in their journal also; see New A ge Bible Versions). S m a ll w o n d e r
‘p rie s ts ’ lik e L id d e ll a n d S ta n le y sta y e d to sw in g w id e its d o o rs
a n d sw e e p o u t its B ib le. W h ile at S ta n le y ’s W e s tm in s te r A b b y ,
te a c h in g th e ‘h y m n s ’ o f th e H in d u V e d a s d u rin g th e se H ib b e rt
L ec tu res, M u lle r said ,
“A nd h e re are w e, under th e sh a d o w of
W e s tm in s te r A b b e y , in th e v e ry z e n ith o f the
in te lle c tu a l life o f E u ro p e , n a y o f th e w h o le
w o rld , liste n in g in o u r m in d s to th e sam e sa c re d
h y m n s [H in d u V e d a s], try in g to u n d e rs ta n d th e m
(a n d th e y are so m e tim e s v e ry d iffic u lt to
u n d e rs ta n d ), a n d h o p in g to learn fro m th e m so m e
o f th e d e e p e st se c re ts o f th e h u m a n h e a rt w h ic h
is th e sam e e v e r y w h e r e ...” (Every heart is “desperately
wicked” w ithout Jesus Christ, according to the Bible; .M uller, Collected
Works, p. 162, viii)
H a v in g b u rn e d th e B ib le, w o rd b y w o rd , h e co n c lu d e s,
“ ...th e In fin ite m u st a lw a y s re m a in to u s the

In d e fin ite ” (M uller, Collected W orks, p. 36).
T h e w h o le L id d e ll ‘g a n g ’ a p p la u d th e le c tu re a n d p u ll
th e ir fa n g s o u t o f th e B ib le ju s t lo n g e n o u g h to sin g th e p ra ise s
o f M u lle r’s w o rd s, ju s t h ea rd . R u sk in c h a rg e d stu d e n ts to,
“ R ead M ax M u lle r’s le c tu re s th o r o u g h ly ...” {Harvard Classics, vol. 28,
pp. 105). M iiller to o c h a n te d th e p ra ise o f S ta n le y , J o w e tt an d

KingSely (M uller, Collected Works, pp. 52, 96; See also Prothero, Rowland E., The Life
and Correspondence o f A.P. Stanley, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894, as cited in
Sightler, p. 308). (Max M uller, Collected Works o f M ax M uller, IX, The Hibbert Lectures,
London and Bombay: Longmans, G reen, and Co., 1898.)
Muller suggests that to understand the highest

philosophies, we study not only “Sanskrit,” which is an Indian
dialect, but “Vedic Sanskrit,” which is the unique Sanskrit used
in the Vedas, which are the Hindu ‘scriptures’ (M ax M tuier, Collected
works, p. 252). If we likewise suggested that a Christian should
study, not only English, but ‘King James Bible’ English, we

would be quickly patted on the head, and then ushered to a
Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon or the Gesenius, Brown,
Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-Greek Lexicon to replace our
English ‘scriptures.’ What hypocrisy!
Finally, in 1876 “Liddell delivered an eloquent speech

supporting the proposal” that his “great friend” Max Muller
should be able to “pursue his studies on full salary” without
even teaching (Cohen, p. 390).
Dodgson: Pedophile Friend #7
Liddell’s biographer said that he was very involved with

the upbringing o f his children and that, “nothing was complete
without his co-operation and approval” (Thom pson, P. 251). Why
would he co-operate and “approve” o f having his daughter
‘babysat’ and photographed in immodest poses by a known
pedophile, Charles Dodgson, alias Lewis Carroll, who has been
alleged to be THE infamous Jack the Ripper. What kind o f a
man would even be suspected or accused o f such acts?
The Appendix A, following this chapter, includes all of

the awful details about Liddell and this pedophile shutterbug to
whom he subjected his daughter, the real Alice in Wonderland,
while he kept him under his roof as his math professor and
“Curator o f Wine.” These details are separated from this chapter
in hopes that few would need to see the documentation proving
Liddell’s debauchery and the subsequent danger o f
unknowingly using Liddell-Scott definitions, seen today in

Vine's Expository Dictionaiy, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon,
S tro n g s Concordance Greek Lexicon, Vincent’s, Word Studies
in the New Testament, Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear and a
Greek-English New Testament lexicons.
Robert Scott: Revised Version Committee Member & Friend #8
Robert Scott (1811-1887) was co-author with Henry

Liddell o f the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. Liddell,
however seems to have taken a much broader and lengthier role.
Scott too was a ‘priest’ in the Church o f England and held
students hostage critiquing the “Holy Scriptures” in his various
professorships <eb, vol. 24, p. 469). In the section on Liddell, we have
already peeked in on Scott and Liddell’s “wine and talk”
parties.
Scott had the dubious distinction o f being liberal enough

to be selected to be on the Westcott and Hort Revised Version
Committee o f 1881. After all, it was his and Liddell’s English
wine-washed words which were now going to jump from their
lexicon into the bible. The ghosts o f Greece were here to haunt
the house o f God. As Muller hoped: “the Crypt o f the Past may
become the Church o f the Future (M uiier, co llected works, p. 386). Scott
carried his lexicon’s words to the RV, mistakes and all.
Liddell’s biographer boasted,
“Sometimes discussions would arise even as to

the correctness o f this august volum e.. .Upon one
occasion, when the challenges had revealed some
mistake in the Lexicon...A boy delivered the
following epigram:
Two men wrote a Lexicon, Liddell and

Scott;
Some parts were clever, but some parts
were not.
Hear, all ye learned, and read me this
riddle,
How the wrong part wrote Scott, and

the right part wrote Liddell (Thom pson, PP.
108, 109).
O f course Scott carried his “wrong part” with him to h.s RV

committee. When you read today's «
with supposedly 'literal' E n g ,is, t n n * t o n , of Greek ^
Testament words, you are often just reading me
Version of Westcott and Hort of 1881, complete with English
words from the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lex,eon. Robert
Scott was there to make certain again, mistakes and a .
Liddell’s contributions were as bad as Scot,s' for the poem has
two endings, indicting him as well:
“The part that is good was written by Scott.

By Liddell was written the part that was not
(Cohen, p. 511).
“Political bias and even jealousy do not e n t i r e l y explain the

repeated imputations by Liddell’s contemporaries
Liddell’s Unrepentant End

Why was Liddell’s world and his lexicon “cold” to
“evangelicals” and swarming warmly with atheists pant ets ,
umversahsts, socialists, evolutionists, racists chums wdh
Luciferians, alleged pedophiles, and new world order Utopia
dreamers? Liddell’s circle of comrades
impenetrable wall around his mmd. Lidde g,
indicates that his brain and his lexicon were bound wdh a
cover from front to finish. His biographer said, He had no
the conservative instincts which are so c o m m o n , J o u n d ^
elderly men.” Before Liddell’s death he writes of his lifelong
view that all religions lead home. He says,
“Well, we are all going the same way, and our

time for “crossing the bar” cannot be far
rem oved.. (Thom pson, p. 274).
Today, too many are looking for a way back to Greece,

roaming needlessly, page by page, staring ceaselessly at
software program after program, getting no closer to God than
Liddell-Scott’s wine-soaked English mind. Why such labor,
when,
“The word is nigh thee, even in thy
m outh...” (Romans 10:8)?
A ppendix A
Pedophile Pal
of
Liddell-Scott
Greek-
English
Lexicon
editor
Dean Henry
Liddell
His Best Fiend*
Alice in Wonderland’s
Charles Dodgson,
alias Lewis Carroll
LIDDELL’S PEDOPHILE PAL a l i c e in w o n d e r l a n d a u t h o r 277
Alice in Wonderland:
Story of Liddell, the Lexicographer, and His Little Girl
ean Henry Liddell is the author o f the seminal Liddell-
D Scott Greek-English Lexicon, which provides

definitions for all Greek-English New Testament
Lexicons. Admissions in the following prove that Liddell’s
words have worked their way into Marvin Vincent’s Word
Studies in the New Testament, J.H. Thayer’s Greek-English
Lexicon, and from there into W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary
and George Ricker Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear New
Testament. Liddell is also well known as the father o f Alice
Liddell, for whom and about whom Alice in Wonderland and
Alice Through the Looking-Glass were written. The books are
actually stories about the Liddells, the lexicon, and their little
daughter, Alice. Charles Dodgson (1832-1898), alias Lewis
Carroll, author o f these books, was one o f Liddell’s most
intimate lifelong friends. Dodgson was also called a fiend*, by
those who knew him personally. Cakeless, a parody of
Dodgson’s perverted relationship with the Liddell family,
appeared anonymously at Oxford in 1874. It said of Dodgson,
“ .. .nor ever leave the cursed fiend at rest,

Leave him at Wonderland with some hard hitting foe,
And through the looking-glass let him survey the blow ...”
Charles Dodgson worked for decades as a ‘deacon’ for

Liddell’s Christ Church Cathedral and as one o f his College’s
mere handful of teachers. In these positions he worked closely
with and under Liddell for thirty-six years. At the same time, as
his alter-ego, Lewis Carroll, he was what criminologists and
psychiatrists call an obsessive compulsive pedophiliac.
Liddell’s daughter, Alice, was one o f the main objects o f his
278 VERY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
unnatural obsession. Liddell allowed Dodgson to take

provocative pictures of his seven-year old daughter Alice,
costumed as a child prostitute. The dust cover o f Carroll’s
biography by Donald Thomas, Oxford graduate and chairman at
the University o f Wales, says that Lewis Carroll was on the —
‘“ Dangerous Edge o f Things,’ closer to the twilit

underworld of psychopathology, crime and vice
than his admirers thought possible...”
For decades Liddell allowed and abetted Dodson’s

criminal activities to be perpetuated where they lived together
on the same grounds. Liddell’s pagan-infested lexicon was only
the beginning o f his contributions to Dodson’s mental decay.
Donald Thomas shows that Dodgson’s views and writings were,
“ ...the fruit of Dodgson’s classical

education...He was importunate in persuading
‘little nudities’ to pose before his
camera...W ithin forty years of his death, his
progeny [Alice in Wonderland] had escaped the
nursery to rub shoulders with Swift, and
[Marquis de] Sade, Freud and Surrealism” (Donald
Thomas, Lew is Carroll: A Portrait with Background, London: John
M urray Ltd., printed by Cambridge: The University Press, 1996 inside
dust jacket, also see p. 13).
Readers are “taken aback at much that was macabre,

cruel, and what was later called sadistic, in his entertainment for
children” (Thomas, p. 156). His poem in Alice in Wonderland said,
“Speak roughly to your little boy, And beat him when he
sneezes.” Thomas says of Dodgson’s sadism,
“By 1862 he was not above sending Hallam

Tennyson [a little boy] a knife for his birthday
and suggesting laconically that the child should

try cutting himself with it regularly, doing so
with particular severity on his birthday” (Thomas, pp.
1 2 5 , 2 6 9 et a l.).
Dodgson wrote many incriminating letters, which have

even led some to identify Dodgson as the real, yet never-
identified ‘Jack the Ripper.’ Even today, searching the internet
under “Jack the Ripper,” brings up Dodgson’s name as one of
the remaining suspects in this macabre and bone-chilling case,
the details o f which are unmentionable (http ://w w w .casebook.org/suspects/).
Dodgson’s own diary o f August 26, 1891 hid his thoughts about
‘Jack the Ripper.’ Thomas describes the Dodgson-Carroll
psychosis.
“There are, o f course two personalities in one

mind, the Dodgsonian and the Carrollingian. If
the Reverend Dodgson had on occasion looked
more carefully at what Mr. Carroll was doing or
writing, he could scarcely have concealed a
shudder...” (Thomas, xi-xii; The Bible more correctly identifies his
problem , not as ‘psychosis,’ but as one who has so given him self to the
lusts o f the flesh that he may even be devil possessed).
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde alternate, page after page, in

Dodgson’s letters, diaries and biographies. On one page he is a
prude and on the next he is a pervert. He was like his own Alice
in Wonderland who said she “was very fond o f pretending to be
two people!” but concluded, “Why, there’s hardly enough o f me
left to make one respectable person!” Derek Hudson, another of
Dodgson’s biographers, calls him,
“A paradox himself, it is not surprising that the

strange dichotomy of his character should have
re v e a le d its e lf (in h is w ritin g ) in su b tle c h a n g e s

o f sig n ific a n c e , a n d in sta te m e n ts n o s o o n e r
m a d e th a n th e y w e re abruptly reversed” (Derek
Hudson, Lewis Carroll, London: Constable, 1954, p. 159).
M o rto n C ohen, P ro fe sso r E m e ritu s of th e C ity

U n iv e rs ity o f N e w Y o rk a n d P h.D . re c ip ie n t fro m C o lu m b ia
U n iv e rsity , e d ite d th e tw o -v o lu m e e d itio n o f The Letters o f
Lewis Carroll (1 9 7 9 ). H e re v e a ls D o d g s o n ’s s p lit-p e rso n a lity
sa y in g , “ H e re tu rn e d u n o p e n e d letters th a t a rriv e d at C h rist
C h u rc h a d d re sse d tO L e w is C a rro ll” (Morton N. Cohen, Lewis Carroll: A
Biography, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995, pp. 297, 191).
T h o m a s d e ta ils th e in c id e n ts in D o d g s o n ’s life w h ic h
b ro u g h t a b o u t w id e s p re a d “ ru m o rs o f p a e d o p h ilia .” T h ese are
fu rth e r e v id e n c e d b y h is d iary a n d letters. T h e e v id e n c e p iles
ev e n h ig h e r w ith th e p o rn o g ra p h ic p h o to s h e h a d ta k e n , so m e
see n in th e O x fo rd U n iv e rsity p r e s s ’s tw o -v o lu m e e d itio n o f
The Letters o f Lewis Carroll (Thomas, pp. 4, 5 et ai.). H is ch ild
p o rn o g ra p h y w o u ld b e illeg al to d ay . M o st o f it w a s b u rn e d by
h is ex e c u to r, b y th e d ire c tiv e o f h is w ill. T h o m a s said ,
“ I f C h a rle s L u tw id g e D o d g s o n h a d b e h a v e d in
th e se c o n d h a lf o f th e tw e n tie th c e n tu ry as h e
b e h a v e d in th e sec o n d h a lf o f th e n in e te e n th , his
rooms at Christ Church would surely have
been turned over by the Obscene Publications
Squad...” (Thomas, p. 6).
A ll o f th is ev il c o n tin u e d fo r d e c a d e s u n d e r L id d e ll’s
lo n g a n d a p p ro v in g n o se. D o d g so n w ro te m a n y letters, w h ich
re m a in , w h ic h sh o w h is o b s e ss io n in th is re g ard . “ [G ]o ssip an d
a th re a t o f sca n d al led h im t o . . . ” sw itc h fro m c h ild p h o to g ra p h y
to ch ild sketching. T h o m a s say s, “ A t re g u la r in te rv a ls h e le ft
Christ Church for the theatrical and social pleasures o f London,

in neighborhoods offering a parade o f sexual vice that was a by
word throughout Europe.” Dodgson opposed efforts to stop
child white slavery and anti-prostitution legislation which
sought to raise the age o f consent from 12 to 16 (Thomas, PP. 8 , 10, 13,
4 7 ,2 7 5 et ai.). How did this man become as mad as his own Mad
Hatter? Liddell’s Lexicon was his guidebook.
Dodgson’s Beginning: Liddell’s Lexicon & A Lewd School
The journey to the world o f the Mad Hatter began when

Alice found a key to open the door leading out o f the tiny space
which had trapped her. Dodgson, as a young boy, also felt that
he needed a key to open the restraining door of his father’s
church, freeing him to wander in the world o f myth and
adventure. The Greek-English Lexicon has served as the key to
free many young men from the English Holy Bible. Dodgson
had learned “Greek” “under his father’s wing.” While away at
Rugby, his boarding school, the young Dodgson wrote to his
family on October 9, 1848 saying, “he would like to buy Liddell
and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon if his father will allow it
(Cohen, pp. 15, 327, 58). He writes that a boy’s bare necessities are
warm gloves and The Lexicon —
Dearest Elizabeth,
“...I have not got any warm gloves yet but I must do so
soon...There are some books I shd. like to have leave to
get: these are B utler’s Ancient Atlas [crossed out] (On
2nd thoughts not yet.) Liddell & S co tt’s Larger Greek-
English Lexicon. Mr. Paice quite despises the little one
and says it is only f it fo r my younger brothers. It is hardly
any use in Demosthenes...C.L.D. ” (Dodgson as cited in Hudson, pp.

53-55).
The Liddell-Scott lexicon was also the key which had freed his
teachers at Rugby from the Holy Bible. This boarding school
was “the shrine as well as the breeding ground o f liberals” ( w .r .
W ard, Victorian Oxford, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1965, p. 130 as cited in Cohen, p.
347).Unwisely Dodgson’s father thought, like so many parents,

that “Christian faith, if blended well with classical learning,
would produce a superior breed” (Cohen, p. 16). Yet, what
fellowship hath G od’s light with pagan darkness? Liddell’s
lexicon did its dirty work and when he was just thirteen,
Dodgson translated parts o f the vile pagan “Greek text o f the
Prometheus Vinctus o f Aeschylus” (Thomas, p. 55). Later, in Alice in
Wonderland, he quipped, “We had the best o f educations...I
went to the Classical master, though. He was an old crab...he
taught laughing and g rief’ [Latin and Greek]. “Charles had
naturally steeped himself in Plato and Aristotle and later
dedicated Symbolic Logic, Part I [his book] to ‘the memory of
Aristotle’ (Charles Dodgson, Symbolic Logic, P art 1, 1896, as cited in Cohen, p. 44).
Most British boarding schools, such as Rugby, were a

“nursery for vice” (Cohen, P. 16). Dodgson’s diary complains that he
was not “secure from annoyance at night” (Dodgson Diary, M arch is,
1857 as cited in Cohen, p. 22). One boarding school student summarized
life in these schools saying,
“The first night I was there, at nine years old, I

was compelled to eat Eve’s apple quite up -
indeed, the Tree o f the Knowledge of Good and
Evil was stripped absolutely bare: there was no
fruit left to gather” (A ugustus J.C. Hare, The Story o f M y L ife I,
London: George Allen, 1896, pp. 168-169 as cited in Thomas, p 54).
Liddell’s friends, Jowett and Stanley, had similar homosexual

boarding school experiences. Student’s reported that,
“He [Jowett] had been nicknamed ‘Miss Jowett’

at St Paul’s, as Dean Stanley was called ‘Nancy’
at Rugby (see p. 839). The names were probably
no more than schoolboy derision, though at
Harrow the Vaughan scandal o f 1859 proved
otherwise. The manuscript diaries o f John
Addington Symonds contain a lurid depiction o f
sexual violence at Harrow in mid-century [under
dorm supervisor B.F. Westcott, later o f the
Revised Version]. Far from preventing such
activities, the headmaster, Dr. Charles Vaughan,
[another Revised Version committee member]
was a party to them until his resignation [from
Harrow] was demanded and obtained under
threat o f a criminal prosecution.. .” (Thomas, p. 54; See
also Cohen, p. 20).
The Anglican church at that time was much like the

Catholic church in its imposed celibacy for certain positions.
Like strings on a kite, the devil’s temptations follow such
“doctrines o f devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Under Liddell, Dodgson
worked in a position in which he was forbidden to marry for
almost twenty years. (The rules were relaxed when he was in
his forties, yet he chose to remain a bachelor.) His biographers
describe Dodgson’s look and “taste” as “androgynous.” “He had
a Curiously womanish face (Thomas, pp. 177, 71, 268; Isa Bowman, The Story o f
Lewis Carroll Told F or Young People B y the R eal Alice in W onderland M iss Isa Bowm an, New
York: E.P. Dutton & Com pany, 1900, pp. 9-12 as cited in Cohen, p. 461).
Early Catholic & High Church Tendencies
Dodgson’s father was a very pro-Catholic Anglican

curate. “As a High Churchman, he upset the Evangelicals,” as
had Liddell. Dodgson’s father had translated one o f the ‘church
fathers’ for inclusion in the Oxford Movement s pro-Catholic
anthology at the personal request of Dr. Pusey, one of the
movement’s leading proponents. Dodgson’s father “wrote to his
friend Dr. Pusey in 1849, asking him to nominate his eldest
[Charles Dodgson] for a Studentship at Christ Church.” Pusey,
a member of Christ Church, did nominate him for this life-long
position. “He was one o f the last men to be awarded that
privilege by nomination and favouritism” (Thomas, PP. 35, 40, i s , 87; see
also Cohen, P. 42).
Dodgson came to live in Christ Church in January of

1851 at the age of 19 and died there at the age of 65 (Thomas, P . 69).
It contained both a college and a cathedral. He lived within the
physical premises o f Christ Church for forty-seven years.
Dodgson’s criminal mind was harbored and nurtured under the
shadow o f Liddell’s dark roof for thirty-six o f these years.
Gaisford’s Greek ‘Gods’ Above the Vulgar Herd
Liddell’s predecessor at Christ Church, whom he called

“a semi-maniac” and “that Siberian monster,” was “Thomas
Gaisford, Professor o f Greek, Dean o f Christ Church.” Dodgson
sat under him for a very short time before Liddell took over.
“His most famous sermon in Christ Church

Cathedral concluded with an exhortation to the
study of Greek, ‘which not only elevates above
the vulgar herd, but leads not infrequently to
positions o f considerable emolument’
[Webster’s II: “Compensation or payment from

an office or employment”] (Thomas, p. 74).
When new students, like Dodgson, had questions or

small doubts about signing the Church of England’s required
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Gaisford forecast how Greek
and his school would destroy every bit o f their faith in their
English Bible. He said, ‘“ It will be a long time before you will
find anything that you can have no doubts about’” (Thomas, p. 74).
Liddell: “[T]he enemy entered the gate”
When old Dean Gaisford retired, “Dodgson’s patron” said,
“ ‘Now nothing but what is evil is threatened as

his successor,’ he said gloomily. ‘They imagine
Liddell ” (Thomas, p. 89).
Liddell’s former students “remembered him clouting boys

round the head...” (Thomas, P. 89). “Had the Students been allowed
to vote, they would not have chose Liddell” as the new Dean of
the Cathedral and college (Thomas, PP. 89-90). Later, even Liddell
admits his cold welcome saying,
“Gunpowder was freely used in such a way as to

terrify not only the inmates o f the House, but all
the neighborhood...M rs. Liddell received an
anonymous letter, in which she was advised to
quit the house with her young family, because in
the course o f a few nights it was to be blown up”
(W .G. Hiscock, A Christ Church M iscellany, Oxford: O xford U niversity
Press, 1946, p. 100 as cited in Thomas, p. 90).
One biographer said of Liddell, “ [T]he enemy entered

the gate.” ““The selection does not seem to have given much
satisfaction in the college,” noted Dodgson, but it was later to

have various important consequences for him self... Liddell
immediately made Dodgson “Master of the House,” though he
did not technically qualify for such a position for two more
years (Thom as, p. 90; Hudson p. 78; Thomas, p. 97). Liddell must have
awed” Dodgson as a new student (Cohen, p. 58). Once Dodgson
became a lecturer in mathematics under Liddell, their close
friendship soared. Dodgson made “regular visits to the
Deanery” (Thom as, P. H i ) . In 1856 Dodgson contacted Dean
Liddell “to consult him on various questions connected with the
lecture.” His father wrote to Dodgson’s brother that “He seems
to be making good friends with the D ean...” (Dodgson diaries as eited in
Cohen, p. 59; Letter dated February 6. p. 1856 Anne Clark Am or, ed„ Letters to Skeffington
Dodgson From His Father, 1990, p. 12 as cited in Cohen, p. 60).
Liddell’s passion for the world o f art knit him to

Dodgson, who was likewise inclined. “The Dean, himself a
photography enthusiast, asked Charles to stay to lunch
followed by an invitation to “dine at the Deanery on Saturday
next.” He immediately began photographing the children and
was invited to the deanery often to do this. Dodgson says, It
seems I am destined to meet the Liddells perpetually just
nO W ” (Cohen, p. 61, last part from M ay 13, 1856 Dodgson Diary; see Cohen, pp. 62, 208-
“Charles path led frequently to the

209, Dodgson Diary, February 17,1863).
deanery.” He joined Dean Liddell for walks. Dean Liddell

joined Dodgson and the children for one of their frequent
boating parties. Cohen writes o f “Carroll’s special relationship
with Dean Liddell, his wife, and o f course Alice” (Thom as P. M7;
Cohen, pp. 61, 99, xv). “Dodgson was frequently at the Deanery” of
Liddell (Hudson, p. 89).
In 1856 Dodgson also became close friends with the

Liddell children. Liddell’s daughter Alice was just about four.
From 1856 to 1863, when Alice was between the ages o f four
and eleven, Dodgson became a constant presence at Liddell’s

home, which was just a hop away from his room. Charles
visited and took walks with the Liddell children when Dean
Liddell and his wife were away from home (Cohen, pp. 206,6 9 ,9 5 et ai.).
He followed Liddell and his family on vacations also. Alice
herself and William Blake Richmond recall Dodgson staying
with the Liddell family at the family’s summer home in 1864
(Thom as, p. 139). Alice, at the age o f 80, told the Daily Dispatch, “I
remember with great pride Mr. Lewis Carroll’s visits to Gogarth

Abbey, Llandudno, which my father, Dean Liddell, took for
several summers, and our games on the sandhills together”
(Hudson, p. 109). Dodgson followed the Liddells in 1863, escorting
them to Oxford a few days later.
“Charles’s relationship with the Liddells was

equally relaxed, with only an occasional moody
objection from Mrs. Liddell. He visited the
deanery frequently and took the children on long
walks and on river expeditions. The young ones
visited his rooms so often that they virtually
dominate his diary. The friendship with them
was now deeply rooted, and if it is obvious that
Charles was now very much attached to them ...”
(Cohen, p. 86).
Alice in Wonderland
Dodgson was the children’s babysitter, at times. He

visited Liddell’s house “almost daily” (Cohen, P. 100). He took Alice
and her sister and brother on all day row-boat excursions
frequently. It was on one o f these boating expeditions that he
created and told the children his story o f Alice in Wonderland.
That evening, “They had tea in Dodgson’s room at half-past
eight and the children were then returned to the Deanery.” At

Alice’s request he stayed up all night to write out the story of
Alice ’.v Adventures Underground, as he had titled it that day.
“All the occupants o f the boat who first heard the

tale o f Alice are characters in the first book. The
Dodo is Charles, the Duck is Duckworth, the Lory
is Lorina, the Eaglet Edith” (Cohen, p. 135).
Other characters in Alice in Wonderland include the

Liddell family and governess, a few other Oxford Professors
(Ruskin and Jowett), as well as a few members o f royalty. “[H]e
worked these memories ingeniously into his tales. The river
expeditions, the walks, the croquet games, the long deanery
visits and most particularly the two royal occasions - all
presented Charles with the raw material for the Alice books”
(Cohen, p. 99). The original edition, which Dodgson had handwritten
and illustrated for Alice, was “often to be seen on the drawing

room table at the Deanery,” said Robinson Duckworth, who
joined Dodgson on the day he conceived the story. In Alice
Through the Looking-Glass, the story begins in Liddell’s
deanery and Alice is accompanied by the family cat (Collinwood
(D odgson’s nephew), The Lew is Carroll Picture B ook, ed. Stuart Dodgson Collingwood,
London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1899, pp. 358-360 as cited in Cohen, p. 91; Cohen, p. 215).
In Cohen’s biography of Dodson, he entitled one chapter

“The Don [Dodgson], The Dean [Liddell], and His Daughter
[Alice]. In all of Dodgson’ biographies, the name Liddell and
the Dean himself comprise far and away the longest entries in
the index. Dodgson writes,
““There is no variety in my life to record just

now,” he writes April 29, 1863, “except meeting
with the Liddells, the record of which has
become almost continuous”” (D odgson’s Diary, Cohen, p.

96).
Alice in Dodgsonland
In 1859 Liddell let Dodgson photograph his seven-year

old daughter Alice in quite a provocative pose, partly disrobed
in imitation o f disheveled “Haymarket prostitutes, girls as
young and younger than Alice L iddell...” Near the Haymarket
area, “at the United Hotel in Charles Street, Dodgson made his
London headquarters for most o f his life.” “When there was a
day free from teaching, he would invariably stay the night in
London and go to the theatre” (Thomas, PP. 140, 133, 179,184).
When the Liddell’s left for Madeira, Spain, Dodgson

was with the children constantly. In 1863 when Alice was
eleven he took the Liddell children to the marriage celebration
o f the Prince o f Wales. He made one o f his perverse jokes, not
to be repeated here, which Alice likewise thought was “not very
good” (Thom as, pp. 142, 144, 145). The “friendship with the Liddell
children became an obsession.” “Oxford gossip had it” that
Dodgson asked to court Alice when she was 11 and he was 31
(Cohen, pp. 206, loo-ioi). When he was refused, a friend wrote in 1878
that “Dodgson has half gone out o f his mind in consequence of

having been refused by the real Alice (Liddell)” (Lord Salisbury wrote
L ady John M anners on August 25, 1878; see Hatfield House MSS. 3M/D XIII/101 as cited in
Cohen, p. 101; The legal age for females to m arry in England was 12. The sinister Archbishop
Benson proposed to M ary Sidgwick at age 12 and married her at 18; Cohen, p. 102).
Dodgson’s nephew S.D. Collingwood admitted that his

family was aware o f Dodgson’s “intense love for her (though
she was only a child...” (Hudson, p. i6 i). Dodgson’s poem about
Alice noted the twenty-year difference in their ages,
“Though time be fleet, and I and thou

Are half a life asunder...”

“Still she haunts me, phantomwise,
Alice moving under skies...” (Thomas, pp. 1 4 8 ,149).
Dean Liddell’s blunted sensitivities may not have been

shared by his wife. In later years Alice’s sister wrote to Alice
reminding her that “his manner became too affectionate to you
as you grew older and that mother spoke to him about it, and
that offended him so he ceased coming to visit us again...”
(Edward W akeling, “Two Letters From Lorina to A lice,” Jabberwocky, Autum n, 1992 as cited
in Cohen, p. 103). Mrs. Liddell wisely identified Dodgson’s attentions

as “excessive, intrusive, improper, perhaps impure.” “[H]is
attraction to prepubescent females” became a lifelong obsession
(Cohen, pp. 5 1 3 ,7 6 et ai.). Dodgson even describes him self as “vile” in
his diary. After 1863 he saw less of the children. Thomas

observes, “Love or infatuation on his side, if they existed,
perished when she reached adolescence...” (Thomas, P. 141). When
Alice reached twelve their friendship cooled.
“ ‘Unfortunately,’ wrote Alice, ‘my mother tore up all

the letters that Mr. Dodgson wrote to me when I was a small
girl’” (Thom as, pp. 139, 271). Alice’s son later said that Dodgson must
have written “hundreds” of letters to Alice all o f which her
mother “destroyed.” Alice said, “ [I]t is an awful thought to
contemplate what may have perished in the Deanery waste-
paper basket” (Hudson, P. i68). If they were anything like the letters,
still extant, which he wrote to other very young girls, one can
see why a mother would tear them to shreds and shield their
little daughters from any contact with the writer (e.g. Cohen, p. 186).
They had remained friends though and in the 1870s Mrs.
Liddell brought the full-grown girls to be photographed in
Dodgson’s studio (Cohen, p. 505).
When Mrs. Liddell helped H.L. Thomason with Henry

Liddell’s posthumous biography, she made certain that
Dodgson was not mentioned, although he was perhaps even
closer to the Dean throughout his life than the other men
mentioned (Cohen, p. 513). She also censored every line o f the
biography, burying the w olf with the man and penning for
posterity a brief sketch o f his sheep’s clothing.
The characters in Dodgson’s Alice in Wonderland and

Alice Through the Looking-Glass were taken from people
familiar to both Alice and Dodgson. His humor “did not spare
his personal friends” (Hudson, P. 175). Thomas asks, “Was the Red
Queen or the Queen o f Hearts a caricature o f Mrs. Liddell?,” the
protective mother (Thomas, P. 166). Or did it mock the children’s
watchful governess? Dodgson himself describes the Red Queen
as “the concentrated essence of all governesses” and hints she
was patterned after the Liddell’s governess, Miss Prickett.
Dodgson did write about Mrs. Liddell in The Vision o f the
Three T ’s” and The New Belfry, which he called “a giant copy
o f the Greek lexicon” (Cohen, PP. 94,3 8 9 ,3 8 7 ).
The whole town knew o f Dodgson’s obsessions.
“As Alice Liddell grew to womanhood, their

names were still linked in Oxford wit and Oxford
gossip. Indeed, his supposed infatuation with all
the Liddell sisters was gossip beyond Christ
Church for some years after there could have
been any substance to it” (Thomas, P. 169).
For example, as late as 1874 John Howe Jenkins, a student o f

Christ Church, wrote a satire called Cakeless about the Liddell-
Dodgson ‘affair.’ With Greek names and togas, it paralleled the
tea parties o f Dodgson’s Alice in Wonderland to similar parties

at the Liddell household. Jenkins’ second attack on the Liddells
and Dodgson was called The Adventures o f Apollo and Diana.
He depicted Dean Liddell as “Apollo, the walking lexicon,” his
wife as the pagan goddess Diana, and Kraftsohn, as Dodgson. In
the farce, when their daughter Alice is to be married,
“Kraftsohn [Dodgson] says, “I do protest against this match, so
let me speak...” “By circles, segments, and by rad ii...”
[Dodgson taught mathematics] (Thomas, p. no). Jenkins was sent
down” for this by Liddell.
Alice later courted Queen Victoria’s son Prince Leopold

for a time. When she finally married Mr. Hargreaves, she asked
Prince Leopold to be godfather to her son, whom she named
Leopold. In turn, Prince Leopold named his first daughter
Princess Alice. This Second Alice also became one of
Dodgson’s little ‘friends’ (Cohen, P. 518). “ ...A lice’s marriage to
Hargreaves may have seemed to him the greatest tragedy in his
life” (Coiiingw ood cited in Hudson, p. 161). Alice did name her third son
Caryl (Carroll) Liddell after Dodgson’s pen name, Lewis
Carroll, and her father Dean Liddell. She asked Dodgson to be
the child’s godfather for his infant baptism, a practice which
breeds wall-to-wall unregenerate church members, such as
Dodgson and Liddell.
Gifts and letters continued to be exchanged between

Dodgson and Alice for the remainder of his life. He wrote to
Alice in 1891 of the success of his books and in 1892 sent a gift
(Cohen, pp. 126, 491 et al.). Alice also Came to visit him in 1891 (Thomas, p.
339). In 1893 Dodgson sent “my kindest regards” with some
photos to the Liddells. As late as the 1890s grandchildren,

“Rhoda and Violet Liddell came to te a ...” in Dodgson’s room
Mrs. Liddell and her daughter

(Dodgson as cited in Cohen, pp. 510, 509).
Lorina came to visit him eight days later.
No C hildren, Please
Trying to write a decent chapter about a very indecent

man is quite difficult. It would have been much quicker to
include one o f his lurid letters to little girls, his obscene pictures
o f them, and one of the graphic comments made by his
scholarly biographers. Any o f these would have scared the hair
off of any reader. Know this, dear reader, that Dodgson was
much worse than any description I could include for Christian
people to read. I have dodged and tip-toed around the vile parts
o f his biographies, so as not to “speak o f those things which are
done o f them in secret.” Cohen’s chapter, “The Pursuit of
Innocence,” details Dodgson’s pedophilia. Cohen admits
Carroll’s thoughts “ventured into dangerous precincts” (Cohen, p.
xxi).
“A current of whispers ran through Oxford about

Charles’s nude photography, and he was aware o f it” (Cohen, p. 171).
His main interest in the ‘70s was “photographing little girls in
the nude” (Hudson, p. 218). He referred to them as “my victims”
(Thom as, p. 116). Dodgson wrote, “I want to leave written
instructions, for my Executors, as to what to do with these

pictures” (Cohen, p. 168; Hudson, p. 219). “Charles’s heirs” also made
certain that the bulk o f his untoward letters to little girls were
destroyed (Cohen, P. 513). He took 2,700 photos o f all sorts,
including many normal portraits. No wonder photography was
then called the ‘black art’; one’s hands even became black from
the silver nitrate (Thomas, P. 117, 119, et ai).
A s h e g re w o ld e r, “ H e g re w b o ld e r, b u t e v e r w ith a c le a r
c o n s c ie n c e ” (Cohen, p. 183). H is p ru rie n t letters to c h ild re n p ro v e
th a t h is in te re st w a s n o t ‘a e s th e tic .’ A le tte r on p a g e 186 o f
C o h e n ’s b io g ra p h y o f D o d g so n is n o te w o rth y o f h is p e d o p h ilia .
H u d so n sa y s th a t D o d g s o n ’s “ ro m a n tic in te re st in little g irls”
c o m p rise d , a c c o rd in g to D o d g so n , ‘th re e -fo u rth ’s o f m y lif e ’
(Hudson, p. 212; See Hudson, p. 218).
T h o m a s ’ b io g ra p h y o f D o d g so n is full o f e x a m p le s o f
D o d g s o n ’s sad ism a n d p e d o p h ilia fro m h is o w n letters an d
d iarie s. T h e last h a lf o f D o d g s o n ’s life, d e ta ile d in th e la st h a lf
o f T h o m a s ’s b o o k , is a lm o s t im p o ssib le to read . It is rift w ith
ta le s o f D o d g s o n ’s p u rsu its o f m a n y , m a n y o th e r little girls.
T h a t se e m s to h a v e b e e n th e n u m b e r o n e c o n su m in g in te re st o f
h is life. T w is te d “ C h a rle s w a n te d all la te r co p ies o f A lic e to
c o n ta in a m e ssa g e a sk in g ea ch c h ild re a d e r to se n d h im a
p h o to g r a p h ...” (Cohen, p. 378). T h e se p u rs u its c o n tin u e th ro u g h o u t
all o f h is life, g ro w in g m o re a n d m o re o b sc e n e as h e g re w old er.
T h e last h a l f o f T h o m a s ’ b io g ra p h y d e sc rib e s D o d g s o n ’s la tte r
y e a rs sp e n t at th e b e a c h at E a stb o u rn e , w h e re h is a c tiv itie s are
to o ris q u e fo r m e n tio n . In 1895, “ h e to ld his s is te r M a ry to m in d
h e r o w n b u s in e s s w h e n sh e w ro te a b o u t th e g o ssip th a t h is g irls
at E a stb o u rn e w e re c a u s in g ” (Thomas, PP. 231 , 335,3 3 6 et ai.). In Alice in
Wonderland h e said , “If e v e ry b o d y m in d e d th e ir ow n
b u s in e s s ...th e w o rld w o u ld g o ro u n d a d ea l fa ste r th a n it d o e s .”
M o th e rs fo rb a d h im n e a r th e ir c h ild re n a n d o b se rv e d
h im “ ‘w ith so m e s u s p ic io n .’” “ [T ]h e ‘little m is s e s ’ w h o in fe ste d
D o d g s o n ’s ro o m s ” a n d h is o th e r id io sy n c ra sie s b ro u g h t “ h o stile
v ie w s o f D o d g so n in his la te r y e a rs ” (Lewis Carroll, The Diaries o f Lewis
Carroll, ed. Roger Lancelyn G reen, London: Cassell & Com pany, 1953 p. 528 and A Selection
fro m the Letters o f Lewis Carroll (The Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) to his Child-Friends,
ed. Evelyn Hatch, London: M acmillan, 1933, pp. 235-237 both as cited in Thom as, p. 255;
Thom as, p. 291).
As late as 1893 mothers were still shielding their young

daughters from Dodgson. He noted,
““ ...H eard from Mrs. Richards,” Charles noted

(October 6, 1893), “ ...about her wish that
Marion should not dine with me again, or even
walk with me.”
“A year later (August 14, 1894): “Dear May

Miller was engaged to dine with me, but Mrs.
Miller wrote today there was so much ‘ill-
natured gossip’ afloat, she would rather I did not
invite either girl without the other...’” ’ (Dodgson as
cited in Cohen, p. 468).
Many o f his diaries “have since disappeared,” at the

hands of embarrassed relatives. Certain pages were cut out.
Hudson said, “ ...D odgson’s sisters might have ‘done away
w ith’ this portion o f the diary, either because it revealed too
openly their brother’s religious doubts and difficulties or
because it provided evidence o f an unhappy love-affair” (Hudson
pp. 161, 105). Cohen said that “someone - not Carroll [Dodgson]
himself - had used a razor to cut out certain pages of the

surviving Carroll dairy...” A full “four” o f the thirteen volumes
were missing and have not been turned over by his family
(Thomas, p. 355).
“Charles’s niece Menella Dodgson owned to

having cut some pages from the diary, and this
page was evidently one of them. It contained
information that offended her sensibilities, and
she took a razor to it...som ething that his prim
niece could not bear to let stand” (Cohen, p. 100).
Dodgson had “struggles against depression.” When

Dodgson became a ‘deacon,’ his diary notes —
“Yet how unfit am I . ..To have entered into Holy

O rders...with my undisciplined and worldly
affections” (Dodgson as cited in Cohen, p. 200).
When Dodgson turned sixty he said, “Alas, what ill

spent years they have been!” (Dodgson as cited in Cohen, p. 459). He
strangely switched to the use of only purple ink during the years
between 1871 and 1891 (Thomas, P . 2 1 1). He seemed unrepentant at
the very last. His very last book, “Three Sunsets and Other
Poems” was illustrated with his ‘favorite’ type of ‘nuditie’
drawings, which were totally unrelated to the text (Cohen, pp. 523,
524).
Liddell, the Unprincipled “Rogue”
“The two illustrious figures o f Oxford life with

whom Dodgson remained most preoccupied
were still Jowett and Liddell” (Thomas, pp. 1 3 6 ,192).
Liddell’s relationship with Dodgson does not seem to

have been dampered by his ‘obsessions.’ Cohen says Dodgson
was “eccentric, the subject o f whispers and wagging tongues.”
To think that Liddell did not know exactly what Dodgson was
up to, while living in the same conclave for 36 years, would be
ludicrous. Liddell’s was a very small, though important,
kingdom. Liddell’s hand-picked faculty included only seven to
twelve teachers and from 145 to 180 students (Cohen, pp. 53, 157;
Thomas, pp. 78, 177). This is microscopic compared to the number of
faculty and students under one Dean at today’s colleges.
What kind o f man would support and befriend Dodgson,

and even harbor this criminal mind in his own fiefdom? Was it
a man who liked ready access to Dodgson’s ‘library o f lust’?

Liddell’s biographer said that he was very involved with the
upbringing o f his children and that, “nothing was complete
without his co-operation and approval” (Thom pson, P. 251). Any man
who would allow a picture to be taken o f his young child, such
as the one taken in 1859, is a “rogue,” as Liddell was called by
one famous historian. W ebster’s II New College Dictionary
defines a rogue as “an unprincipled person...mischievous
person.” The American Dictionary o f the English Language
(Webster’s 1828) calls a “rogue” a “vagrant” or “dishonest
person.”
““From a theological viewpoint Liddell proved

an even damper squid than Jowett,” writes the
historian W.R. Ward; and the Regius Professor
of Modern History at Oxford, E.A. Freeman,
himself a staunch liberal, asserts that it proved
“the hollowness o f Oxford liberalism that they
cannot see through such a humbug” as Liddell,
who was “a rogue as well as a ‘blockhead and
blunderer’” (Victorian Oxford, 1965, pp. 132, 236 as cited in
Cohen, p. 512).
The Oxford Professor o f History, who called Liddell an

unprincipled “rogue,” spoke from a closer proximity, affording
him a clearer view o f the man than we can deduce at bay.
It seems all o f Liddell’s choices for professors were

equally evil. Sir Monier Monier-Williams, Professor of
Sanskrit, who beat Max Muller for that Professorship, also let
Dodgson take immodest pictures o f his “little” daughter. Liddell
also tried to appoint R.W. Macon “a controversial churchman”
to a studentship. Macon was so far out that even Dodgson
opposed him on this. Pusey, the arch-heretic and Catholic

sympathizer, found Liddell’s enclave a secure wonderland for
his heresy. “Although he too [Pusey] was accused o f heresy and
banned from preaching,” he “retained his professorship and his
canon’s stall at Christ Church” under Liddell (Cohen, pp. i m , 345).
‘Mad-men W elcome’ must have been inscribed on Liddell s
door mat.
Even after the break with the children in 1865
“Charles’s visits to the deanery resumed and continued in the
New Y ear...” (Cohen, P. 92). O f course he remained a friend of
Dean Liddell and was invited to dinner at the Deanery in 1866.
Liddell clung to this crack-pot as it crumbled in his hands.
Liddell did not care that Dodgson’s pupils thought ill o f him.
“ [H]is pupils collectively wrote a letter to Dean Liddell
asking to be transferred to another tutor” (Thomas. PP iso, 95).
Dodgson was a math teacher; how could his lectures be
anything but dull? There must have been another reason for the
mass protest and “collective” student dissatisfaction.
According to the rules, Dodgson was “bound to take

priest orders as soon as possible,” according to Liddell. All
those in Dodgson’s position were absolutely required to be
‘priests’ in the Anglican church. Thomas said, “he was not
prepared to live the life of almost puritanical strictness which
was then considered essential for a clergyman” (Stuart Dodgson
C ollingw ood, The Life and Letters o f Lewis Carroll, London: T. Fisher Unw in, 1898^ p. 74 as
He was “an ardent theatergoer” . .. an absolute

cited in Thom as, P. 105).
disqualification for Holy Orders” (Hudson, pp. 104- 105). Liddell use
his position and power to release Dodgson of this obligation. He
told him that he should “consider himself free as to being
ordained Priest.” Liddell’s special waver “that he need not take
priest’s orders,” was given in 1862, years after Dodgson took

the questionable picture of Alice (Cohen, p. 205).
Dodgson’s reluctance to take the required orders would

have been a perfect opportunity for Liddell to get rid o f him.
Dodgson’s biographer wonders why, when Dodgson had shown
himself by then to be “something o f an embarrassment at the
deanery,” he did not take advantage o f “a technicality in the
hope o f disposing o f the source o f the embarrassment” (Cohen, p.
364).
On June 5, 1881, the Observer published a letter from

Dodgson, who wrote defending his friend Liddell, who had
been criticized in a May 29 Observer article. It had accused
Liddell o f allowing “highly connected” underlings to get away
with unruly behavior. Thomas said o f Dodgson’s defense of
Liddell, “[H]e knew perfectly well that what he wrote was
no n sen se (Thomas, p. 305; Cohen, p. 417; Thomas, p. 306).
Liddell, the “rogue,” sought to break the fetters of

religion by spearheading the University Test Act o f 1871. This
allowed a man to receive a degree from Oxford and to hold
office without subscribing to any formula o f faith or attending
worship services (Thomas, p. 176). Evangelicals and fundamentalists
steered clear o f Liddell’s Christ Church. A census as early as
1851 indicated that half o f the people in England attended
“nonconformist” chapels, rather than be subject to the wicked
leadership o f the dead Church o f England (Cohen, P. 343).
Dodgson remained a friend of Liddell until the end. In

1890 the Liddells invited him to dinner. Dodgson called Liddell
“my dear friend” as late as December 2, 1896. Even after
Dodgson retired, he noted in his diary that he “heard the Dean
make an excellent speech to the House” (Dodgson as cited in co h en , p. 460;

Cohen, pp. 100, 417). Upon news o f Liddell’s retirement Dodgson
wrote to him o f his “personal sense o f our loss in your departure

from among u s ...” Dodgson wrote to Mrs. Liddell that it will be
a—
“very great loss, to the University, the College,

the City, and to m yself...
....And, to me, life in Christ Church will be a

totally different thing...” (Dodgson as cited in Cohen, pp.
508, 559).
Dodgson’s Wonderland would cease without Liddell’s

protection. Who else but the author o f the pagan Liddell-Scott
Greek-English Lexicon would harbor such a Mad Tea Party?
A Devil’s Bible for Babes: Through the Looking Glass
Dodgson’s character, Humpty Dumpty, in the second

Alice book, Through the Looking-Glass, was directly patterned
after ‘Humpty’ Henry Liddell, even down to his first initial. The
wall Humpty Dumpty sat on represented Liddell’s kingdom.
Dodgson said its doors were “not for open egress, but for the
surreptitious drainage o f a stagnant congregation” (Dodgson as cited in
Cohen, p. 388).
Dodgson’s book playfully lampooned Liddell’s lexicon

and its remolding o f the meanings o f words. Throughout the
story, words had whatever meaning a character gave them.
Humpty Dumpty (Henry Liddell) epitomized Dodgson’s thesis.
One literary critic sums up the ‘message’ in Dodgson’s books:
“Remember that words were invented to refer to things” (Hudson,
P. 128). Alice said, “Language is worth a thousand pounds a
word!” (The devil knows this, because Psa. 138:2 says God has
magnified his word above all his name. No wonder the serpent
directs his attack by re-defining God’s words.)
In Through the Looking Glass, Alice disagrees with the

Red Queen, when she defines a ‘hill’ as a ‘valley.’ The Red
Queen retorted, “You may call it ‘nonsense’ if you like,” she
said, “but I’ve heard nonsense, compared with that which would
be as sensible as a dictionary.” When the Cat defines
‘growling’ as ‘purring,’ Alice says, “Call it what you like.”
As Alice and Humpty Dumpty exchange “academic

pomposities,” they expose the malicious motives of
lexicographers (Cohen, p. 139).
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice

said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.
“O f course you don’t - till I tell you. I meant
‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you’!”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down
argument,” ’ Alice objected. “When I use a
word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean -
neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said
Alice, “whether you can make words mean
different things.” “The question is,” said
Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master -
that’s all” ...“They’ve got a temper, some o f
them - particularly verbs, they’re the proudest -
adjectives you can do anything with, but not
verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot!
“You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,”
said A lice...” {Through the L ooking Glass).
Liddell and Dodgson Both Overthrow the Bible!
Alice in Wonderland “was in no sense a goody-goody

book,” notes one scholar (Hudson, p. 128). It was the first children’s
book which mocked authority figures. Expressing the rebel that
Dodgson was, “A good deal of Alice in Wonderland” depicts
“the caricature of a grotesque and doomed authoritarianism”
(Thom as, p. 73).
“He broke with tradition. Many o f the earlier

children’s books written for the upper classes
had lofty purposes; they had to teach and
preach. Primers taught children religious
principles alongside multiplication tables...”
“A: In Adam’s fall we sinned all...Children

learned...to fear sin - and their books were
meant to aid and abet the process...The Alice
books fly in the face of that tradition, destroy
it...H e was fed up with all the moral
baggage...he went further and parodied the
entire practice of moralizing” (Cohen, p. 141 citing, in
part, the New E ngland Primer).
Dodgson began a revolution in children’s literature.

“ [W hatsoever things are true...pure...lovely” has given way to
the fable, the perverse, the surreal, and the macabre, just like the
Greek mythology accessed to produce the Liddell-Scott Lexicon
(Phil. 4:8). Parents now read Dodgson’s books to their children
at bedtime, instead of the Holy Bible. “Next to the Bible and
Shakespeare, they are the books most widely and most
frequently translated and quoted” (Cohen, p. 134). The mutual anti-
God agenda o f lexicons and fairy tales needs to be exposed.
Dodgson’s Blasphemy
The Bible says “For now we see through a glass, darkly;

but then face to face:” (1 Cor. 13:12). What will we see and
know once we get past the glass? Dodgson pretends to take
Alice through that “Looking Glass” and show her his version of
Jesus Christ. He shows her a mean Red ‘Queen’ who has
“thorns...all round her head.” He is mocking Jesus Christ’s red
blood-tinged crown of thorns. He shows her a mock Jesus,
whom he describes as a foolish old man. Rev. 1:14 says, “ [H]is
hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were
as a flame of fire...” Dodgson’s Through the Looking Glass
mocks saying —
“Whose hair was whiter than the snow,

Whose face was very like a crow,
With eyes, like cinders, all aglow...
Who rocked his body to and fro,
And muttered mumblingly and low,
As if his mouth were full of dough,
Who snorted like a buffalo-
A-sitting on a gate.”
Liddell and Dodgson Wine-Cellar
Proverbs 20:1 says, “Wine is a mocker.” Dodgson’s

mocking and blasphemous tongue was set on fire of hell.
Perhaps its flames broke through Liddell’s basement wine
cellar, where he had—
“ .. .wine parties almost every night..
In Dodgson’s Through the Looking Glass, Humpty

(Henry Liddell), true to character, “ .. .came to the door with a
corkscrew in his hand...” It must have been for the party where
they “put their glasses upon their heads like extinguishers, and
drank all that trickled down their faces - others upset the
decanters, and drank the wine as it ran off the edges o f the
table...”
“ ...Christ Church under Liddell seemed in

decline. Small wonder that fathers who cared
about their sons’ education were more likely to
send them to Balliol or New College. At that
time Christ Church was not a leading College,
and there was a great deal too much card-
playing, drinking, and rowdiness...There were
wine parties almost every night...” (e .g .w . B iiia n d
J.F.A. M ason, Christ Church and Reform 1850-1867, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1970, p. 137 as cited in Thom as, p. 172).
Liddell’s college had “a smoking-room and extensive

cellars whose stock varied between 20,000 and 25,000 bottles,
of wine, whiskey and beer. This seems to be quite a huge stock
for less than 200 students and faculty. Alcohol, including beer,
whisky, and wine was also served to students and faculty at
meals. In Liddell’s ‘wining and dining room,’ all students sat by
social class. “There was one chair, for the Dean, benches for all
others.” “Undergraduates o f noble family, wearers of the gold-
tasseled cap and gown, sat at the doctor’s table...” (Thomas, p. 307,
80, 2 5 7 ,3 1 3 ,7 9 et al).
“There was a great deal too much drinking o f strong

liquors,” wrote one observer of British boarding schools and
colleges. When Dodgson graduated he gave a friend “a bottle of
wine to drink” to toast him (Cohen, pp. 45, 20). Earlier, when
Dodgson was a student in 1855, “he gave a ‘wine’” party. A
quarter of the college attended. “Ruskin held a similar wine
[party] as an undergraduate and assisted in carrying Dean

Gaisford’s son downstairs after it.” The “after-dinner
drunkenness” o f “ecclesiastical society” was widely lampooned
(Thom as, pp. 91, 112).
Liddell’s extensive wine cellar needed a manager, so

naturally Dodgson was chosen for this position o f ‘Wine
Curator’ in 1882. The revenues from Alice in Wonderland had
allowed Dodgson to retire from active lecturing the previous
year, at the age o f fifty. He continued living at Christ Church
and busied himself
“obtaining whatever wine,
cigarettes and sundries
were needed for the
comfort o f the m em bers...”
Also under Dodgson’s
oversight was his
“Smoking-Room
Committee, to assist in the
purchase o f cigarettes and
c ig a rs (Thom as, pp. 308, 314).
“Wine is central to all

common-room life, and
Charles went to great
lengths to provide the
cellars with proper temperature controls.” His stock included
“the present stock o f wine, twenty thousand bottles” (Cohen, PP.
421,4 2 3 ). “His chief concern was the upkeep o f the wine cellar...”
(Hudson, p. 200).
“A crisis apparently arose when Charles discovered that

the cellars contained a considerable quantity o f brown sherry
but no port...” (Cohen, P. 4 2 i). He spent much time in debates about
which liqueur or brandy should be stocked, finally deciding, “I
will procure any others for which an order is given” (Thomas, P. 311).
Critics said, “Dodgson was simply buying liqueurs for his
friends...” They protested that “the Curator is breaking the
Rules of the Club i f he uses our subscriptions in making
purchases of wines, etc., on behalf of individual members of
Common Room .. .Such purchases are.. .illegal” (Thomas, p. 312).
For Liddell, Dodgson “held wine tastings, expanded the

wine cellars, and filled them with valuable vintages to slake the
dons’ thirst...” “[D]octrinal disputation” took place, “over
glasses o f port and in easy chairs.” Dodgson’s “pack o f cards
from Alice in Wonderland surely made their way into the dining
room. The position as Liddell’s Wine Curator was Dodgson’s
only job at Christ Church for the next nine years, until his
declining health limited him to his rooms (Cohen, pp. 303, 304, 344, 420).
Remember, Alice in Wonderland ‘experienced’ her

‘new ’ vision of the underworld after “she found a little
bottle...and round its neck a paper label, with the words
‘DRINK M E’ beautifully printed in large letters.” After she
drank from it she said, “What a curious feeling!” The only
bottled beverage that elicits a “feeling” and makes one “giddy”
is alcohol. Dodgson’s book is conditioning children to drink
alcohol, anticipating not a hangover and delirium tremors, but
an adventure and an escape. He prods, “it seemed quite dull and
stupid for life to go on in the common way.” Why, drinking
from a little bottle could alter one’s pint sized perception and
make him feel “nine feet high,” a colossus! Alice found another
bottle,
“ [S]he uncorked it and put it to her lips. ‘I know

something interesting is sure to happen,’ she said
to herself, ‘whenever I eat or drink anything; so
I ’ll just see what this bottle d o e s...’ [BJefore she

had drunk half the bottle, she found her head
pressing against the ceiling...She hastily put
down the bottle, saying to herself, ‘That’s quite
enough...I do wish I hadn’t drunk quite so
m uch.’”
‘Head-pressing’ hangover aside, Alice later concludes

that if she’s “got to grow up...I suppose I ought to eat or drink
something or other...” The caterpillar directs her to try
psychedelic mushrooms, which again change her perception.
“‘Have some wine,’ the March Hare said in an encouraging
tone,” when the mushrooms wore off. Alice reluctantly leaves
Dodgson’s underland, having learned that “all would change to
dull reality” without “the little magic bottle...” Liddell
treasured these tales Dodgson told his daughter. Perhaps Alice
will grow up to be the next ‘Curator o f W ine.’
Liddell’s ‘Spirits’ & Dodgson’s Occult Interests?
Alcoholic beverages are called ‘spirits’ for a reason.

They numb the mind, leaving it an “empty” host for evil
‘spirits,’ who seek bodies to work out their evil desires (Matt.
12:44, 45). Spirits do not have pens or pulpits; men do.
Dodgson confessed in Alice in Wonderland that the invisible
spirit speaks, “[A]s soon as there was mouth enough for it to
speak with.” (Remember, the Cheshire cat began with merely a
mouth and the cat’s body only gradually appeared.) Were evil
spirits using ‘m en’ as elevators between Liddell’s wine cellar
and his high ceiling Cathedral? Alice said through
schizophrenic Dodgson,
“Who am I then? Tell me that first, and then, if I

like being that person, I’ll come up: if not, I ’ll
stay down here till I’m somebody else.”
(B.F. Westcott, editor of the corrupt Greek text

underlying new versions, was also the mouth-piece for evil
spirits. He was a representative o f a brewery and communicated
with spirits in his Cathedral. See New Age Bible Versions.)
Whispering spirits told Dodgson the page number of the

next hymn before it was even announced in church (Thomas, p. 3 5 1).
Cohen says o f Dodgson, “he relied on his inner voice. It told
him to reject church dogm a...” He said his ideas for the books
“come of themselves” (Dodgson as cited in Hudson, p. 126). They had also
a way o f their own, of occurring, a propos o f nothing...” (Cohen,
pp. 483, 368). “He was a believer in telepathy.” (However, he must
not have been very clairvoyant, because he used his math skills
to construct a ‘system’ for betting on the Derby and other races)
(Thom as, pp. 351, 95).
Dodgson wrote a book called Phantasmagoria, which

was sympathetic to disembodied spirits. He was “a member of
the Ghost Society,” since it began in 1882, as well as a member
of the Society for Psychical Research (an offshoot of B.F.
W estcott’s Ghostly Guild). His book collection included its
proceedings. As in Catholicism, “Dodgson insists upon the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist,” since spirits inhabit
everything in Liddell’s Cathedral (Cohen, P. 368; sightier, P. 248, Cohen, p.
347).
“Charles’s library contained numerous volumes on

occult subjects...” (Cohen, p. 369). A student identified a darker
source o f Dodgson’s taste” and gave him some poems of the
most macabre, Thomas Hood. “The craft of simple magic was
one that he used to entertain children for the rest o f his life”
(Thomas, pp. 108, 60). He speaks o f “a conjuring trick” in Through the
Looking Glass. O f course, Alice and her animistic coven of

underworld friends sat witch-craft style “in a large ring, with the
Mouse in the middle.”
His circle o f friends seemed perennially to center around

the occult. While an undergraduate “his head was read by an
Edinburgh phrenologist” to determine his personality based on
the “bumps” on his head. “Soon after 1853, a clairvoyant,
Minnie Anderson,” gave him a reading (Thomas, p. 70). Dodgson’s
fascination with spiritualism, thought transmission, and all
supernatural phenomena grew.
In one o f Dodgson’s later books, Sylvie and Bruno

Concluded, ‘Sylvia’ became his third incarnation o f Alice. In
the introduction he promotes “Esoteric Buddhism” (Cohen, PP. 453,
369; Thomas, p. 184). According to him, this book is not a ‘story,’ but
represents actual out o f body experiences.
“Charles assured Ruskin (January 8, 1890),

through Ruskin’s cousin, Joan Severn, that the
book contained “no dreams, this time: what look
like dreams are meant for trances - after the
fashion o f Esoteric Buddhists - in which the
spirit of the entranced person passes away into
an actual Fairyland”” (Cohen, P. 448).
Dodgson’s Now Illegal Drugs
Dodgson spent most o f his free time with the London

Bohemian artist culture, a group not unacquainted with
spiritualism, the occult, and altered states o f consciousness.
One such acquaintance died from an overdose o f drugs (Lizzie

Rossetti) (Thom as, P. 185). Dodson’s Alice books subtly promoted
drinking to alter how one ‘feels’ and demonstrated the use of
perception-altering psychedelics, such as eating mushrooms and
using a glass pipe (hookah) to smoke hashish and marijuana.
Dodgson depicted a caterpillar on a mushroom posed in the
pagan Hindu lotus position, “sitting on the top with its arms
folded, quietly smoking a long hookah...” (This is the device
used by drug addicts to smoke hemp (cannabis), a drug also
mentioned in The Life and Letters o f B.F. Westcott.) Soon,
“Alice folded her hands and began...
“In my youth,” Father William replied to his son,

“I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I ’m perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again.”
To change her perception, the caterpillar then instructed

Alice to eat some of the mushroom. The mushroom makes her
“like a serpent,” who thinks, “the next thing is, to get into that
beautiful garden...” In Dodgson’s next book the garden has a
“tree in the middle,” as in Genesis 3. The mind-altering effects
o f psychedelic mushrooms and the Indian and Middle Eastern
smoking o f cannabis and hashish in hookahs were well-known
at this time to Dodgson’s community of bohemian friends.
The children who bred the drug culture of the 1960s had
Dodgson’s White Rabbit as their teacher. A song entitled
“White Rabbit,” recorded by Jefferson Airplane and written by
Grace Slick, was, according to their official biography,
“ ...intended as a slap toward parents who read their children
stories such as Alice in Wonderland (in which Alice uses
several drug-like substances in order to change herself) and then
wondered why their children grew up to do drugs.” The lyrics

say,
“Tell’em a hookah-smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Call Alice when she was just small...
And your mind is moving low
Go ask Alice, I think she’ll know ...”
The song continues with references to Dodgson’s Through the

Looking Glass, in which a talking chess piece says, “And
you ve just had some kind o f mushroom,” making reference to a
mind-altering psilocybin mushrooms. The song “White Rabbit”
continues saying,
“Remember what the dormouse said

Feed your head, feed your head.”
Dodgson, the drug pusher, panders to a new generation

as the song “White Rabbit” is played on many TV shows from
The SimpSOnS to The Sopranos (’hto/Zmercurie.blogsDot.comÔOS/OS/white-
rabbit-bv-iefferson-airplane.htm l ).
Evil Spirits & A Child
A father came to Jesus about his son, who could not

speak and had a dumb spirit.
“And he asked his father, How long is it ago

since this came unto him? And he said, “O f a
child” (Mark 9:17-21).
Sometimes Dodgson could not speak. “It wasn’t exactly

a stammer, because there was no noise, he just opened his
mouth.” “When he was in the middle o f telling a story...he’d
suddenly stop and you wondered if you’d done anything
W rong” (H.T. Stretton, “M ore Recollections o f Lewis Carroll - II,” L istener, February 6,
1958 as cited in Cohen, p. 290. It may have been physiological and unrelated to dum b spirits.)
We have no way o f knowing how and when Dodgson

moved so far away from God’s ways. Evil spirits are looking
for a passive vessel, even a child. As a child, Dodgson did not
have access to violent video games, cable TV ’s x-rated movies,
or Harry Potter books. All Dodgson needed to dismiss the
English Holy Bible and descend into the depths o f Satan was
Liddell’s Greek-English Lexicon. It opened the door to the
pagan Greeks whose writings reek with every kind of
wickedness pandered today and a great deal that is much
worse. The “warm gloves” could not have reached up and taken
hold of his mind, as these writings did. The lexicon trampled
the Holy Bible’s light-bringing words, leaving unhindered
Dodgson’s mad-hatter dash to the murky Greek myths. Soon
God’s authoritative voice gave way to the voice o f Liddell and
the call o f the wild Greeks. Liddell allowed Dodgson to replace
Jesus Christ with Aristotle, who recommended “carefully
scrutinizing the ancients’ doctrines, to find truth” (Dodgson as cited in
Cohen, p. 539).
Dodgson’s evil spirit is still looking for “mouth enough

for it to speak.” What better mouths than smiling-like-a-
Cheshire-Cat seminary students or graduates, like Liddell,
Scott, Dodgson, Ruskin, Jowett, Thayer, Strong, Brown, Driver,
Briggs, Bauer, Moulton, Milligan, Danker, Vine, and the next
young man who buys one of their fractured fairytale keys
for defining God’s H oly Bible.
“Sky-Soaring Fire” Burns the Evidence
Liddell died in 1898; Charles Dodgson, alias Lewis

Carroll, died just four days before. Although Liddell was 21
years older than Dodgson, this Tweedledum and Tweedledee

shared that Sunday’s eulogy by Liddell’s successor,
“Dean Paget preached a sermon in Christ Church

Cathedral honoring the memory o f both men.
The irony of the conjunction could not have been
lost on many in the congregation” (Cohen, 526).
These two men’s concurrent deaths and shared memorial

paired them perpetually. Their duet continues today, as
storytellers and lexicon sellers give them both ‘mouth enough to
speak.’ They harmonize to overthrow the Bible for both young
and old.
Dodgson “had been his friend, ridiculer, defender in the

press, and who had in the end made the Liddell name more
famous than royal visits, social pretension, or even the
celebrated Greek-English Lexicon” (Thomas, p. 353).
The fires o f hell, which Dodgson denied, burst through

to consume his madness. As his last will and testament had
stated, his risque photos must be burned by his executor. “It was
plain that on his death there must be a bonfire o f many papers,
sketches, photographs, and other items.” The “nude
photographs from the 1870,” as well as the later sketches were
burned “by his executors” on his death. “ [P]art o f his diary was
found to be tom out, covering the troubled Oxford summer
weeks o f 1879...” (Thomas, pp. 355, 356, 352). “ [WJhile Charles’s
relatives were sorting out his papers, a constant pillar o f smoke
rose from the chimney over his rooms as bundle after bundle of
his papers, letters, and manuscripts went up in flames” (Cohen, P.
528). The “baffling turns o f character that had disappointed
some,” “many would now consider proved” (Hudson, PP. 24, 25). All
that remains o f Dodgson are his Alice books, which still send
his old smoldering sin to the four winds.
When Dodgson died, the occult community rose up,

joining others to donate money to his memory. Even Walter
Besant, brother-in-law of Luciferian Annie Besant offered to
give a double portion (Hudson, p. 23). Dodgson s Alice in
Wonderland became “the companion of Sade (for whom the
term ‘sadism’ was coined’), of A dolf H itler...” and scores of
hapless children and parents who somehow missed The Journal
o f Nervous and Mental Disease (1938). It warned parents of
Dodgson’s ‘cruelty’ (although its article was too Freudian).
Alice was too apt to be “trying to box her own ears” or to have a
Pigeon “beating her violently.” In 1936 the article s author, who
was from the Medical College of New York University’s
Department of Psychiatry, addressed the American
Psychoanalytical Society. He warned his audience against
“exposing children to the dangerous corruption of Lewis
Carroll’s books.” “Dodgson had been a profoundly disturbed
personality,” all must conclude (Thomas, pp. 355,363).
Liddell, Worse than Dodgson?
On a scale o f 1 to 10, with the apex o f wantonness being

Dodgson at 10, where would Liddell stand in relationship to
Dodgson? Morton Cohen, Professor Emeritus o f the City
University of New York and Ph.D. recipient from Columbia
University says,
“Charles was Conservative; the Dean Liberal’

(Cohen, p. 389).
If Dodgson is defined as a “conservative,” I do not want to read

the untold chapter about the flaming 'Liberal Liddell.
LIDDELL’S PEDOPHILE PAL a l i c e in w o n d e r l a n d a u t h o r 3 15
Too Late Now: Did Dodgson Reject the Gospel?
Dodgson was actually deaf in one ear and seemed averse

to hearing the gospel in the other ear. His sister Mary had sent
him a tract o f her own in 1894. “As he warned Elizabeth in
1894, he had not the time to be a chatty correspondent, even on
the matters o f religious belief which she raised with him.”
“He told her that he did not read tracts, they were
not worth it. He would make an exception for
hers, which was evidently written for uneducated
readers, and he would correct her English which
seemed to him rather slipshod” (Thom as, PP. 335,3 3 6 et
al.).
The original Salvation Army o f William Booth, then a

powerful street-preaching organization, was scorned by
Dodgson.
“He deplored the vulgarity o f the Salvation

Army and the street preacher, yet attended the
performances o f Joseph Leycester Lyne, ‘Father
Ignatius,’ the self-appointed abbot and leader of
the Benedictine O rder...” (Thomas, p. 230).
Dodgson wrote to the St. James Gazette on December 6, 1890,

calling the gospel “vile blasphemies.”
“We shudder to hear yelled along our streets the

vile blasphemies which the Salvation Army has
made SO common (Bowm an, p. 177 as cited in Thomas, p.
254).
He wrote again in 1892 to initiate legislation that would outlaw

the marching of the Salvation Army. They were subject to
attack by bystanders and he objected to the noise (Thomas, P. 254).
Regarding theology (not church management), Dodgson

came to be a member of the Broad Church movement, those
“who broadened the faith of the Church of England until it
seemed to some to be no faith at all” (Thomas, PP. 3 1 8 ,319,3 9 ) . When
Dodgson was at the beach at Eastbourne, when speaking to
friends he “admitted his inability to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine
Articles” of faith. Those who “thought he had retained his
family’s faith unchanged, were deceived.” “He might also have
invited questions about his orthodoxy in April 1890, when he
wrote that Christ was not perfect to begin with.” “Dodgson
describes Christ as an elder brother...” “He could not believe in
bodily resurrection...” In church, it seemed that when “the
congregation rose, Charles remained seated” in spirit (Cohen, PP.
367, 362). Dodgson viewed the blasphemous painting, “Christ in
the House o f His Parents” [Joseph is not Jesus father!] as “full

of power” (Hudson, P. 135). “Charles rubbed intellectual and spiritual
shoulders with other radical theologians, including Fredrick
William Robertson.” He thought, “ [A] person need not own to
any “religious beliefs whatsoever” to possess reverence...”
(Cohen, P. 482).
Dodgson’s ‘Children’s Bible’
Liddell and Dodgson were determined to find a

replacement for the Holy Bible, Liddell for adults and Dodgson
for children. Dodgson planned the “expurgation o f the Bible.’
He begins Alice in Wonderland charging, “and what is the use
of a book,” thought Alice, “without pictures.”
“I don’t know the meaning o f half those long

words, and, what’s more, I don’t believe you do
either!” {Alice in Wonderland).
In Dodgson’s later most depraved years, “He proposed a

‘Child’s Bible,’ purged o f coarseness and terror...” He wanted
to do away with hell and the doctrine o f everlasting punishment
(Thom as, p. 250). The story of Alice in Wonderland is one long
‘proof,’ purposely placed in the minds o f impressionable

children, that the center o f the earth in NO T a burning hell, as
described in the Bible. It is as the Greek myths, classics, and
lexicons described it, a place with no fire, where many creatures
live, near Alice’s river o f tears, the Styx. In the world of
Through the Looking Glass, Alice said “there’ll be no one here
to scold me away from the fire.. .Oh, what fun it’ll b e ...”
Alice fell, “Down, down, dow n...I must be getting

somewhere near the centre o f the earth,” she said. Alice entered
this underworld through a door, a counterfeit o f “the gates of
hell” (Matt. 16:18); she used a “key,” a counterfeit o f the “keys
o f hell and death” (Rev. 1:18). She opened the door and found
no burning hell, just a playful group o f evolving half-men, half
animal creatures, “the loveliest garden,” and “beds o f bright
flowers and those cool fountains...” Dodgson’s tale tries to out-
shout the rich m an’s cry, “cool my tongue; for I am tormented
in this flam e... (Luke 16:24).
Were you descended from apes on your mother

or your father’s side?
Dodgson’s books were replete with animals that were

part human and part animal. He viewed a human as a “merely
refined animal.” Thomas sees the extinct Dodo and several of
the other Alice characters as reflections of “the Darwinian

debate of 1859-1860...” (Thomas, pp. no, 166). Dodgson invented a
board game called “Natural Selection” in which the game s
winner is the “survivor of the fittest.” He sent Darwin a print of
one o f his photographs, offering to give him others if he wanted
them. Dodgson wrote a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette (October
29, 1874) using Darwin’s book as an example o f how “all great
things” take time to research. The January 30, 1875 issue of
Vanity Fair carried a cartoon of Liddell with the blurb
“maintaining the British Aristocracy as a superior and
privileged race” (Cohen, pp. 352, 350, 351, 512). Dodgson, like Liddell,
was the consummate snob and made condescending jokes about
Negroes, referring to them as “niggers, (just as did Revised
Version member, F. J. A. Hort; see New Age Bible Versions for
Hort’s quote) (A Selection From the Letters o f Lew is Carroll (The Rev. Charles
Lutw idge Dodgson) to his Child-Friends, ed., Evelyn Hatch, London: M acm illan, 1933, p. 25 as
cited in Thomas, p. 4).
No Escort Service to Hades
The motionless bust of Hermes, that adorned their living

quarters, did not come to life to escort Liddell and Dodgson to
Hades, as the Greek myths teach. In fact, the underland in Alice
in Wonderland was taken directly from the Greek writings of
Homer (and other writings o f Virgil). As such, it was portrayed
as a land o f ‘W onder,’ not o f “weeping and gnashing o f teeth”
(Matt. 8:12). Students o f the classics see so many parallels
between the Alice books and the Greek and Latin classics that
The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (1937 ed.)
directs readers to “Alice in Wonderland” to see a picture of
Virgil’s Gryphon (Thomas, p. 158).
Alice in Wonderland was written as a dream, mimicking

the dreams wherein Odysseus and Aeneas visited the “shades of
the underworld.” The underworld was described in Book XI o f

the Odyssey and Book VI o f the Aeneid (Thomas, P. 157). Virgil sees
on the river’s bank a flock o f birds; Dodgson’s tale tells o f a
“queer-looking party that assembled on the bank— with birds
with draggled feathers.” Alice said, “I always thought Unicorns
were fabulous [from fables, not real] monsters, too!” New bible
version editors, whose mothers read Alice in Wonderland to
them, were pre-conditioned to remove the unicorns from all
new bibles. They are like today’s children who have ‘actually
seen,’ in Star Trek, and now believe, that the cosmology o f the
Bible is not true (See also Cohen, p. 348).
In another of his books, Dodgson copied Virgil’s story

o f the courts of Hades from the Aeneid. Hades’ river, called
Styx, mirrors A lice’s pool o f tears. The ‘justice’ o f Dodgson’s
Queen o f Hearts is from Virgil’s Aeneid and its Roman
underworld. “Dodgson’s Wonderland and Virgil’s underworld
have strikingly similar judicial systems.” The queen o f Hearts
said, “Sentence first - verdict afterwards,” as did Virgil (Thomas,
pp. 159, xi, 160). The Queen says, ‘O ff with your head,’ but the
Gryphon assures Alice that it w on’t really happen, (i.e. There is

really no punishment for sin). The Gryphon says, “[T]hey never
executes nobody, you know. Come on!” Like a Universalist, the
Dodo says, “Everybody has won, and all must have a prize.”
Dodgson mocks the Bible’s judgment in Mat. 19:28

which says, “ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, ju d g in g ...”
Dodgson says, “The trial’s beginning!” ... “The judge, by the
way, was the King.” Around him were “twelve” judges, “a
scroll o f parchment,” and “blasts on the trumpet.” The
“evidence” consisted of “verses.” Dodgson calls the twelve
ju d g e s , “ S tu p id th in g s !...w ritin g d o w n stu p id th in g s.” In b o th o f

th e Alice b o o k s, th e K in g is d e p ic te d as a b u ffo o n .
W hat w as D o d g s o n ’s m o tiv e fo r re -sk e tc h in g th e

u n d e rw o rld to n e g a te th e B ib le ’s p ic tu re o f h e ll? D o d g so n
“denounced th e d o c trin e of e te rn a l p u n is h m e n t... as a
m is tra n s la tio n o f N e w T e sta m e n t G re e k ” (Thomas, pp.). W h a t w as
D o d g s o n ’s so u rc e fo r re -d e fin in g h e ll? “ [ 0 ] f a c h ild ,” h e h ad
u s e d L id d e ll-S c o tt’s L ex ic o n . H e th o u g h t “th a t th e B ib le h a d
b e e n m istra n sla te d , sin ce th e G re e k w o rd aicbv, in d e sc rib in g
John Frederick Denison Maurice p u n ish m e n t, d id not m ean
1 8 0 5 -1 8 7 2
‘e te rn a l,’” a c c o rd in g to lib eral
le x ic o n s (Thomas, pp. 4, 17, 320). C o h en
says o f D o d g so n , “ h e co n c lu d e s
th a t “th e w o rd , re n d e re d in E n g lish
as ‘e te r n a l’ o r ‘e v e rla s tin g ,’ h as
b e e n m is tr a n s la te d ...” ” (Cohen, p. 483).
It m a y n o t m e a n ‘e v e rla s tin g ’ in
G re ek m y th o lo g y , H e lle n istic
cu ltu re , o r G re e k -E n g lis h lex ico n s
ta k e n fro m th em . B u t it d o e s m e a n
‘e v e rla s tin g ’ in th e B ib le. T he
B ib le is a re v e la tio n fro m G od,
w h o c re a te d lan g u a g e . It d e fin e s ju s t w h a t e a c h o f its w o rd s
m ean .
T h o m a s w rite s o f D o d g s o n ’s, “ d is b e lie f in th e C h ristia n

d o c trin e o f e te rn a l d a m n a tio n and b o d ily r e s u r r e c tio n ...”
(Thom son, p. 69). “ B o th m e n [F .D . M a u ric e a n d D o d g so n ] b elie v e d
th a t all so u ls w o u ld ac h ie v e sa lv a tio n a n d re m issio n fro m
e te rn a l p u n is h m e n t” (Cohen, p. 4 8 i). M a u r ic e ’s C h u rc h U n iv e rsa l
in clu d e s e v e ry o n e as d o es C o le rid g e ’s ‘id eas o f u n ity .’
“Maurice seems to have been a powerful influence in his

later rejection o f such doctrines as eternal punishment” (Thomas, p.
196). Thomas said o f Dodgson:
“[H]is own later religious development was as

critical o f biblical fundamentalism as M aurice’s”
(Thom as, p. 196).
“M aurice’s liberal religious philosophy, however, attracted

Charles.” F.D. Maurice (through his editorship o f his magazine)
“fought to keep the unorthodox and the eccentric in the
Church.” Maurice attracted
Dodgson, who was found
“attending M aurice’s church
often when in London.” Dodgson
later photographed Maurice, and
Maurice “won his deep
devotion.” “He had already
steeped him self in Coleridgean
liberalism.” Coleridge “ ...insists
that the essential source of moral
knowledge is the intuition...”
(Frederick M aurice, ed., The L ife o f Frederick
Denison M aurice, 1884, vol. 2, p. 384 as cited in
Cohen, pp. 353, 356, 372; Cohen, pp. 163, 353,
363, 358).This, no doubt appealed to Dodgson’s licentious and

artistic interests.
“Like Dodgson, he [his liberal friend George

MacDonald] was a devotee o f F.D. M aurice’s
preaching.” “A Sunday morning in London in
the 1860s usually saw him attending F.D.
M aurice’s services at Vere Street Chapel...and
so made the acquaintance o f the famous heretic.”
“Maurice took Jowett’s side.. .in the attempted
prosecution for heresy... and Dodgson

corresponded with Maurice on the issue” (Thomas,
p. 189,196).
“In one respect their heresies anticipated Dodgson’s

own, by denying the doctrine o f eternal punishment” (Thomas, P .
ioo). “In such matters as heaven and hell or infant baptism,
Dodgson in the 1880s and 1890s had reached much the same
conclusions as Jowett and the contributors to Essays and
Reviews more than a quarter of a century before” (Thomas, pp. ioo,
320).
Following the Greek’s ideas about the afterlife, Dodgson

sees Hades as the pagan Greeks saw it, not as the Bible portrays
it. The Bible clearly defines hell, using words such as ‘fire,
‘flame,’ ‘bum ,’ ‘pains,’ and ‘tormented.’ Its location is
described as “beneath,” “deeper,” “lowest,” “going down,”
“depths,” and “dig.” Why is the Bible not permitted to define its
own words, when even secular lexicons define words based on
pagan contexts?
Dodgson sees it as a place of purgation where

repentance is allowed. This leads him not to condemn Prayers
for the dead” (Cohen, P . 366). Thomas said o f Dodgson: “he was
attracted by the idea that Satan might be a candidate for
repentance and redemption” (Thomas, p. 33). He thinks God,
“ ...w ill not punish fo r ever any one who desires

to repent...If any one says ‘It is certain that the
Bible teaches that when once a man is in Hell, no
matter how much he repents, there he will stay
for ever,’ I reply ‘i f I were certain the Bible
taught that, I would give up the Bible.’...A nd if
any one urges, ‘then, to be consistent, you ought
to grant the possibility that the Devil himself

might repent and be forgiven,’ I reply ‘and I do
grant it!” ’ (Dodgson, cited in Cohen, p. 362).
Charles wrote in a letter to his sister that,
“ ...m y own view is that, if I were forced to

believe that the God o f Christians was capable of
inflicting ‘eternal punishment’...I should give
up Christianity” (Dodgson as cited in Cohen, p. 362).
Oxford students had been to visit the shades so many

times, via Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, that Biblical
visions o f the Bible’s burning hell merely amused them. How
many countless Bible college students (or readers o f new
versions which mimic lexicons) have lost their faith after they
read the description o f the mythological hades, as portrayed in
Greek Lexicons, instead of the English Bible’s description of
the English word ‘hell.’
Dodgson told friends, “don’t worry yourself with

questions o f abstract right and w rong...pray for guidance, then
do what seems best to you, and it will be accepted by Him”
(Dodgson as cited in Cohen, p. 373). Dodgson’s idea o f what “seems best to
you,” includes much sin that God will not accept.
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,

but the end thereof are the ways o f death.”
(Proverbs 14:12)
Liddell’s Mad Tea Party Hosts Heretics Only:

Dodgson, Ruskin, Muller, Jowett, Kingsley, and Eliot
Dodgson’s poem “Stolen Waters” includes the line,

“They call me mad.” He wrote of his alter-ego, the Mad Hatter,
in his Alice books. The little private enclave that Liddell created
with his choice bizarre friends was the hidden and private
Wonderland o f which Dodgson wrote. ‘“ [W]e’re all mad here,’
said the Cat. ‘How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice. ‘You
must be,’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here’” (See
Thomas, p. 128 et al.).
Dodgson & Ruskin
Liddell’s “social centre” was a harbor to not one, but

two pedophiliacs, another Tweedledum and Tweedledee, really
dumb and indeed depraved. Ruskin got to Christ Church
fourteen years before Dodgson. Dodgson and Ruskin’s
“friendship” began in 1857 and grew during the next twenty
years, when in 1875 Dodgson photographed him (Thom as, PP. 121, 71,
76). Dodgson’s biographer said, “He could have thought himself
displaced at the deanery by John Ruskin at that time a welcome
friend o f the Liddells...” (Cohen, P . 388). “And Ruskin, we are
bound to note, was another admirer o f little girls and by no
means indifferent to Dean Liddell’s daughters (he taught Alice
to draw)” (Hudson, p. 92). Dodgson easily got Ruskin to sign a child
friend’s autograph. Dodgson’s Alice in Wonderland included
“the thin disguises of John Ruskin as conger eel” (Cohen, pp. 295,
136). Ruskin too had his brain washed away by classical Greek
literature (Thomas, p. 74). Dodgson consulted Ruskin about his
book’s illustrations; they shared a mutual interest in art and
persons involved in London’s Bohemian life-style.
LIDDELL’S PEDOPHILE PAL a u c e in w o n d e r l a n d a u t h o r 325
Dodgson and Muller

Liddell’s artistic and architectural passion saw its
expression, not only in the interest he shared with Dodgson in
photography, but in the lavish redecorating o f his college,
church, and Deanery. During one o f Liddell’s decorating
frenzies, he added an elaborate staircase, “built upon his share
in the proceeds o f the Greek-Lexicon. . .” (Thomas, p. 137). If the
Lexicon does not make sense, it surely made cents. Their
mutual friend, Max Muller said,
“The Deanery o f Christ Church was not only

made architecturally into a new house, but under
Dr. Liddell, with his charming wife and
daughters, became a social centre not easily
rivaled anywhere else. There one met not only
royalty...but many eminent writers, artists, and
political m en.. .Ruskin, and many others” (Thomas,
pp. 137-138).
Around Liddell’s “social centre” spun Mad Tea Parties

that included Dodgson and Max (Mr. New Age) Muller.
“Dodgson’s diaries record that he and Max Muller were one
another’s guests and also met at Liddell’s Deanery dinners. On
May 30, 1867 the Mullers and their two young daughters posed
for Dodgson’s camera, as they continued to do over the next
three years. Dodgson commented on the loveliness o f the two
girls, Ada and Mary” (Thomas, P. 127). Max Muller had contributed
the word “fetishism” to the 1894 Krafft-Ebling book,
Psychopathia Sexualis, a book which also describes Dodgson’s
own mania (Thomas, P. 127). Dodgson’s bookshelf was full o f other
such books about insanity. He pursued friendships with other
men who were interested in mental aberration, such as the
Commissioner in Lunacy (Thomson, PP. 126, 127, i9 6 e ta i.) . Such a
whirling circle o f madness leads Alice to say, “It’s enough to

drive one crazy!” Thomas said,
“Oddity was a chief characteristic o f A lice’s

world and, indeed, o f Dodgson’s own behavior.
He was told to his face, by those unaware o f his
alter ego, that the famous Lewis Carroll had
gone m ad.. (Thomas, p. 127).
Dodgson & Jowett

Portraits o f Liddell, Dodgson, and Jowett merge to fill
one page o f Thomas’ biography. ‘Humpty’ Liddell was the
master-mind. In the end, Dodgson’s beliefs merged with
Jowett’s anti-Bible prejudices. “Within the confines o f Oxford
in the 1850s and 1860s, Dodgson and Jowett might almost have
assumed the roles o f Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The manner
o f their lives had much in common. Both were bachelor dons
who lent themselves easily to caricature.” In Dodgson’s original
illustrations for Alice in Wonderland (no longer used to
illustrate the book) “the Caterpillar has a facial resemblance to
Benjamin Jowett.” The Caterpillar’s Socratic style mimicked
Jowett’s lecture style. In 1933 Shane Leslie wrote that
Dodgson’s book was a satire on the Oxford movement with
Jowett as the Caterpillar and Cardinal Wiseman as the Cheshire
Cat (Thom as, pp. 102, 155). The fact that Liddell raised Jowett’s salary,
in spite o f the very serious charges o f heresy against him,
elicited a poem from Dodgson:
. .And passing rich with forty pounds a year.
And so, I ween, he would have been till now,
Had not his friends ( ‘twere long to tell you how)
Prevailed on him, Jack-Hom er-like, to try
Some m ethod to evaluate his pie,
And win from those dark depths, with skillful thumb.
Five tim es a hundredweight o f luscious p lu m ...” (Thom as, p. 135).
Dodgson & Eliot, Stanley, Newman, and Kingsley
Dodgson held hands around the May pole with all of

Liddell’s strange friends. Literary critics suspect that Dodgson
was influenced in his thinking and writing by George Eliot’s
The Mill on the Floss; he admits reading her Scenes from
Clerical Life, just as Liddell did. Dodgson also had read heretic
Charles Kingsley, whose publisher also printed Dodgson’s
books (Thom as, pp. 9 2 ,1 5 4 et ai). Dodgson was a friend o f A.P. Stanley,
whose wife had shown Dodgson’s photographic portraits to the
queen. Dodgson even pursued Catholic ‘Cardinal’ Newman to
sit for a photograph and he agreed (Cohen, PP. 113, 2 9 6 , 349). Dodgson
fit, like the March Hare, at Liddell’s Mad House Tea Party.
Children are not aware o f the evil surrounding the author

o f the child’s story, Alice in Wonderland. Wise parents should
avoid it. Christians are not aware o f the evil surrounding Alice’s
father, Henry Liddell, the author o f the Greek-English Lexicon.
Pastors and Christians would be wise to avoid this lexicon’s
Bible-destroying banter, which is buried throughout the mine
field of all Greek-English New Testament dictionaries and
lexicons.
C h ap ter 9
Thayer’s
Greek-English Lexicon:
Unitarianism
Joseph Henry Thayer

1828-1901
THAYER’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON 329
SUMMARY: Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon
■ Thayer was a Unitarian, and as such he

denied the deity o f Christ, the Trinity, and the
blood atonement.
■ Thayer authored a Greek-English Lexicon

that begins in the preface with a warning o f his
heresy by the publisher.
■Thayer used the corrupt Greek text.
■ Thayer was a member o f the corrupt

American Standard Version and the Westcott
and Hort Revised Version committees.
■ Thayer used the context o f perverse pagan

Greeks to determine word meanings for his
lexicon.
■ Thayer’s lexicon underlies many o f the

definitions in other lexicons and dictionaries,
such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary and The
Defined King James Bible.
J. Henry Thayer (1828-1901)
sk any Greek-spouting professor or pastor, ‘What
A lexicon do you use?’ Many use Thayer’s Greek-

English Lexicon o f the New Testament because it is the
least expensive. If he really does not know how to read Greek,
he probably uses one o f Thayer’s stepchildren, Vine’s
Expository Dictionary o f New Testament Words or Berry’s
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker
Berry (lexicon in back). Thayer’s poison spread into these and
other Greek reference works:
• Vine’s Expository Dictionary o f New Testament Words

observes in its Preface that, “Thayer’s Grimm” was used
(Lynchburg, VA: The Old Time Gospel Hour, no date, p. xii).
It is not surprising that the “Godhead” is not even listed in
V ine’s, corresponding to Thayer’s Unitarian beliefs (denying
the Trinity).
• The Received Text Interlinear Greek-English New

Testament by George Ricker Berry has a Greek-English New
Testament Lexicon in the back whose “Introduction to New
Testament Lexicon” says, “much material has been drawn
from ...the New Testament Lexicons o f T hayer...” (Grand Rapids
M ichigan: Baker Book House, printing, p. v). (I C rin g e w hen I hear
neophytes using Newberry’s English above Berry’s Greek

text and actually thinking that it is THE one-and-only literal
rendering o f THE Greek. A little knowledge is a dangerous
thing, but this amounts to no knowledge.)
Berry’s use o f Thayer is noted in the “Introduction to the

New Testament Lexicon” in the back of the Interlinear. Berry
states that “The material for this has been drawn chiefly from
Thayer.” Among “ [T]he grammatical references given are...A

Grammar o f the Idiom o f the New Testament, Seventh Edition,
Translated by J.H. Thayer; and Alexander Buttamn, A
Grammar o f the New Testament Greek, Translated by J. H.
Thayer.” “All the variations o f any importance o f the text of
Westcott and Hort have been given.” “ [M]uch material has
been drawn from ...the New Testament Lexicons o f Thayer and
Cremer... (G ra n d R a p id s, M I: B a k e r B o o k H o u se, p. v .; o rig in a lly c o p y rig h te d in 18 9 7
b y H in ds & N o b le ).
If the reader does not have Vine’s or Berry’s, he is sure to

be reading Thayer in many other lexicons, grammars, Bible
software and interlinears or hearing him via the radio, with
phrases such as, “the Greek says...” I mention V ine’s and
Berry’s only because they are reference works unwisely used
by otherwise conservative Bible teachers. Both Vine’s and
Berry’s errors each merit entire separate chapters in this book.
Thayer: Bible Critic
Under the heading “Other Critics o f the Text” o f the Bible,

the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge
lists only two Americans: one o f those two is “Joseph Henry
Thayer” !!! Why would anyone want to see what he thinks the
WOrds o f the Bible mean?! (Schaff-Herzog, N e w Y o r k : F u n k & W a g n alls
C o m p a n y , 1908, v o l. i i , p . i n ) . Schaff-Herzog says he was “first rank” in
“textual criticism.” Thayer was “ ...from 1884 professor o f New

Testament criticism” (Schaff-H erzog, 1911, P. 314, v o l. xi).
Thayer’s Grim Foundation
The plot thickens. Ask any follower o f Vine, Berry, or

Thayer: ‘Where did Thayer get his lexicon?’ As Thayer’s
subtitle indicates, he translated German Karl Grimm’s Latin-
Greek Lexicon into English (Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in libros N ovi Testamenti,
1862,1867 et a i.). Grimm’s lexicon in turn came from W ilke’s

L e ip z ig ,
Clavis Novi Testamenti Philological of 1839 (Schajf-Herzog, 1909, v o l .

V , p. 79 ).
Who is Karl Grimm? What did he believe? Was Wilke even

a Christian? Do the Greek-o-philes even know? Grimm’s life’s
work focused on the corrupt non-biblical Apocrypha (i.e. the
Books o f Maccabees, Wisdom, etc.). “Grimm also took part in
the revision o f Luther’s translation o f the Bible (c.f. his
Lutherbibel und ihre Textesrevision, Berlin, 1874; Kurzgefasste
Geschichte der Lutherischen Bibelubersetzung, Jena, 1884).”
Luther’s text was based on the Received Text and was not in
need o f this major revision. Grimm’s “circumspect
supematuralism” left Paul as the author o f New Testament
books (unlike lexical author Frederick Danker of an upcoming
chapter), but other studies “critical” o f the Holy Bible were
pursued by Grimm (Schaff-Herzog, p. 7 9 , v o l. V ) . But like Danker,
Grimm (and other higher Bible critics such as Ewald) were
“dismissed from their office” o f “teaching” for non-cooperation
(T . K . C h e y n e , Founders o f Old Testament Criticism, L o n d o n : M eth u en & C o ., 1 8 9 3 , pp. 9 2 -9 3 ,
et al.).
Thayer’s lexicon pretends to take readers to the mind of

Christ first, from the corrupt Greek text (see upcoming
documentation), second, via pagan philosophers (see upcoming
documentation), third, into the Latin language tinged with the
corrupt Vulgate and Catholic mind-set (Grimm-Wilke), fourth,
through Grimm’s German-speaking mind and finally, into
English as “Translated Revised and Enlarged” by Thayer - to
match his Christ and Trinity-denying Unitarian mind-set
(Thayer’s Lexicon, title page). The naive reader is then drawn
down into this whirlpool, struggling to find the hidden
‘meaning’ o f words, which are already self-evident in the
context o f each Bible usage.
Unitarianism & Thayer
Thayer’s Lexicon begins on a grim secular Latin-Greek-

German foundation, upon which he casts his dim Unitarian
shadow over the basics o f Christianity. J. Henry Thayer denies
the Trinity, the deity o f Christ, the blood atonement, and the
punishment o f h e ll— for starters.
Baker Books, in the Publisher’s Introduction, alerts the

reader o f Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon o f the New
Testament to Thayer’s heretical doctrines saying,
“A word o f caution is necessary. Thayer was a

Unitarian, and the errors o f this sect occasionally
come through in the explanatory notes. The
reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant
denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer
regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy
Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from
God), the inherent and total depravity o f fallen
human nature, the eternal punishment o f the
wicked, and Biblical inerrancy” (G ra n d R a p id s, M I:
B a k e r B o o k H o u se, 1 9 7 7 , p. v ii).
“Harvard Divinity School was distinctly U nitarian...,” so

Thayer was very welcome and at home teaching there. “All the
trustees and professors o f Harvard College were Unitarians.”
“Harvard College had gone to the liberals...” (D ictionary o f H eresy
Trials in Am erican Christianity , G e o rg e H . S h riv e r, W estport, C T : G re e n w o o d P re ss, 19 9 7 , pp.
32 , 75 ).Unitarianism not only denies the deity o f Christ, but also it
teaches “salvation by character” and “the comparative study of
all religions” (The Encyclopedia Britannica , N e w Y o r k , 1 1 t h ed itio n , v o l. 2 7 , p. 59 6 ,
1911). According to the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (pp. 8 1-8 4,
v o l. xii), written by Thayer’s friend, Philip Schaff, Unitarians
teach the following beliefs:

• “humanity o f Jesus”
• “Biblical criticism”
• “man” can have “a consciousness like that o f Christ”
• “G od’s universal fatherhood”
• “criticized the doctrine of the Trinity”
• “opposed prayer to Christ”
• “against dependence on miracle and mere Biblicism”
• “independent spiritual intuition”
(T h a y e r w a s not the o n ly U n itarian on h is A S V / R V com m ittee. It in clu d e d U n itarian
Je n k in s L lo y d Jo n e s, a m o n g others. "In th e o lo g y h e w a s a m em b er o f the ra d ica l w in g s o f the
U n ita r ia n s ... In 18 9 4 , he w a s o n e o f the fo u n d ers o f the W o rld ’ s P arlia m en t o f R e lig io n s ...
(S c h a ff-H e rz o g , V o l. V I, p. 2 2 5 ) . H is sp ee ch , a lo n g w ith a ll o f the o th er lib e ra ls and o ccu ltists
at the P arlia m en t, is in clu d ed , a lo n g w ith le x ic o n auth or B r ig g s and L u c ife ria n , A n n ie
B e s a n t’ s, in the N e e ly ’s H istory o f the Parliam ent o f Religions. T h e se sp ee ch es are d iscu sse d
and d o cu m en ted in the b o o k , N ew A ge Bible Versions.)
Examples of False Beliefs in Thayer
Every word in Thayer’s Lexicon is shadowed by his

worldview. One who does not have Christ indwelling cannot
understand spiritual things. His particular animosity to Jesus
Christ, the Trinity, the blood atonement, and the need for
salvation through faith makes him a double threat. The fox is
not just watching the hen-house, he has tom it down and rebuilt
it as a money-making Church’s Chicken in every city.
Thayer, the ASV, and Christ a mere creature.
Thayer’s speech entitled, “The Change o f Attitude

Toward the Bible,” charges that the Bible does not present a
consistent view o f Jesus Christ. He says, “the Messiah, for
example, presented in the New Testament is by no means a
scrupulous reproduction of the Messianic portraiture o f the Old
Testam ent...” (Jo se p h H e n ry T h a y e r, The Change o f A ttitude tow ard the B ible , B o sto n :
H o ugh ton , M ifflin and C o m p a n y , 1 8 9 1 , p. 2 5 ). As a Unitarian who denies the
blood atonement o f Christ, he says, “Doubtless kindred

embarrassments are met with in adjusting the Biblical imagery
to the thought o f those heathen nations which do not practice
bloody sacrifices.” He pretends that Jesus Christ, “the Word”
should be understood by “the doctrine o f the Logos, in its
historic relations and philosophic assumptions,” all o f which are
pagan. To a Unitarian, such as Thayer, the “crucified, risen,
reigning Christ” o f which he speaks, was a mere man whose
‘Christ’ spirit we are meant to emulate (T h a y e r, change, P P . 29 , 30 , 69).
Thayer was on the American translation committee for the

corrupt Westcott and Hort Revised Version, as well as the
American Standard Version. As mentioned in an earlier
chapter, Strong Delusion, the ASV note for John 9:38 calls
Jesus a “creature” not the “Creator” (in reference to the words,
“And he worshipped him”). It says, “The Greek word denotes
an act o f reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to
the Creator ...” However, the ASV has a similar note in Luke
4:7 referring to the worship the devil asks for (“If thou wilt
therefore worship before me” ASV). Here the note omits the
parenthetical (as here). Therefore, the ASV specifies that Jesus
is, in their opinion, a “creature” not the Creator. But it does
not specify that the devil is a “creature” and not the Creator!
The ASV does the same thing in Matt. 4:9. It leaves the choice
up to the reader as to whether the devil is a creature or the
Creator. It states emphatically that Jesus is a “creature.” The
ASV denies the virgin birth. It changes Luke 2:33 from
“Joseph and his mother” to “his father and his mother.” To see
further heresy in Thayer’s ASV, see the exhaustive verse
comparison chart in the chapter, Strong Delusion.
Examples of Heresy in Thayer's Lexicon
• Evolution: Because of his humanistic and Darwinian

worldview, Thayer wrote that the “natural man” is really
“animal life” (1 Cor. 2:14) (Thayer's Lexicon, p. 6 7 7 ). He contends
that the “erroneousness” of “former generations,” who
believed the Bible, brought about what are now “outgrown
opinions,” such as that which “restricts the work of creation
to six days o f twenty-four hours each” (T h a y e r, Change, pp. 4 5 , 4 6).
• Works: The Thayer’s Lexicon publisher even warns that

Thayer’s view of repentance is wrong, based on his “view
that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior
but only as an example.” Thayer squeezes in his belief that
“good deeds” are a part of repentance (Thayer’s Lexicon, P P . v ii,4 0 6 ) .
• No Trinity: The King James Bible includes the word

“Godhead” (Trinity) three times (Acts 17:29, Rom. 1:20,
Col. 2:9). It is because there are three persons in the Trinity!
The Thayer-Strong ASV has removed one o f the times
‘Godhead’ is used, leaving only two verses which include it.
Berry’s Interlinear removes the Godhead in all but one
verse. It replaces it with the Jehovah W itness’s favorite
substitutes, “divine” and “divinity.” These words denote a
quality or characteristic, not a title. The publisher of
Thayer’s Lexicon has a detailed discussion about this “vitally
important” issue seen in Thayer’s Lexicon (pp. vi, viii).
Thayer says it is not always “deity” but simply a “quality or
attribute” (Thayer’s Lexicon, p. v iii). As a Unitarian, he denies the
Trinity and calls God, “the Eternal One” (T h a y e r, change, P . 3 3 ).
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation loves

Thayer’s idea; it gives Jesus Christ only a “divine quality” in
Col. 2:9; he is not a member o f the Godhead to them. Watch
Greek-o-philes point to Thayer and tell you that the three words
are different words by a letter. One letter does not change the
meaning. Have them prove that one letter does change the
meaning. The three words are synonyms (see Thayer’s
Publisher’s Introduction). They all begin with the Greek word
for “God.”
Thayer’s definition is a private interpretation based on

Thayer’s Unitarianism - no Trinity, no Godhead. The pagan
Greeks have no Trinity or Godhead. Thayer’s methodology of
using the writings o f the profane pagan Greeks to define words
will not work in the Holy Bible’s New Testament.
Thayer & the Pagans
Thayer uses the secular “Liddell-Scott’s Lexicon”

(:Thayer’s Lexicon, p. XV). The Liddell-Scott is a strictly
secular Greek-English lexicon. (Liddell-Scott’s sinister motives
were discussed in The Language o f the King James Bible; also
see the separate chapter on the Liddell-Scott Greek-English
Lexicon in this book.)
In the opening pages o f Thayer’s Lexicon, he lists the names

o f well over 300 pagans and philosophers whose writings he
consulted to give hints as to ‘meanings’ and usages o f Greek
words. The Greeks’ writings, of course, do not give meanings in
Greek, let alone English. They can only exhibit the word in use
and therefore only hint at its meaning in that context. The hint is
still in Greek. Bringing it into English takes it miles from its
origin. Pairing those Greek hints with words in our 500,000
word English vocabulary is a guessing game at best. Thayer’s
final destination is miles further still from the mind of Christ

Liddell’s friend, Lewis Carroll, wrote in Alice in Wonderland
(his perversely affectionate tribute to Henry Liddell and his
daughter Alice).
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty (Henry

Liddell) said in a rather scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can
make words mean different things.
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which

is to be master - that’s all.”
“They’ve a temper, some of them - particularly
verbs, they’re the proudest - adjectives you can
do anything with, but not verbs - however I can
manage the whole lot!” ( G a il R ip lin g e r, The Language o f the
King Jam es Bible, A ra ra t, V A : A V P u b lica tio n s, 19 9 8 , p. 7 2 ).
A peek at the beliefs of a few of those pagan philosophers,

whose Greek writings Thayer consulted, will frighten any
Christian of even modest discernment, (a u qu otes are ta k e n fro m The
Classical Greeks b y M ic h a e l G ran t, N e w Y o r k : C h a rle s S c rib n e r ’ s S o n s 19 8 9 o r The
Dictionary o f Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature, and Art. b y O sk a r S e y ffe rt, e w .
1995). Reading these Greek writings would be like

G ram ercy B o o k s,
watching an X-rated Greek movie to see what the words love,

God, soul, or hell really mean in English. It will not work.
• Aeschylus: As the originator o f the Hollywood play, he

added a second speaker to the Greek drama. He was “ initiated
into the Eleusinian Mysteries” (classical occultism). His play,
entitled Persians, included “sacrifices” at tombs with spirits
appearing. His writings, from which Thayer gleans word-
meanings, include such things as “Zeus’ mistress,” “revenge,
“murder,” “respect for the gods,” being “seduced by Zeus,
beings that “haunt him,” and someone who “savagely kills” (The
Classical Greeks, pp. 40-43). Plays full o f sex and violence in early
Greece are not good places to make the fine distinction

between ‘love’ and Christian ‘charity.’
• Aristophanes: a Greek playwright, whose works are
described as follows: “the play’s unrestrained sexuality and
obscenity,” men “dressed as women” in “drag,” he who “gets
drunk,” and a “party, from which he staggers away happily,
with a girl on each arm” (The Classical Greeks, pp. 131, 134, 136).
• Sappho: The poetess, “was again living in Lesbos, in the
society o f young girls... [Sjcandal... put an immoral
interpretation on this society” (Dictionary o f Classica\, p. 557). Would
this be a good place to define ‘unseemly,’ ‘shamefacedness,’
or ‘sobriety’?
• Euripides: Lots o f “murder,” “suicide,” “sacrifice to the
underworld goddess,” and the “bloodthirsty” who “kills her
own children.” If that is not enough, bring in a horror movie
script with the original one-eyed monster, Cyclops - all
written by a misogynist “woman-hater” (The classical Greeks, pp. ns-
119, 121).
• Sophocles: Humanism galore. “Many wonders there are
but nothing more wonderful than a human being.” Let’s write
“a hymn to humanity.” Sophocles gave us Oedipus who
“married his own mother.” Let’s go to his house for a Bible
Study! (The Classical Greeks, pp. 111,112).
• Isocrates: The orator spoke about “enlightened self-
interest,” not a good place to find the definition o f charity (The
Classical Greeks, p. 221).
• Socrates: He “sometimes went into spellbound trances.”

He claimed to “be guided by a divine sign or voice”
(.daimonion). He believed “in the daem on” who spoke to him
and he “corrupts the young.” These crimes “brought Socrates
to trial.” He was “found guilty” and “sentenced to death.” He
committed suicide. Plato, one of his students, was a product
o f his sodomite corruption (The Classical Greeks, pp. 148 149, 150; Dictionary
o f classical Mythology, p. 594). \Vould he be a good guide to determine
the meaning o f the Greek word daemon (KJV ‘devil’) or

‘divinity’?
• Plato: He was a philosopher, whose idea of the
“divinity” of man and “heavy homosexual aura” have
destroyed untold thousands who have followed his ‘idea’
(neo-piatonists, B.F. Westcott, etc.) (The Classical Greeks, pp. 207,210).
Plato wrote of the Eastern doctrine o f “the O ne.. .of which the
particular objects o f sense are imperfect copies” (Dictionary of
Classical, p. 481). The NIV and NKJV are loaded with reference to
this neuter, ‘One,’ generated from secular lexicography.

• Cratinus: He writes political comedy plays “confessing
him self a hard drinker” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 167).
• Anaximander. He was a teacher of Hindu philosophy
who believed in “chaos, out o f which all things proceed and
into which things return” (Dictionary O f Classical, p. 31).
• Anacreon: He “paid perpetual homage to wine and love”
with his “drinking songs” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 30).
• Silius Italicus: “He died in 102 by starving himself to
death” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 587).
• Seneca L. Annoeus: He was the philosopher, who was
“banished to Corsica...on the ostensible charge of being a
participator and an accomplice in the debaucheries of
Julia...” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 577).
• Sotades: He wrote “malicious satires partly on indelicate
subjects” and “sarcastic remarks about the marriage o f the
king” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 599).
• Philodemus: He was a “philosopher o f the Epicurean
school” who wrote chiefly on “indelicate subjects” (Dictionary o f
Classical, p. 479).
• Pythagoras: He “studied...the mystic lore o f the East

and especially the wisdom o f the Egyptians...” He believed in
th e tr a n s m ig r a tio n o f th e s o u ls {Dictionary o f Classical, p. 531).
• Porphyry: He wrote “a treatise against the Christians in

fifte e n b o o k s , w h ic h w a s p u b lic ly b u r n e d {Dictionary o f Classical, p.
505).
• Plutarch: He wrote “On the Oracles o f the Pythian

[snake] Priestess and Isis and Osiris (Dictionary o f classical, p. 498).
• Plotinus: He sat under “Ammonius Saccas, the founder
o f Neo-Platonism.” He had “a mystical tendency especially in
his doctrine o f the ecstatic elevation o f the soul to the divine
being, to which he himself...attained on four occasions
{Dictionary o f Classical, p. 497).
• Plautus: He was a comic poet and had “pungent, if often

COarSe, wit (D ictionary o f Classical, p. 494).
• Philostratus: He was a Greek Sophist who wrote “the
romantic Life o f Apollonius o f Tyana {Dictionary o f classical, pp. 484,
485).
• Heraclitus: He believed, “From fire all things originate,

and return to it again by a never-ending process of
d e v e l o p m e n t ” (D ictionary o f Classical, p. 480).
• Xenophanes: He founded the Eleatic School and created

the “doctrine o f the One.” He is called “the father of
pantheism, who declared God to be the eternal unity,
permeating the universe” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 480).
• Philo: He was a philosopher who joined “Platonism with
Judaism” - sounds like a good place to find out what Jesus
Christ was thinking when he gave the New Testament
(Dictionary o f Classical, p. 479).
• Nicander: He was a “priest o f Apollo” (Dictionary o f Classical,

p. 417).
• Lucian: He “assails with special

b i t t e r n e s s . . . C h r i s t i a n i t y ” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 363).
342 H AZARDOUS M ATERIALS
• Homer. Among other things, he wrote a collection of

H ym ns...on the various gods [Apollo, Hermes, Pythian,
Aphrodite, etc.]. “Their object is to praise the god at whose
festival the recitation took place” (Dictionary o f Classical, pp. 304,305).
• Heraclitus believed, “The world, therefore, arose from
fire, and in alternating periods is resolved again into fire”
(Dictionary o f Classical, p. 285).
• Heliodorus: He was “a pagan sophist,” who wrote
novels about “romance” (D ictionary o f Classical, pp. 273-274).
• Himerius: He was “a pagan” (Dictionary o f Classical, p. 295).
• Gorgias: “His philosophy was a nihilistic system which
he summed up in three propositions” (a) nothing exists...”
(D ictionary o f Classical, p. 258).
• Epictetus: He believed that “the power o f which he
should be most in awe is the deity in his own breast” (Dictionary
o f Classical, p. 216).
Thayer’s use o f the pagan and “profane” Greeks led him

to reluctantly list at the end of his edition those New Testament
words for which he could find no pagan use, and therefore no
‘definition.’ Thayer will list words, such as “collection” and say
the word is “not found in profane authors” (1 Cor. 16:1, 2).
God said in 1 Tim. 4:7, “But refuse profane...fables.” In 1
Tim. 6:20 he said, “avoiding profane and vain babblings.”
Aren’t you glad the Holy Ghost gave us the words of God in a
HOLY Bible in our own language? How convenient; how like
God. “Every word o f God is pure” (Prov. 30:5).
Thayer on the RV and ASV Committees.
Westcott and Hort sought American Bible critics to join

with them and work as the American Committee o f their
Revised Version. In 1870 they voted “to invite the cooperation
o f some American divines” (M atthew Brown Riddle, The Story o f the Revised
New Testam ent Am erican Standard Edition (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times, 1908, p.
TH A Y ER ’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON 343
ii). They asked American Bible critic Philip Schaff to select

men who represented the critical modem movement.
“The Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor

o f Sacred Literature in The Union Theological
Seminary, New York, by invitation o f the
English New Testament Company prepared a
draft o f rules for cooperation, and a list o f names
o f biblical scholars who should probably best
represent the different denominations and literary
institutions in this movement. The suggestions
were submitted to the British Committee and
substantially approved” (Introduction by Dr.
Schaff to The Revision o f the English Version o f
the New Testament, 1872).
I have a Revised Version dated 1881, entitled, The

Parallel Bible, The Holy Bible...being the King James Version
Arranged in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version,
published by H. Hallett & Co., Portland, Maine. It lists
Westcott, Hort, and Thayer on the same page as members of
the Revised Version revision committees (see New Testament
prefatory pages, no page numbers). Even the original preface
to the NASV, which was taken from the ASV, said o f the
ASV/RV connection, “The British and American organizations
were governed by rules...The American Standard Version,
itself a revision o f the 1881-1885 edition, is a product of
international collaboration..
Thayer had been chosen by Schaff and approved by

Westcott and Hort. Thayer “was a member o f the American
Bible Revision Committee and recording secretary o f the New
Testament Company (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. Thayer, Joseph Henry, p,
He and his ASV Committee worked with Westcott

728, vol. 26.)
and Hort on the British Revised Version “and the results of the
deliberations were exchanged across the sea” (Schaff-H erzog,, s.v. Bible
Versions, p. 139, vol. II).
“When the English Company had completed the

first revision o f a portion o f the Bible, it was sent
to the American Company for consideration and
advice...[T]he English companies were not able
to concur in all of the preferences expressed by
the American companies and so when the
English Revised Bible was published it included
by agreement a statement of all of the non-
concurred-in American preferences, in
consideration o f which the American companies
bound themselves not to print or encourage the
issue of any other revised bible until after the
expiration o f fourteen years from the date o f the
publication o f the English Revised Bible” (The H oly
Gospels: A Comparison o f the Gospel Text as It Is Given in the Protestant
and Roman Catholic Bible Versions in the English Language in Use in
America, Frank J. Firth, N ew York: Flem ing H. Revell, 1911, p. 9).
“The revised New Testament [RV] was published in

England May 17, 1881...America had a peculiar reason for
complaint, seeing that many an expression which American
scholars had preferred was to be found only in the appendix,
and they were bound not to issue a new edition within fourteen
years. That time was up in 1896, and the American edition
[ASV]...appeared in New York in 1901” (sc h a ff-H e n o g , s.v. Bible
V ersions, p. 139, vol. II).
Thayer recommended the Revised Version, as late as 1891

(Thayer, ch a n g e, P. 30). Naturally, Thayer’s Lexicon “prefers...the
critical text o f Westcott and Hort that underlies the English
TH A Y E R ’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON 345
Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version

(1901)” (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. IX). Thayer’s OWn Preface Said
he wanted “to produce a Lexicon which should correspond to
the present condition o f textual criticism” (T hayer’s Greek-English
Lexicon, p. XI).
Thayer’s son-in law, Casper Renee Gregory, wrote the

Prologue for and re-issued, with fellow Unitarian, Ezra Abbot,
the 8th edition o f Tischendorf s corrupt Greek New Testament.
Gregory also re-worked the numbering system for Greek
manuscripts to make it seem more favorable to the corrupt text.
“Professor Dr. Casper Rene Gregory, the son-in-law o f Dr.
Joseph Henry Thayer” was “Professor o f New Testament at
Leipzig (Horsley, The Origin and Scope, Deissm ann to W illiam Fiddian M oulton, 26
April 1917).
When the fourteen years had lapsed so that the American

branch o f the RV Committee could publish their differing
translation, “there remained only three” living American New
Testament Committee members, including “J. Henry Thayer.”
So the final form of the American Revised Version (today
called the American Standard Version and revised to be the
New American Standard Version) was strikingly under
Thayer’s control, particularly since his “records o f the earlier
meetings” were the only ones remaining. (The H oly Gospels: a
Comparison o f the Gospel Text as It Is Given in the P rotestant and Roman Catholic Bible
Versions in the English Language in Use in America, Frank J. Firth, N ew York: Flem ing H.
Revell, 1911, p. 10).
Thayer’s name is the only one that appears on the

American Standard Version. Thayer’s role was so crucial that
his name appears on the copyright page as “Secretary o f the
New Testament Company (H oly B ib le ...N ew ly Edited by the American
Revision Com m ittee, Camden, NJ: Thomas Nelson and Sons. 1901).
Even Bible critic, Charles Briggs, admitted in 1906 that,

“The AV [KJV] has maintained its hold on the English
Protestant world until the present time. The RV, of 1885,

prepared by a joint British and American Committee under
the authority of the Convocation of Canterbury, has thus far
been unable to replace it” (Charles Briggs. The International Critical
Commentary: The B ook o f Psalms, NY: S cribner's Sons, 1914, p. cix, cx).
Schaff confessed that “ ...to the great mass of English

readers King James’s Version is virtually the inspired
Word of G od.. . ’’(Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek New Testament
and the English Version, 4* ed. rev. NY: H arper & Brothers Publishers, 1903, p.
413).
Thayer Causes Loss of Faith
A secular history book, entitled The Growth o f

American Thought, by Merle Curti (New York: H arper & Brothers, 1951),
credits Thayer (as well as Briggs and Brown of the Brown,
Driver, Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon) as chief among a
handful o f men who shook the nation’s faith in the Bible.
They shook “The foundations of orthodox belief in
supernatural pow ers...”
“[C]omparative philologists and scholars trained

in the criticism of documents had long been
applying themselves to a rigid examination of
the texts of the Bible...[T]hese studies made it
increasingly clear that Holy Writ had not
originated in the way in which Christians who
accepted it as literal truth had long believed. On
the contrary, it was shown that the Bible was a
compilation of a great variety of writings...The
confusion and error in its pages simply did not
square with the doctrine that it was the product
of divine knowledge.. .Scholars.. .demolished the

Biblical account of the peculiar origin of
religious faith taught in the Bible. Their
painstaking labors demonstrated that accounts of
deluges, virgin births, crucifixions, and
atonements were present in the religious writings
of many peoples other than the
Hebrews... American theologians limited
themselves to translating the findings of
Continental scholars in the field of higher
criticism... The revised version [RV] of the King
James Bible which appeared in the eighties was
the result of the cooperative labors of
American and English scholars. The Hebrew
and the New Testament lexicons of Francis
Brown [BDB] and J. Henry Thayer were
credible achievements...This general position of
regarding the Bible as a source not of revealed
truth regarding the creation and the origin of
Judaism and Christianity but rather as a
literature... won increasing acceptance...
[T]heologians were brought to trial for heresy by
reason of the favor they showed toward the
results of the higher criticism...Charles A.
Briggs [said] “inspiration” was not
“scientific” ...[M ]any were accepting the new
position that the Bible was neither in origin nor
in nature what had been traditionally believed
(The Growth o f Am erican Thought, pp. 540-543).
The “philologists,” cited as destroying many people’s faith

in the Bible, had a meeting called the First American Congress
of Philologists. The speakers included pagans, Catholics, and
Bible critics such as J. Henry Thayer and Professor Hyvemat
from Catholic University. One o f the speeches was “A Note

on the god Mut” (The Whitney M em orial M eeting: A Report on That Session o f the
F irst Am erican Congress o f Philologists..., Charles R. Lanman, Boston: Ginn and Com pany,
1 8 9 7 ,pp. I l l , 114).
Thayer’s Lexicon was not his only contribution to the loss

o f faith in the Bible. He was “the president of the Society of
Biblical Literature (SBL, founded in 1880)...The SBL
championed higher critical study in the United States...” He
became the “first chairman of ASOR’s [American School of
Oriental Research] managing committee.” It was characterized
by “rejecting the defense Of the B ible...” (Shifting Sands: The Rise and
F all o f B iblical Archaeology, Thomas W. Davis, N ew York: Oxford U niversity Press, 2004,
pp. 4 0 ,4 1 ).
The Dictionary o f Heresy Trials in American History
The Dictionary o f Heresy Trials in American History,

when recounting the “Background” which brought Newman
Smyth to trial for heresy, cites the influence o f “professors
such as Joseph Henry Thayer,” who “introduced students to
recent critical methods of studying the scriptures, including
the uncertainties o f documentary evidence...” With the
publication o f several heretical books o f his own, Smyth soon
“emerged as a prominent advocate for Protestant liberalism.”
The “critical views” o f the Bible, which he had learned from
Thayer, as well as the “New Theology” fostered by these
views, brought about a “heresy trial” which kept Smyth from a
teaching position at Andover Seminary (George h . shriver, D ictionary o f
H eresy Trials in Am erican H istory, W estport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997, pp. 369, 373, 375
et al.).
The Dictionary o f Heresy Trials not only cites Thayer, it

devotes an entire chapter to the heresy trials o f Philip Schaff,
the ASV/RV chairman whose handpicked thugs, such as
Thayer and Strong, help him wrench words from the Holy
TH A Y ER ’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON 349
Bible. The book says, he “nearly had his career cut short by
heresy trials. Philip Schaff s academic life in the United States
actually opened and closed with heresy trials.” It began with
“Schaff s own heresy trials in 1845 and 1846” and ended “as
he became a witness for the defense in the famous Charles
Augustus Briggs trials o f 1891-1893.”
“Schaff was tried for heresy for expressing ideas in his

Mercersburg Inaugural that had become a part o f conventional
learning among the German scholars,” who had been his
professors in Germany. These include the rabid Bible critics
F.C. Baur and August Neander. S chaffs “appreciation of
medieval Catholicism” and his book, History o f the Apostolic
Church, led Rutgers Professor J.W. Proudfit to close “his
review with a sarcastic suggestion that if Schaffs book were
used by seminaries as a text, some Jesuits should be employed
to teach it!” “To them Schaff was merely playing into the
hands o f the papists...” and would “at length safely arrive at
the seven hilled city.” Schaff referred to the “distractions of
Protestantism” and hoped all Protestants would be brought
into “true Catholic union.”
Schaff said he wanted to “disentangle the scriptures from

traditional embarrassments, such as the theory o f a literal
inspiration or dictation...” Many charged that his “teaching
and writing did not meet biblical standards...” ( s h riv e r,PP. 327-335).
The ASV readings, seen today as definitions in Strong’s
Concordance, came from Schaff and his Unitarian-led bandits,
Thayer and Strong.
Thayer’s Blasphemous Speech
Thayer gave a speech at the YMCA that was extremely

critical o f the Holy Bible. He said people should not be “rigid
and unprogressive and imprisoned forever in a book.” He
admitted, “The adverse criticisms which it elicited on this

occasion were so sharp, and appeared in so many religious
journals East and West, that justice to all seemed to require that
it should be printed exactly as it was spoken.” He said he hopes
its publication would bring charges of “less heresy than they
have charged it with” (Thayer, Change, pp. 16, v, vi).
His lecture begins and ends by charging the Bible with

error. He consoles listeners saying, “No substantive part o f the
truth o f Christianity is discredited, should we perchance
discover that the collection and even the composition o f its
books are not free from traces of the imperfection which
cleaves to all things human” (Thayer, ch a n g e , pp. 8, 9). He aligns his
views with those o f the Catholic church. He says, “And in the
second place allow me to remind you that the view o f these
writings in which we, as New England Puritans, have been
reared has not been the prevalent view in the Christian church
through the centuries. The Church o f Rome, as you know,
recognizes ecclesiastical tradition as of coordinate authority
with the written records.. . ” (Thayer, c h a n g e , 9). He says,
p.
“American Christianity... has laid a

disproportionate emphasis on the full and final
character o f the Scriptural teaching...This
exaggerated theory has been comparatively
harmless in bygone days...B ut by reason of
improved methods of philological study, of
progress in science and discovery, o f
accumulating results in archaeological and
historic research, the theory has come to
occasion restlessness and perplexity, at times not
a little distress, in thoughtful souls. It has
become a yoke which they - like their fathers -
are unable to bear. It is the claims o f this
exaggerated theory respecting the nature and

function o f the Biblical teachings which 1 invite
you to join me in testing. Confining our view
principally to the New Testament, we may see
the erroneousness o f the position described if
we recall the circumstances in which the New
Testament originated” (Thayer, change, pp. 10, 11).
He accuses Christians o f a “blind sense o f reverence”

and a “bondage to literalism.” He adds, “ought not our theory of
inspiration to be reconstructed” (Thayer, ch a n g e, pp. 27, 19). He
concludes o f the Bible’s record,
“All the records, to be sure, are of a secondary

character; no one of them has his [God’s]
personal endorsement or authentication. And
their very number and differences seem wisely
designed by divine Providence to preclude
bondage to the letter” (Thayer, Change, p. 38).
He believes Bible “language is not fitted, and consequently

was not intended, to be applied universally and just as it stands
to the thought and life of the nineteenth Christian century”
(Thayer, Change, p. 34). He adds,
“In all these things there was o f necessity a large

temporary element. The power of Christianity
itself has been shown in the abolishment, or at
least the essential modification, of many of these
forms of thought and speech and action. It is an
obvious misapprehension to confound the
temporary with the permanent” (Thayer, change, p. 6 i).
Thayer calls men “ignorant enthusiasts,” who believe

that the Holy Bible is the words of God. He claims that such a
man “holds the believer o f the present day to the letter o f those
records o f the past” (Thayer, change, p. 54). He says, “The critics are
agreed, that the view of Scripture in which you and I were
educated, which has been prevalent here in New England
for generations, is untenable. And you and I may convince
ourselves that, so far at least, they are thoroughly in the right”
(Thayer, ch a n g e, p. 65). He quips, “Our formularies o f doctrine and
schemes o f ethics are transitory. Progress in philosophy,

changes in society, necessarily modify them. Statements and
views accepted at present must in time be superseded, as their
p r e d e c e s s o r s h a v e b e e n ” (Thayer, Change, p. 68-69).
He hopes Christians will stop trusting in the Bible and —
“running to it under every mental

perplexity...proclaiming the same as the final
and unerring answer o f Infinite W isdom ...In
looking upon it as primarily designed to give
divinely authenticated information on all details
o f life and destiny, we are grievously
overstraining its legitimate use. The view o f the
Scriptures here urged I have called a “change.”
But let me remind you again that it is such only
in reference to current and local and
comparatively recent views. O f the great mass of
Christian believers down through the centuries it
is doubtful whether more than a small fraction
have held the hard and fast theory currently
advocated among us today. They may be said to
have been unanimous and emphatic from the
first in asserting the inspiration of the written
word; but as to the degree and nature of this
inspiration there has been great diversity, or
at least indefiniteness, among leading
Christian thinkers all along. It was not before

the polemic spirit became rife in the
controversies which followed the Reformation
that the fundamental distinction between the
“Word o f God” and the record o f that word
became obliterated, and the pestilent tenet
gained currency that the Bible is absolutely
free from every error of every sort” (Thayer,
C hange, pp. 61, 62-63).
He asserts, “The mistaken views we are considering

involve a misuse of the Biblical term “Word of God.” He said
this term can only be used under “proper safeguards.” To use it
to refer to the whole Bible is, according to Thayer,
“ ...a mistake, and like other mistakes has

produced pernicious results. For the term “word
o f God” even the tyro in Biblical study ought to
know does not denote a record. It is the spoken
word, as the very etymology o f the common
Greek term indicates...” (Thayer, c h a n g e , pp. 40-42).
He mocks what he calls “relentless champions o f the

unyielding sanctity o f the very letter o f Holy Writ.” He asserts,
“ ...w e hear well-meaning but over-zealous believers reiterating
“The Bible is the Word o f G od...” He redefines the phrase
“word o f God,” stating that it means “the subject matter” o f the
Bible, not any “fetters o f bondage to the letter” o f its very words
(Thayer, ch a n g e, p. 48, 4 4 , 45). How strange that he could re-defme the
word “word,” divorcing it from its primary and universal

meaning. Since Thayer does not even believe that the Bible is
the word o f God, why would we go to his lexicon to find out
what the Bible’s words mean? Today many will call the King
James Bible the “word o f God.” But, like Thayer, they redefine
the word ‘God’ as “the KJB translators.” The phrase “word of
God” today has become a meaningless expression because of

Lexicons, such as Thayer’s, which claim to correct the words of
God.
Thayer, as an unregenerate “natural man,” cannot

understand the Bible, because it is “spiritually discerned.” He
charges that there are “verbal contradictions,” “variant forms,”
and “diversities” in parallel accounts in the Bible. He demands,
“how are they consistent with the punctilious literal exactness
claimed for the records by the old style well-meaning but
shortsighted theorists?” (Thayer, ch a n g e, pp. 34, 35, 3 6 ) . He continues
saying, “We may find another reason for questioning the theory
o f the coequal and infallible authority of all parts o f the New
Testament in the fact that theory sets at defiance the law of
historic sequence and proportion” (Thayer, Change, p. 36).
The following are just a few o f Thayer’s criticisms o f the

Bible which pine on every line o f his sixty-seven page treatise:
■ He calls the book o f Luke only, “fairly trustworthy.” He

adds, “But it is calamitous when such believers are made
to feel that loyalty to him [Luke] as a sacred historian
should make them slow to admit his fallibility in things
secular...” [i.e. history] (Thayer, Change, pp. 52-53).
■ He says, “many concurrent indications demonstrate that

the Pentateuch is a composite structure o f diverse dates
[i.e. Moses alone did not write the first five books o f the
Bible], that the linguistic and internal characteristics of
many of the Psalms disprove the statements in their
superscriptions” [i.e. David did not write the Psalms]
(Thayer, Change, p. 50).
■ It soon becomes apparent that Thayer’s distaste for the

Bible arises from his libertine and carnal heart. He
mocks what he calls “fragmentary and outlying groups

o f Christians” who hold to “the illicit character of
marriage with a non-Christian.”
■ He mocks the “Temperance Society” and says Paul said

“to be no longer a water drinker” (Thayer, c h a n g e , PP. 4 i, 47-48,
59).
■ He asserts that the non-canonical books, such as “The

Epistle of Barnabas” and “The Shepherd o f “Hermas,”
were considered ‘scripture’ by the early church (Thayer,
Change, p. 13).
After listing these and many more pages o f so-called

reasons to disbelieve the Bible, he concludes,
“Facts like these - and they are too many to

detail here - are significant. They remind us that
the church produced the Bible, not the Bible the
church. They may teach us that when we set the
book up as the infallible and final appeal in all
matters o f religious belief and life, we are doing
something for which we are destitute o f historic
warrant; we are assigning it a place and a
function which it neither held nor exercised at
the O utset... ’ (Thayer, Change, p. 14).
Bible defenders challenged Thayer. He admits, “But

some one may say, You are giving us in the place o f the Bible
little more that a batch o f problems. You have brought together
a mass o f troublesome facts, and present them to us as though
they constituted the Bible. We can find such things in
abundance in the works o f the destructive critics” (Thayer, Change, p.
63). He admits that Christians were,
“habitually warned in representative religious

journals to be on their guard against the
“advanced views” in this book, the “radical
views” in that, the “neological tendencies” in a
third, and so, till they grow timid about entering
very deeply into Biblical studies...”
His ‘Bible’ study is ‘bible criticism.’ He charges that it is

wrong—
“that young men should be made to feel that the

better Biblical students they become, the worse
Christians they are likely to b e .. (Thayer, ch a n g e , p.
53).
He says,
“But again, the mistaken character of the view of

Scripture we are considering appears in the fact
that it sets the scholar at variance with the
Christian” (Thayer, Change, p. 49).
If all Christians agree against the ‘scholar,’ we may

easily dismiss the scholar. Thayer says, “Is it not to be
grievously deprecated that our love of truth should pull us one
way, and our allegiance to our creed or our professional
interests and success pull us another?” (Thayer, change, pp. 51-52). All
heretics vaunt their so-called “truth” above the Holy Bible.
Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky’s motto was “There is no religion
higher than truth.” In place o f the Holy Bible, Thayer offers the
private “experience of an individual believer.” He honors those
who “broke away from traditions, and followed heroically the
divine guidance” (Thayer, change, p. 55). Thayer’s Lexicon uses the
word “divine,” which is an adjective defining a mere quality, as
a substitute for the noun “Godhead,” which identifies and
names the Trinity. He degraded the name o f Christ; was it an

accident that his own name was carelessly given as John,
instead o f Joseph, in the list o f editors for the Revised Standard
Version in one o f the RV editions that I have in my collection?
Sum m ary
When even compromisers, such as B.B. Warfield, point an

accusing finger at Thayer’s heretical view o f the Bible, the
grave degree o f Thayer’s unorthodoxy comes into focus (See
B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority o f the Bible,
Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1951, p. 170). Thayer’s distaste for
the Holy Bible, his Unitarian religion, his corrupt Greek text,
and his reliance upon pagan philosophers make his Greek-
English Lexicon (and works derived from it such as Vine’s) a
crumbling cornerstone upon which to construct new versions
and Greek word studies.
Thayer’s work has even “crept in unawares,” in the so-
called ‘definitions’ in The D efined King Jam es Bible by D.A.
Waite, Jr.. When asked what he used to create his definitions,
Waite said, “I am relatively certain that this would have
included Thayer’s Greek Lexicon o f the N T . . . " (Letter to Edward
Carrington, 8/ 19/08 on file). KJB critics consequently observe that the
definitions in W aite’s Bible sometimes mirror the corruptions

in the new versions (http://w w w .a-voiee.org/discem /dkib.htm ). The upcoming
generation cannot afford to carry Thayer’s mistakes any further.
D.A. W aite, Jr. also worked on the corrupt so-called Easy
Reading King James Bible, whose errors were exposed in
chapter 13 o f In Awe o f Thy Word. The W aites’ notion and
practice, that “there might be other renderings from the original
languages which could also be acceptable to us today” is
dangerous, since the source o f these “other renderings” is the
same corrupt lexicons used by new versions ( d .a . W aite’s other corrupt
sources are exposed on p. 962, chapters 17, 18, 25 & 28; he denies KJB inspiration (see ch. 31)
(quote taken from the Dean Burgon Society, A rticles o f Faith, Nov., 2009, DBS e-News).
Early Corrupter of New Testament Lexicon
Chapter 10
Satan’s Synonyms:
R.C. Trench’s
Synonyms o f the New Testament
Definitions used in:

■ George Ricker Berry
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament Lexicon
- W.E. Vine’s
Expository Dictionary o f New Testament Words
• Kenneth Wuest’s
Word Studies fro m the Greek New Testament
■ Marvin Vincent’s
Word Studies in the New Testament
■ TDNT and most lexicons

- Logos Bible Software, Accordance
Bible Software, Libronix and Other
Online & Software Programs
■ Seen in New Versions of the Bible
NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NKJV,
NJB, NAB, The Message etc.
The Hidden History o f the Oxford English
Dictionary
TRENCH’S SYNONYMS OF THE N EW TESTAMENT 359
R ich ard C h e n e v ix T ren ch

1807-1886
R.C. Trench’s official portrait shows him donning the ‘X ’ medallion,

like the Masonic Grand Scottish Knights o f St. Andrew, the ‘X ’ Club,
and the Skull and Bones (*See p. 401 and chapter 27 for more details.).
R.C. Trench: Synonym s o f the New Testament Today
id you ever wonder where the words in new versions
D came from? Or have you thought to question where

Strong’s Concordance and all Greek reference works
get their so-called English definitions? Tracing each word back,
from one plagiarist to the next, leads to the dead men s minds
which originally concocted the lexical works of the 1850s.
Many of the words seen in new versions such as the NIV,
TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, and NKJV festered from the germs
spawned in the mid-eighteen hundreds by one o f Satan’s
scribes, R.C. Trench (1807-1886). He remolded the words of
the Bible by forcing them through the wringer of pagan Greek
philosophy which can wrench from words any drop of
godliness.
Like Strong, George Ricker Berry’s Interlinear Greek-

English New Testament contains a corrupt “New Testament
Lexicon” and “New Testament Synonyms” in the back. He
admits, “much material has been drawn from R.C. Trench,
Synonyms of the New Testament.” Since this Interlinear is used
unwarily by conservative Christians, a warning is in order (George
Ricker Berry, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
8,h printing 1985, “ Introduction to the N ew Testam ent Lexicon,” p. v.).
Also today, W.E. Vine disentombs the musty stench of

Trench’s pagan Greeks in his Expository Dictionary o f New
Testament Words. He leaves a reeking record and pinched-
nosed readers, admitting he used “such works as Trench’s New
Testament Synonyms.” V ine’s book serves as the whited
sepulcher and pall-bearer to carry their remains to unwary
Christians (W.E. Vine, An E xpository D ictionary o f New Testament Words, Old Tappan,
N.J.: Flem ing H. Revell Com pany, 1966, Preface).
TRENCH ’S SYNONYMS OF THE N E W TESTAMENT 361
Kenneth W uest’s Word Studies from the Greek New

Testament and Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New
Testament, both published by Wm. B. Eerdman’s, reference
Trench’s Synonyms o f the New Testament constantly. Many
other Greek reference books in turn take their definitions from
Wuest and Vincent and are vicariously using Trench. The
TDNT and all subsequent lexicons invariably use Trench’s
synonyms (along with those o f Liddell-Scott and Thayer).
Logos Bible Software, Accordance Bible Software, Libronix
and other online & software programs carry the complete
edition of Trench’s Synonyms to an unwary new generation.
Trench on the Revised Version Committee
R.C. Trench was a member o f the Westcott and Hort

Revised Version Committee o f 1881. He had established himself
as a critic o f the KJB quite early. He was preceded only by petty
Catholic priests and a posse o f Unitarians poised at re-
crucifying Christ. Trench followed immediately on their heels
and was one o f the very first to secularize the meanings o f Bible
words. His “repute” was in “biblical criticism,” modeled after
unbelieving “modem Anglo-German learning” (Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge, NY: Funk and W agnalls Com pany, vol. 12, p. 1). He
was one o f the first to write a book suggesting a revision o f the

King James Bible (also called the Authorized Version). His
biography, A Man o f Ten Talents: A Portrait o f Richard
Chenevix Trench by J. Bromley said,
“The first to put forward proposals and make

experiments towards this end had been certain
Unitarian scholars...but interest in the matter
began gradually to spread throughout all
Christian bodies.. .It was a subject upon which
we should hardly expect Trench to keep silent,

and in 1858 he made his contribution to the
debate in a 215-page book entitled On the
Authorized Version o f the New Testament, in
connection with some recent proposals fo r its
R e v i s i o n . . . ” (J. Brom ley, London: S.P.C.K, 1959, p. 235).
The cunning conclusion Trench reached was that “on the

whole I am persuaded that a revision ought to come, I am
convinced that it will come” (Brom ley, p. 236). (This chapter will end
showing that Trench was not content with rewriting the Bible,
but he set in motion the “radical” anti-Bible revision o f the
English dictionary.) In the Princeton Review, as early as 1859
Charles Hodge remarked on Trench’s early proposal to change
the King James Bible (Charles Hodge, “Review on Dean T rench’s Proposal for
Revision o f the N ew Testam ent,” Princeton Review, vol. 31, 1859, p. 280). The diaries
of British Prime Minister Gladstone reveal that on September

14, 1862 he read Trench’s book recommending revision; Trench
also met with Gladstone personally. Gladstone was
consequently instrumental in moving forward the Revised
Version (See H.C.G. M atthew, The Gladstone D iaries, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, as
cited in Sightier, pp. 201, 208 et al.).
As early as 1869 Trench met with the American Philip

Schaff, setting the stage for the joint work of the American and
British RV committees (Schaff had worked with the Luciferian Theosophical
Society in directing the Parliament o f W orld Religions o f 1893; David S. Schaff, The Life o f
Philip Schaff, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897, pp. 357-358; Riphnger, N ew A ge Bible
He suffered an ‘accident’ in 1875 which curtailed him

Versions).
from haunting more than sixty-three RV Committee meetings.

However he had done his gravedigger’s duty twenty^ years
earlier. He had unearthed pagan' words to replace the “holy
ones in the KJB and interred them in his books on Synonyms oj
the New Testament (Cambridge, 1854) and On the Authorized
TRENCH’S SYNONYMS OF THE N E W TESTAMENT 363
Version (New York, 1858). His words waited silently until the
1870s when Revised Version editors and subsequent new
version editors could cannibalize them and prop up their dead
bones, as if they were the living, breathing words o f holy
scripture (Bromley, p. 237).
Words From Darkened Hearts & Reprobate Minds
Literary critic Aubrey de Vere wrote o f Trench and his

circle in the Nineteenth Century (June 1888). He said,
“These men cared little for Fathers or Schoolmen

[Christianity], but a great deal for Wordsworth
and Coleridge, Goeth, and Shiller, Kant, and
Schelling [all anti-Bible and Christianity], These
were the men with whom the future Archbishop
[Trench] chiefly associated...”
“In Jewish, Mahometan [Mohammed, Muslim],

and even Pagan legends he [Trench] found a
spiritual significance; while in such poems as
his ‘lines written on a picture o f the Assumption
[of the Virgin Mary] by M urillo’...H is poetry
remained always free from partisanship...”
(Brom ley, p. 244; see also M. Trench, R ichard Chenevix Trench
Archbishop: Letters and Memorials, London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.,
1888, vol. l,p p . 8-9).
Muslims, “Pagan legends,” and heresies about the ‘Virgin’

Mary rising from the dead provided Trench with ideas of
“spiritual significance.” Trench’s pagan resources lead him to
suggest that the word “vengeance’ in Acts 28:4 should be
capitalized, as ‘Vengeance’ because the pagan Greeks
personified her as a goddess” (Trench, On the A uthorized Version o f the New
Testament In Connection With Some Recent Proposals F or Its Revision, New York: Redfield,
1858 p 125) (He points to earlier Bibles from Germanic roots which capitalized the ‘V .’
S such a linguist as he must be aware that Germanic based languages capitahze many
substantives. Capitalization does not m ean that they are deifying the object. For this reason, old
English Bible, being Germ anic, have capitalized many words which we do not capitahze today.)
Trench authored The Unconscious Prophecies o f

H eathendom to promote the theory of the ‘evolution of
religion’ (Hulsean Lectures for 1846; Schaff, vol. 12, p. 1). Trench joins
Westcott and Hort (leaders of the Revised Version) and many
liberal theologians of that day in teaching that paganism was
God’s prophetic stepping stone to Christianity. (Racism was
quite rampant then and many of Trench’s contemporaries saw
Christianity as the apex of the evolution of religion, brought to
the white race.). Trench wrongly believes that the ecstatic
experiences of some of the heathen were from God. He says,
“Even within the sphere of heathenism itself,” “reason is
suspended,” and “utterances” are pronounced from God. He
gives Plato’s sinister writings as an example. He said,
“The truth which the best heathen philosophy

had a glimpse o f here, was permanently
embodied by the Christian C hurch...” (R.c. Trench,
Synonyms o f the New Testament, M arshallton, DE: The National
Foundation For Christian Education, no date, p. 22).
He adds,
“ [W]e must not go so far in our opposition to the

heathen and Montanist error as to deny th is...”
(Trench, Synonyms, pp. 20, 21, 22).
“Unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23)
Trench looks to the haunting shades to “shade” the meaning

of Bible words in his Synonyms o f the New Testament.
“One hundred and six “synonyms” were herein

treated, and a wide range o f quotations from
classical authors and the Septuagint assembled
for the elucidation o f their shades of meaning”
(Brom ley, p. 234).
Trench calls “preparatory” the occult beliefs o f the

Pythagorean mysteries and the blasphemous counterfeit
resurrection o f the Phoenix. He piles up pagan upon pagan to
prove that the Holy Bible’s words are incorrect, saying,
“And yet it is exceedingly interesting to tract

these its subordinate, and, as they proved,
preparatory uses...In the Pythagorean doctrine
o f the transmigration o f souls, their reappearance
in new bodies...For the Stoics the word set forth
the periodic renovation of the earth....Philo also
constantly sets forth by aid of...the phoenix-like
resurrection o f the material world out o f fire,
which the Stoics taught.. .the old Aristotelian and
Platonic distinction . . . ” (Trench, Synonym s, pp. 57, 58
footnote).
Christians should not want their Bible obscured and shaded

by the dark classics o f paganism, but lightened by the Holy
Ghost. Will it help to understand a Bible’s word by seeing how
“one of the courtesans, the temptresses o f Hercules” misused a
word? (Trench, Synonyms, p. 53). Does the Holy Ghost think,
“Aristotle’s distinction still remains, and may be recognized in
the scriptural usage of the w ords...”? (Trench, Synonym s, pp. 23,2 4 ) . For
word meanings, Trench looks to the God-haters o f ancient
Greece: Plato, Socrates, Pindar, Philo, Plutarch, Homer, Hesiod,
Aeschylus, Xenophone, Euripides, Demosthenes, Seneca,
Thueydides, Sophocles, Dionysius the
Areopagite, Thucydides, and Aristophanes. ‘Those names do

not ring a bell’ because for the most part their foolish writings
(which Trench uses to define Bible words) have expired, unlike
the inspired Bible. (See the chapter on Thayer for a graphic
description of the villainy these Greeks espoused.) Readers who
are not familiar with the writings of these just mentioned Greek
authors must not assume that they harbor any neutrality,
objectivity, or godly insight in their use of words. They are all
pointedly anti-God. The Bible words, which some try to define
using lexicons, are not non-debatable words like dog, house,
and tree, which have no spiritual significance. They are words
that describe and define the very marrow o f Christianity.
Revealed religion and its vocabulary are beyond the dark
understanding of the pagans.
These pagan Greeks, whose names pepper the pages of

Trench’s Synonyms o f the New Testament, are called “fools” in
the book o f Romans. Their hearts were darkened, not
illuminated. They were —
“vain in their imaginations, and their foolish

heart was darkened. Professing themselves to
be wise they became fools” (See Romans 1 and
2).
Not only were they “fools,” God said the Bible was “unto
the Greeks, foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). They not only could not
shed light upon it, they could not even understand it at a .
Because they “did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom ans i:28). Why
would Christians seek the thoughts and “shades of meaning o
men whom God calls “fools,” who had nothing but a
“darkened” heart and a “reprobate mind”? Yet Trench’s
Synonyms are based entirely on the “darkened” heart and

“reprobate mind” of these pagan Greeks.
God had revealed himself to the Hebrews for thousands of

years and the pagans had seen the true God through them. Also
God said o f the Gentiles, “For the invisible things o f him from
the creation o f the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse.” The Gentiles “show the work
o f the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing
witness” (Rom. 1:20, 2:15). Men such as Plato, cited in
Trench’s books, lived in demonic darkness by their own choice.
Their writings were not God’s stepping stones as Trench
supposes. They were an avalanche o f stony hearts, fleeing from
the presence o f a holy God, who would not permit their
homosexual, lascivious, and debauched lifestyles.
Trench Picks Publisher with Occult Serpent on Title Page!
A contemporary of Trench’s, F.W.H. Myers, a member of

the bizarre Society of Psychical Research, wrote glowingly of
Trench’s writings and poetry in his book “Modem Essays”
(1883). He said Trench’s writings were —
“occupied chiefly with the profounder

symbolism and occult significance o f the world,
and finding its congenial nourishment
wheresoever Greek, or Persian, or Arabian,
German or Spaniard, Jewish rabbi or medieval
Saint...” (Brom ley, p. 244-245; see G.A. Riplinger, N ew Age Bible
Versions, Ararat, VA: AV Publications for inform ation about the RV
Com m ittee m em bers’ attachm ent with the Society For Psychical
Research; M yers recom m endation o f Trench parallels M yers interest in
disem bodied spirits, table rapping, automatic writing, haunting and
apparitions, clairvoyance, and crystal gazing and goes along with his
book Phantasms o f the Living and The Human Personality and Its
Survival o f Bodily Death).
Did Trench’s interest in “symbolism and occult

significance” lead him to allow a serpent on the title page of
the book in which he questions the Bible (entitled On the
Authorized Version o f the New Testament In Connection With
Some Recent Proposals For Its Revision)? The snake and the
title of the book are appropriate, given the serpent’s first words,
“Yea, hath God said...” and the Bible-doubting nature of
Trench’s book. The serpent was the first to provide an alternate
‘meaning’ for God’s words. Trench was likewise one o f the first
in his era to provide alternate readings for the Holy Bible.
The book of Revelation identifies Trench’s serpent as,

“ ...the great dragon.. .that old serpent, called the Devil, and
Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: (Rev. 12:9). If he
deceives the whole world, do not be surprised if his serpent’s
‘Sin-onyms’ can deceive the naive. Synonyms are words which
are alike. But just as there is no one like Jesus Christ, the Word,
there are no words like the words in the Bible. It defines its own
words. Words which claim to be “like” any particular Bible
word are like Lucifer who claimed to be “like” the most High
(Isa. 14:14). The serpent promised that those who doubted
God’s words would be “as gods” (Gen. 3:5). ‘Like’ and as are
used to describe a counterfeit. God has a Bible; a counterfeit
‘god’ will have his own re-worked meaning for what God said.
To allow a serpent on one’s book is bad enough, but

Trench’s serpent is the occult symbol o f the ouroboros, (also
spelled uroboros, oroborus). It is a serpent forming a circle and
swallowing its tail. Trench’s ouroborus was also one o f the
favorite symbols of Satanist H.P. Blavatsky, editor o f Lucifer
magazine. In Blavatsky’s book Isis Unveiled, she said,
“[W]e believe that the interpretation o f the

primitive serpent-worship as given by the
initiates is the correct o n e...a serpent with its tail
in its mouth - emblem o f eternity...” (h .p . Biavatsky,
Isis Unveiled, W heaton, 1L: The Theosophical Publishing House, vol. 2,
1877, 1972 edition, pp. 489-490 et al.).
In her book on Lucifer worship she says,
“ ...the fact taught in Occultism that the

primordial form o f everything manifested, from
atom to globe, from man to angel, is spheroidal,
the sphere having been with all nations the
emblem o f eternity and infinity - a serpent
swallowing its ta il...”
“It runs through the inner cycles...w hen the

manvantaric Serpent “swallows its tail” and the
seven minor cycles are passed...” (h .p . Biavatsky, The
Secret D octrine, W heaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1888,
1978 edition, vol. 1, pp. 65, 642).
In Blavatsky’s article called, “Practical Instructions for

Students o f Occultism” she features the accompanying picture
of the ouroborus and says,
“The “spiritual medium,” who is fully convinced that his

“spirits” can produce manifestations does not doubt their
ability to do so...the logic o f Plato will have no effect on
him who listens to them without understanding their
language, and the most potent magical signs are useless
drawings to him who cannot realize what they mean; while
to him who is versed in occult science, a simple
geometrical figure, even a line or a point, conveys a vast
m eaning.”
“Let us for instance exam ine...O ne o f the most important

signs, whose realization gives power, is .. .a snake who
bites his tail. He who has thoroughly comprehended that

sign knows the laws of descent of spirit into matter and the
re-ascension of matter to spirit. He knows the never-ending
cycles of eternity with its days and its nights...From this
invisible centre, the great spiritual sun radiates its forces,
[Trench has lamp inside the serpent’s circle] forming a
circle whose periphery is without lim its...If you wish to
control a man, you must study him and identify yourself
with his feelings and yet remain mentally and
spiritually above him...no vicarious atonement takes
place...” (H.P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist, Part Six, 1884-1885,
Novem ber, 1884, Madras: The Theosophical Publishing Company,
K essinger Publishing Rare Reprints, pp. 37-38).
Like a true w olf in sheep’s clothing, Trench identifies

himself with the Christian milieu, yet remains distant. A w olf
cannot devour sheep unless he is among them.
Trench’s serpent adds a lamp, which when used alone

represents illumination. But when surrounded by a serpent it
represents the so-called illumination which the serpent brought
to Adam and Eve. Alexander Hislop explains,
““the serpent is universally the symbol o f the

sun.” In Egypt, one o f the commonest symbols
o f the sun, or sun-god, is a disc with a serpent

around it. The original reason o f that
identification seems just to have been that, as the
sun was the great enlightener of the physical
world, so the serpent was held to have been the
great enlightener o f the spiritual, by giving
mankind the “knowledge of good and evil.”
This, of course implies tremendous depravity on
the part of the ringleaders in such a system ...”
(Alexander Hislop, The Two B abylons, Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1916, 1959 edition, pp. 227; see p. 191 about “ lamps ).
Ever since the serpent gave Adam and Eve the wicked
“knowledge of good and evil,” the symbol o f the serpent has
been worshipped by pagan nations. The Egyptians seem to be
the first to depict the serpent swallowing his tail. The Gnostics
took it from them and samples remain today. Trench used it
before Blavatsky. The serpent biting its tail was a widely used
Masonic symbol in his day, seen on aprons used during
Masonic initiations. The snake aptly represents Trench’s forked
tongue and —
“the powers o f darkness and evil ... Largely

through its role in tempting Eve, thus bringing
about the Fall o f Man, the snake came to be seen
as crafty and malevolent - the personification of
Satan and sin. Its slithering movements, scaly
skin and venomous forked tongue...the dragon
shares the negative, satanic symbolism o f the
snake, representing destructive power, the defiler
of innocence and guardian of hidden treasure
(Clare Gibson, Signs and Sym bols, NY: Barnes and Noble, 1996, pp. 89,
106, 128).
TRENCH’S SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 373
Symbols are used by those involved in the occult to secretly

communicate with one another. However Jesus said that there is
nothing which is “hid, which shall not be known.” The
following standard reference works and sample occult books
agree that Trench’s ouroborus is strictly an occult symbol.
* The Continuum Encyclopedia o f Symbols calls the “Uroboros - A

SER PEN T...biting its own tail; it is a symbol of. ..eternal
recurrence...In alchemy [magic] it is often a symbol o f changing
matter” (Udo Becker, NY: Continuum , 1996, p. 316).
* Occult Geometry by A.S. Raleigh states, “One form o f the circle is a

serpent with a tail in its m outh...The Serpent Circle is, therefore, ever
the symbol o f the destructive.” Transcendental Magic (1896) by
Satanist Eliphas Levi depicts the serpent biting its tail. “A Bridge to
Light, an official textbook o f the Supreme Mother Council, 33°, the
highest council o f the Scottish Rite” o f Masonry blasphemously states
that “the Serpent devouring his own tail” is the third person o f the
Trinity. Therefore when Trench says “Trinity,” he may not mean the
same Trinity Christians speak o f (as cited in Texe M arrs, Codex M agica, Austin,
TX: RiverCrest Publishing, 2005, pp. 268, 270, 274, 275, 367, 385, 500 et al.).
■ The Wordsworth Dictionary o f Symbolism says, “the snake symbolized

the underworld and the realm o f the dead, apparently because it spends
much o f its life in hiding and in pits below the surface o f the earth...O f
particular symbolic significance is the snake biting its own tail (Greek
UROBORUS) which stands for the cycle of eternal
return.. .reincarnation...” (Hans Biederm ann, Hertfordshire, Great Britain:
W ordsw orth Reference, 1992, pp. 310-311).
■ M asonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated says “the serpent is sometimes

symbolized with its tail in its mouth (oroboros), the body forming a
circle” ; it is associated with “Homosexuality.” The book adds, “Since
Masonry is based mainly on Egyptian mythology, it is no surprise to
find that the scarab is featured on the 25° Masonic apron along with
the serpent with his tail in his mouth (the oroboros).” “As Masonic
author George Oliver, states: “The Serpent is universally esteemed a

legitimate symbol o f Freemasonry.” Occultist and Mason, Manly
Palmer Hall brags that “the serpent is the symbol and prototype o f the
Universal Savior, who re d e e m ,he w odds by
knowledge o f itself and the realization o f good and evil. In alchemy a
dragon, or more often a serpent, eating its own tail is known as the
I w . . . B e c a u s e the uroboros recreates itself by, feeding on its own
body it is a symbol o f transforming matter, i.e. alchemy itself. In this
form' the snake represents “the endless succession o f incarnations
W h ic h form the wheel o f life”” (Cathy Burns, Mt. Carm el, PA: Sharing, 1998, pp.
18, 19, 1 4 1 ,1 3 0 ,1 3 1 ).
Alchemy: The Secret Art says, the ouroboros is “an emblem o f the
eternal cyclic nature o f the universe (‘from the One to the One )
(Stanislas de Rola, London, England: Tham es Hudson, 1973, p 33 as cited ,n Texe Marrs,
intrigue. Austin, TX: Living Truth Publishers, 1995, chapter 11, p. 212).
. A Dictionary o f Symbols says “each end carries the seed o f a new

beginning (Ouroboros)” .. “the Gnostics turned into one o f their basic
emblems by means o f the figure o f t h e . . . serpent...biting its own
t a T evolution and involution.. .The alchemists took up this Gnostic
symbol and applied it to the process o f their symbolic opus o f human
destiny” “the cross is the antithesis of the Ouroboros, the serpent
dragon denoting the primeval, anarchic dynamism which preceded the
creation o f the cosmos and the emergence o f order” ...“a symbol of al
cyclic processes.” “S a tu rn ...* related to the Ouroboros (or the serpen
which bites its own tail).” “Blavatsky can say that, physically, the snake
symbolizes the seduction of strength by matter” ... “The connexionof
snake with the wheel is expressed in graphic form in the Gnostic s y m b o
O f t Ouroboros, or serpen. M n g i . own tail " ■ * . b a a c d - j - r f
this ‘wheel o f life’ is found in the Ouroboros (the snake biting its own
tail), symbolizing the Aion (duration)” (J.E. Cirlot, NY: Bames and Noble,
1971, pp. 15,48, 2 7 4 ,7 1 , 87, 278, 28 6 ,2 8 7 , 382).
Trench’s ouroborus also represents the Aion of the pagan

Greeks. This Hindu and pagan belief in a series o f aSes>w
had no beginning and will have no end, is a basic tenan o
New Age movement. This theory was greedily grasped by
19th century unbelievers who saw in it a means of escaping a
final “judgment.” The Greek word A ion is particularly useful to

these unbelievers as they use one of its Bible meanings (age) to
smother its other meanings (world, ever, evermore, eternal,
course). New Agers and new bible versions have no “end o f the
world” and after this the judgment, but merely the “end o f an
age,” when we all gently turn the page in our unending cyclical
calendars. Naturally, Trench follows the New Age definition,
which was embodied in Platonism and Gnosticism in his day.
Biavatsky and Trench’s ‘Divine M ind’
How far does Trench take his symbol o f the illuminating

serpent? It is difficult to tell. Trench and Biavatsky were
contemporaries. C.D. Ginsburg, a member with Trench on the
RV committee, paved the way to Blavatsky’s occult ‘get-
togethers.’ (See chapter on Ginsburg’s Hebrew edition for
details.) Biavatsky was the founder o f The Theosophical
Society. Her journal, first called Lucifer, was then called The
Theosophist. Trench mentions the “Alexandrian theosophists”
i n p a s s i n g (T ren ch , Synonyms, p. 4 9).
Both Trench and Biavatsky called the universe (men and

matter) the “Divine Mind.” This ‘universal mind,’ as Plato
called it, replaces JEHOVAH and Jesus, who according to the
Bible, are not one with, but separate from their creation.
Biavatsky writes of—
“ ...the Hawk-headed Serpent, the Egyptian

Kneph emblem o f the Divine Mind, and Plato’s
Universal soul’ (H .P . B ia v a ts k y , Isis Unveiled, W h eaton , I L : T h e
T h e o s o p h ic a l P u b lish in g H o u se , 1 8 7 7 , reprint, 1 9 7 2 , v o l. 2 , p. 50 6 ).
Biavatsky says, “But what say the Occult Sciences to

this.. Divine M ind.. .” It is not JEHOVAH or Jesus Christ but
the “One,” who is identified as Satan in her book, The Secret

Doctrine (W heaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House, vol. 1, 1888, reprint 1978, pp.
632 and 623 et al.).
Forty years earlier Trench was using the occult term the
“Divine Mind” which he refers to as “it” saying,
“Doubtless the Platonist studies and

predilections o f the illustrious theologians of
Alexandria had some influence upon them here,
and on this distinction which they drew ...”
“Clement (Strom, ii. 22) brings the great passage

of Plato to bear upon this very discussion...The
Alexandrians, I believe were very near the
truth, if they did not grasp it altogether . . .We
may expect to find mysteries there; prophetic
intimations of truths which it might require ages
upon ages to develop...the Divine Mind did not
stop at the contemplation o f his first creation, but
looked on to him as “renewed in knowledge after
the image o f Him that created him” ...because it
knew thatonly as partaker of this double benefit
would he attain the true end for which he was
ordained” (T ren ch , Synonyms, pp. 49-51; T ren ch fit n ic e ly on the
W estco tt and H o rt Revised Version C o m m ittee . W e stco tt and H o rt are
id en tified a s pro p o n en ts o f A le x a n d ria n th e o lo g y , a lo n g w ith the h eretics
C lem e n t and O rig e n , in the a rticle on ‘ ‘A le x a n d ria n T h e o lo g y ” in Ja m e s
H a stin g s Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics, N Y : C h a rle s S c rib n e r s
S o n s, 1928, v o l. 1, pp. 318-319 et a l.).

Clouded with the Alexandrian Platonism is Trenchi s
discussion of the “similitude of God” (James 3:9) and t e
image and glory o f God” (1 Cor. 11:7) as they relate to men.
Like a good Platonist, Trench’s desired end is to be “as gods,
when he is swallowed back into the ‘Divine Mind’ during the

Aidns.
Plato’s Poison Pen
Practically every page o f Trench’s Synonyms references

Plato as his source for defining words. Where did Blavatsky and
Trench get their idea o f a universal and all pervasive Divine
Mind to replace the God o f the Bible?
“Plato shows that the universe, as we know it

under conditions o f time and space, may be
conceived as the thoughts o f universal mind
together with the thoughts o f those thoughts. (S e e
a ll o f H a stin g s, pp. 5 4 - 6 1) .
Trench’s correspondence includes a letter from a friend

(William Donne) who said,
“In intellectual philosophy and the cultivation o f

pure reason, indeed we must study in Greece
and in Germany with Plato and Kant, because
none of our home prophets have set themselves
to a oneness o f development and indagation in
these walks of the higher m etaphysics...” (m .
T ren ch , p. 4 2 ).
Plato’s writings are demonic in nature. He constructed a

‘spirituality’ which was at direct odds with the God o f the
Bible. He is described as a “philosophical agnostic” (H a stin g s, P P . 54-
6 i et ai.). Plato lived several hundred years before Christ (427-347
B.C.). Jesus warned o f men such as he saying, “All that ever

came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not
hear them” (John 10:8). Plato’s philosophy contravened the
Bible at every point. In fact his writings were written to replace
God’s revealed world view. They are religious in nature and

redefine ‘God,’ the ‘world,’ ‘reality,’ and ‘man.’ How can such
a context be used to define those same words in the Holy Bible.
Few are aware that the English words used to define Bible
words came first from an English book, like Vine’s Expository
Dictionary o f New Testament Words, whose author said he got
his definitions from Trench or Thayer, who translated another
man’s work from German, who himself got it from a Latin-
Greek lexicon, which in turn got it from Plato, who said he got
it from his “Da/mon” (demon). Jesus said, “the sheep did not
hear them.” Why are his sheep listening to them today?
Plato’s teacher was Socrates, who committed suicide after

he was caught as a homosexual predator o f his students. Plato,
who came in contact with Socrates in 407 B.C, must not have
objected, as Plato “henceforward was one of his ‘familiars. ^
“Presumably Plato shared Socrates’ political unorthodox^
The canon o f Plato’s writings (by Thrasylus) includes the
“defense addressed by Socrates to his judges,” who accused him
of homosexual crimes against his students. Plato minced along
in Socrates’ footsteps. Benjamin Jowett or “Miss Jowett as he
was called at Rugby was the British ‘bachelor’ who had a
‘passion’ to see the sinful thoughts of Plato translated into
English. Trench’s fellow RV committee member, homosexual
C J Vaughan, was a director at Harrow school for boys and was
dismissed for homosexual conduct with the young students in
B.F. W estcott’s charge. (Westcott could not wait to renew old
‘fiendships,’ so he invited the banished Vaughan to join him on
the Revised Version Committee!) He collaborated on
translation of Plato’s Republic with W estcott’s very dos
friend, J. Llewelyn Davies. There is a direct correte.or>
the study of Greek, via the pagan Greeks, particularly P ,
the ungodly lifestyles and beliefs of those who would correct
the Bible using such Greek. Trench was a member o f the secret
Apostles club with F.J.A. Hort o f the RV committee. This
club’s pro-homosexual leanings are discussed in the chapter on
Vaughan entitled, “Moral Hazard” (H a stin g s, p. 5 4 ; D o n ald T h o m a s, Lewis
Carroll A Portrait with Background , L o n d o n : Jo h n M u rra y L td ., printed b y C a m b rid g e : T h e
U n iv e rs ity P re ss, 19 9 6 , p. 5 4 ; S e e a ls o M orton N . C o h en , Lewis Carroll A Biography, N e w
Y o r k : A lfr e d A . K n o p f, 19 9 5 , p. 2 0 ; s e e th e ch ap ters h erein co n ce rn in g L id d e ll-S c o tt, C h a rle s
D o d gso n , and the C ritic a l T e x t fo r do cu m en tatio n and d e ta ils o f h o w the b iza rre s e x u a lity o f
P lato and S o cra te s w a s a llo w e d b y R V C o m m ittee m em b ers and p re v io u s le x ic o n ed ito rs and
th eir su b ord in ates (W estco tt, V a u g h a n , Jo w e tt, D o d g so n , M u lle r, R u sk in et al.).
As a homosexual, Plato is one o f the today’s main ‘poster

boys’ o f the homosexual movement. He authored the
Symposium, from which the word ‘uranian,’ ‘um ing’ or
‘uranism’ was first taken to mean a “Homosexual (from the
reference to Aphrodite in Plato’s Symposium” (OED, s.v.
Uranian, uming, uranism). The use o f that word began in 1864
by K.H. Ulrichs in Germany. The word ‘homosexual’ was not
coined until 1892 (Krafft-Ebing; see chapter on Liddell-Scott).
God said “men with men, working that which is unseemly”
would be turned over “to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:27, 28).
Why would Christians consult the writings o f one who has been
given a reprobate mind? Plato would not allow his lectures to
be written down, lest outsiders persecute him. Plato visited
“Egypt,” then directed a young m en’s school called the
Academy, which became the first ‘university’ in Europe. It was
called the Academy because it was in the midst o f the “Grove of
Academus.” Most universities, even Christian ones, have not
fallen far from this Grove and its tree o f knowledge. They still
echo Plato through Strong, Vine, Thayer and other lexicons,
where little “gods” select which definition is “good” and which
is “evil.” Hasting’s Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics says,
Plato “makes the educated man a law to h i m s e l f . just as
lexicons do (The World B ook Encyclopedia, C h ic a g o , IL , F ie ld E n terp rise s C o rp o ra tio n ,
1 9 6 1 , v o l. 14 , p. 5 0 4 ; H a stin g s, pp. 5 5 , 6 1 et a l.).
Knowing that lexicons are corrupt, but using them anyway,

hoping to determine which words are corrupt (evil) and which
may not be corrupt (good), then defining Bible words with
one’s resulting choice and ‘knowledge’ mirrors Genesis 3. God
said one thing; the devil said something else and Eve listened;
she picked and became the first do-as-yow-please Barbie dull.
Plato taught that the things which are sensed are not real
(Hindu mayo), but merely ‘types’ which suggest invisible
realities. He compares what we perceive to shadows on a cave s
wall which have no reality outside o f themselves but are
shadows of a higher and truer ‘idea.’ Trench admits that classic
Platonism affirms that images “set forth the earthy copies and
resemblances o f the archetypal things in the heavens” (Trench,
Synonyms, p. 47). Given this viewpoint, Trench believes his use of the
serpent emblem has more bite than his mere image of it

suggests. Plato’s writings about such absurdities provide Trench
and others (Liddell-Scott, Thayer, et al.) with a teeming
cesspool from which to dredge their definitions.
Plato wrote constantly o f the “One” (monism), wherein all,

including man, matter, and God are a part of One entity. In
some writings he mentions an equally good ‘god’ and a bad
‘devil,’ who in his cosmology are a part of the dualistic One. On
page after page new versions change the God o f the Bible into
the “One.” They are marching in step with Plato, the Gnostics,
the Hindus, the Satanists, and thousands o f years of this God-
rejecting philosophy. (See the “One” in Blavatsky’s indexes; for
details see New Age Bible Versions, chapter “The One vs. The
Holy One”).
Read the articles on Plato and Platonism in Hasting’s
Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics before using Vine’s,
Berry’s, Trench’s, Thayer’s, or Liddell-Scott’s Lexicons. These
men gather many o f their definitions from contexts even more

bizarre than those seen in Hasting’s. Read it, then decide:
Would a Christian benefit from a definition o f the words ‘only
begotten,’ ‘Godhead,’ ‘world,’ ‘age,’ ‘heaven,’ ‘hell,’ ‘love,’
‘everlasting,’ ‘servant,’ ‘too superstitious,’ ‘charity,’ and
‘damnation,’ which comes from such a context? The Bible is
about spiritual realities. It cannot be defined by reprobate
minds. How many users of Greek study aids have ever read one
line o f the pagan Greek classics from which definitions in
lexicons are derived? Christians would faint. One should not
dabble in a subject (‘a little Vine must be fine’) if he is not
willing to investigate the topic in depth, particularly when it
involves the Holy Bible. Jesus said, “Take heed that no man
deceive you” (Matt. 24:4). Those who teach others are even
more responsible to take heed. Trench believed, “as Plato has
taught us” (T ren ch , p. 20 ). Who will Trench’s encircling serpent
include?
Trench, the Serpent’s Scribe, Criticizes the Holy Bible
Trench’s swallowing serpent would swallow up the King

James Bible’s words and verses in one gulp in the book On the
Authorized Version o f the New Testament In Connection With
Some Recent Proposals For Its Revision. As early as 1858
Trench was poisoning the minds of men, causing them to doubt
the Holy Bible by supplying a generation with venom to wound
its very words.
Trench’s for Green Greek Students Only
■ Trench’s Synonyms: Religion and Devils?
The book o f Revelation warns that in the last days many

will “worship devils” (Rev. 9:20). Combining the positive
religious word ‘worship’ with the most vile word ‘devil’ was
seen when the devil told Jesus, “If thou therefore wilt worship
me, all shall be thine” (Luke 4:7). Worship the devil? Who
would do that? Trench, the man with a serpent on his title page,
will accommodate it, even if it means hoping no one who reads
his book can really read Greek. He does this by saying that the
word for ‘religion’ and a word that contains the word demon
are Synonyms'. “Daimon” is a Greek word which is brought into
English as ‘demon’ and into the Bible as the more revealing
word “devil.” The Greeks, particularly Plato, thought that
demons were gods. Plato professed to have had his own
‘demon’ who told him what to write. Just because the pagans
think that demons are gods is no reason for Christians to sink
down to that level; the Bible was written to correct the pagans.
Paul rebukes them, warning of the “UNKNOWN GOD, whom
therefore ye ignorantly worship (Acts 17.23).
With piles o f Pagan writings to punch up his pagan world

view, Trench scorns the KJB in Acts 17:22, which says, “I
perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” Luther
echoes identically, “allzu a b erglaubischr Trench suggests it
should be not be “too superstitious,” but “very religious,” as
seen in all new versions today. Mr. Etymology, R.C. Trench,
surely knows that the Greek word in question is the word for
“devil” or ‘demon’ if you will. He says the KJB is ‘ insulting
and one should use “the finest tact” when speaking to those ot
another religion. He said Paul would not call the heathen too
superstitious” because he would not want to “alienate his
hearers” (T ren ch , Synonyms, P . 168). He said he would use “calculating
prudence” and “tact” to flatter them. This may be done by those
who use “good words and fair speeches to deceive the hearts ot
the simple,” but “tact” did not elicit the angry stripes Paul
suffered (Rom. 16:18). Trench pretends,
“none was less disposed than he [Paul] to

overlook or deny the religious element in
heathenism, however overlaid or obscured by
falsehood or error this might be.”
“In it he gave to his Athenian hearers the

honour which was confessedly their due as
zealous worshippers of the superior powers,
so far as their knowledge reached...he would
scarcely have called it a ‘superstition’ in
Agrippa’s face...” (T ren ch , Synonyms, pp. 16 8 , 16 9 ).
Trench intimates that the Greek word for ‘religion’ is a

‘synonym’ for the Greek word which literally means ‘fear of
demons’ or devils (T ren ch , Synonyms, pp. 1 6 1 - 1 6 9 ) . The word appearing in
Acts 17:22 is composed from 5siai (deisi) meaning ‘fear’ and
Saifiovia (daimonia), transliterated as ‘demons’ and coming
into English as ‘demons’ or ‘devils.’ He pretends that the word
(literally ‘fear of demons’) “had at first an honorable use.” He
cites the pagans Xenophon and Plautus in support o f this. In
case any classicists should read his Synonyms, he admits that
some o f the heathen used it literally as ‘fear o f devils’ (Seneca,
Aristotle, Polybius). He quickly slides past this saying that
‘fear’ was not what was meant in this word (with demons
tacked on it). Read his ravening ramblings,
“ ...its very etymology implied and involved fear

(5ciai6ai|iovia from 5d5oj)...”
“So soon as ever the philosophers began to

account fear not as a right, but as a disturbing
element in piety, one therefore to be carefully
eliminated from the true idea of it...”
“But even after they had just turned [fear of

demons] to ignobler uses.. .it did not at once and
altogether forfeit its higher signification...St
Paul himself employed it in no ill meaning in his
ever memorable discourse upon M ars’ Hill. He
there addresses the Athenians, “I perceive that in
all things ye are.. .8eioi8aij.iovEoxepoi)q (Acts
xvii. 22), which is scarcely “too superstitious,
...but rather ‘religiosiores,’ [Latin] (T ren ch , Synonym s,
pp. 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , et a l.).
What excuses does he give for translating ‘fear o f devils’ as

‘very religious’ in Acts 17:22, where no Greek manuscripts
have the Greek word for ‘religious.’ He builds up his case by
disagreeing with how the KJB translates these words. The KJB
uses the words ‘religious’ and ‘religion’ in James 1:26, 27.
Trench follows the opium addict and unbeliever Samuel Taylor
Coleridge and his definition of ‘religion’ noting,
“These observations are made by Coleridge

(Aids to Reflection, 1825, p. 15), who at the same
time complains of our rendering of [religious]
and [religion] as erroneous [James 1:26, 27].
But it is not so much erroneous as obsolete; an
explanation indeed which he has himself
suggested...” (T ren ch , Synonyms, p . 16 5 ) .
The word ‘religion’ is hardly obsolete. The KJB speaks of

“pure religion.” Yet Trench says, “It is quite possible that
‘superstitio’ and ‘superstitious’ had the same” “honorable use
as the word “religion.” He forgets his knowledge of etymology
pretending, “no one has yet solved the riddle of this w ord...
(T ren ch , Synonyms, p. 16 6 ) .
Trench’s promotion o f Coleridge’s ‘definition’ o f religion

and his book Aids to Reflection pull back a curtain exposing the
real R.C. Trench. Dennis Palmu o f the North American Society
for British Studies and a leading expert on the clandestine club
called the Cambridge “Apostles” notes,
“Trench was one o f the many early Cambridge

“Apostles” who virtually worshipped Coleridge,
writer o f Aids to Reflection and the Confessions
o f an Inquiring Spirit (the last part is usually left
out.) Aids to Reflection was arguably Coleridge’s
most influential work of prose. Coleridge’s
notion o f reflection was through “the Platonic
mirror” o f the soul (not a good idea if one’s
“lens” was clouded by mind-altering drugs...”
(letter on file).
Palmu states, “Although much is well known about

Coleridge’s increasingly bizarre behavior and drug dependency
after his return from studies in Germany, it is important to
realize that Coleridge’s mind and morals were already in
decline well before his departure in the Autumn o f 1798 - his
drug addiction going back to his abbreviated college days at
Cambridge from 1791 to 1793. Consider these excerpts from
The Wedgwood Circle: 1730-1897, Four generations o f a
fam ily and Their friends, especially in light o f the massive
influence that Coleridge’s German transcendentalism had on the
Anglican leaders o f the Broad Church movement - men who
created the Revised Version o f the Bible and the new Lexicons
and Grammars” (letter on file).
Lengthy excerpts expose Coleridge as “dependent” on

“opium,” “hashish,” “bhang, a drug made from hemp,”
“laughing gas,” “administered while wine was being drunk,”
and “henbane,” whose “psychoactive properties were spoken of

by the ancient Greeks.” Coleridge also used “Nepenthe,” “a
liquid opium derivative,” which was “first mentioned in the
fourth book of Homer’s Odyssey,” a book Trench (Liddell-
Scott and Thayer) used to define the Bible’s words (T he
W e d g w o o d C irc le , pp. 112, 113, 1 1 4 , 1 2 7 a s cited in letter on file ). Do Christians Care
how Coleridge defined ‘religion’? Dr. James Sightler observes,
“He was a Unitarian from childhood...Thus in a

practical and philosophic sense, Unitarianism
can be said to have had a role in the formation of
the Anglican Broad Church, which Coleridge
and his German neology [unbelief] helped so
much to bring about...Coleridge spoke o f the
virgin birth as “an excrescence of faith” which
should be discarded. He said eternal punishment
was not suffering...He asked “might not Christ
be the W orld” ...This vividly illustrates the
pantheistic tendency in his thinking...by 1815
his [drug] addiction had progressed to the point
that he was unable to support his family and he
spent the last 19 years of his life as a guest in the
home of a London physician...It was in these
circumstances that the theological opinions of
“the sage o f Highgate” were set down. It was
Coleridge who was responsible, more than any
other single individual, for the diffusion of
German neology through Cambridge University
and thence through the Anglican Church (a
Testimony Founded Forever, G re e n v ille , S C : S ig h tle r P u b lica tio n s, pp.
6 3 -6 5 et a l.).
Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement by C.R.

Sanders quotes D.C. Somervell observing,
“the whole o f the Broad Church School [Trench,

Liddell, Scott, Westcott, Hort, and Stanley] o f
the next generation, in all its varieties, is
derivable from Coleridge” (N e w Y o r k : R u s se ll & R u s se ll,
1 9 4 2 , p. 2 6 6 ).
H.C. Hitchcock’s article on “Broad Church Theology” in

Bibliotheca Sacra says that from “Coleridge’s immediate
disciples...the stream descended to “Dean Trench” (and
Stanley, Kingsley, Ruskin, and Maurice) (v o l. x l v i i i , i 8 9 i , p p . 6 3 0 - 6 3 1 ;
see S ig h tle r fo r e x h a u stiv e details).
■ Trench’s “setting sun” or blackness
Just as devils become objects of worship, so too the

“blackness” and “darkness” that awaits the lost glows radiantly
in Trench’s Synonyms as “twilight gloom which broods over the
regions o f the setting sun.” On the contrary, a setting sun is in
the process o f going down; it has not set; light is still available.
He also calls it a “shadowy land.” He forgets that there are no
shadows in “blackness” and “darkness,” because there is no sun
to cast a shadow. His heathen sources called Hades the land of
s h a d o w s (T ren ch , Synonyms, pp. 3 4 8 -3 4 9 et al.).
In Acts 13:11 Elymas (Barjesus) became “blind, not seeing”

because o f a “mist and a darkness” which “fell on him.” Trench
says the word for “mist” really is something “in which the gods,
for one cause o f another, may envelope their favourites” as
described in Homer’s Odyssey or Iliad. Homer’s drug ‘trip’ via
Trench’s pen takes Elymas from a grave disaster to a green
pasture, from black and white to grey and light (T ren ch , Synonyms, p.
350 ).
■ Demoting Jesus Christ
Trench wants to take a confession of the deity o f Jesus

Christ and turn it into a denial. He suggests using the
questioning, “Is this the Christ?” instead of the affirming “Is not
this the Christ?” Trench says that the speaker “dare not
absolutely affirm” that he is the Christ. But she was affirming
the deity of Christ. In this context the negative particle of the
Greek must appear as it does in Greek (Trench , o n the A uthorized,?. 134).
- Trench would drop the Trinity, seen as the “Godhead” in

Rom. 1:20 in the KJB. He looks to its use in pagan
writings and concludes that the word means “some divine
attributes” “but never absolute essential Deity” (T ren ch ,
Synonyms, P P . 9-io). The pagans knew nothing o f the Trinity;
why would we look to them for light? “For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse” (Rom. 1:20,2:15).
■ Trench wants to take the glory away from the Lord,

changing “causeth us to triumph” to “leadeth us m
triumph.” In the KJB, the battle is the Lord’s; in Trench’s
man-centered world, Christ is merely a drum major,
leading the ‘real’ soldiers. Trench excuses his translation
saying, “it also is the only meaning of the word in
classical Greek; thus Plurarch...” (T ren ch , On the Authorized, p. 1 - W
Is he forgetting classical Greek was written in Gree
The Greeks gave us no English “meaning.” Matching
5 000 Greek words is the wide-open subjective choice o
an Englishman with a 500,000 word English dictionary;
(including technical words English now actually has over
1,000,000 words). What classicist believes that a Greek

word like this has “only” one English word to convey its
“meaning”? And who gets to be “as gods” to tell Bible
readers which one o f the 500,000 words God ‘meant.’
Let’s leave it to God’s Holy Bible.
■ Articles
Trench begins by deceiving the na'ive and pretending that
the Greek article (‘the’) is used in Greek as it is used in English.
Because articles are not used the same way in both languages,
each usage must be determined in each context. He pretends
that it is a “serious loss” and a “mistake” that the KJB does not
pick and choose the usage o f the word ‘the’ as he would. He
then gives examples where the KJB does not translate the
article. The young student is supposed to be aghast and think
that he now has found an error in the Bible. What Trench does
not show the reader are other examples in which the Greek
article ‘the’ appears before a word, such as ‘Jesus.’ Imagine a
Bible that said, “the Jesus,” instead o f “Jesus.”
Men such as Trench are not really teaching ‘Greek.’

They are using it as a vehicle to teach unbelief (Trench, On the
Authorized, pp. 114, 118, et ai). In a court o f law one swears “to tell the
truth, the whole truth...” It is not the truth unless it is the whole
truth. All English versions, including Trench’s RV, omit the
article ‘the’ on page after page and also insert ‘the’ when it is
not in Greek, as needed. Trench’s pretension that there is a
uniform way to deal with this is dishonest (e.g. 1 Tim. 6:10).
“ Prepositions
Trench also pretends that his choices for the translation of

prepositions are the only choices. He slyly neglects to tell his
readers that most prepositions can be translated in a number of
w a y s. S ee th e c h a p te r o n W .E . V in e in th is b o o k fo r e x a m p le s;
th e N IV tra n s la te s one p re p o s itio n sco res o f d iffe re n t w a y s
(Trench, On the Authorized, p. 120).
■ Verbs
T re n c h ad m its th a t th e re are “ d iffe re n t id io m s o f th e G re e k

a n d E n g lis h ” o n ly w h e n h e ca n p la y th a t c a rd to o v e rth ro w the
K JB (Trench, On the Authorized, p. 134). A s d isc u s se d e lse w h e re in this
b o o k E n g lish d o e s n o t p re c ise ly m a tc h G re e k v e rb s in ten se,
m o o d , o r v o ice. N o tra n s la tio n tra n sla te s th e m u n ifo rm ly . It is
v irtu a lly im p o ssib le . T h e re fo re a n y o n e can fin d fa u lt b y p ick in g
o u t a h an d fu l o f v e rb s th a t d o n o t fit ‘th e ir ’ fre sh m a n G re e k
g ra m m a r tex tb o o k . T h a t w h ic h T re n c h w ill n o t tell h is re a d e rs is
th a t th e re are m a n y p la c e s in h is Revised Version (a n d th e N IV ,
N K J V a n d E S V ) w h ic h also d o n o t fo llo w said ‘ru le s .’
T re n c h e v e n m u st ad m it, fo r th o se w h o re a lly k n o w G re ek ,
“Doubtless there are passages which would

make difficult the universal application of the
rule that perfects should be translated as
perfects, and aorists as aorists” (Trench, On the
Authorized, p. 128).
F o r ex a m p le , in L u k e 1 4 :1 8 -1 9 o n e w o u ld n o t say, “ I
b o u g h t,” b u t “ I h a v e b o u g h t.” T h e lo n g list o f a o rists in L uke
17:4, 6, an d 8 w o u ld b e d ea d i f re n d e re d as an a o rist, say in g “ I
g lo rifie d ,” I fin ish e d ,” “ I m a n ife ste d ,” o r “ I re c e iv e d .” T h e y are
a liv e as, “ I h av e g lo rifie d th e e ” ... “ I h a v e fin ish e d ,” ... “ I h av e
m a n ife s te d ,” a n d “ I h a v e re c e iv e d .” T h e re are n u m e ro u s p lace s
in th e N e w T e sta m e n t w h ic h prove th a t th e B ib le does not
o b s e rv e th e d is tin c tio n s b e tw e e n G re e k v e rb s th a t so m e critica l
g ra m m a ria n s p u rp o rt. A n a o rist (a n d o th e rs) m a y h av e th e sen se
o f a p a s t b e h in d a n o th e r p ast. T re n c h re fe re n c e s B ib le critic,
Winer, who is behind the revolution to overthrow the Bible’s

V e r b s (Trench, On the Authorized, p. 128 footnote; see The Language o f the King James
Bible for details on Winer.)
Therefore, in the English Bible a Greek past can be

translated as a present (e.g. Acts 28:4), imperfects can be dealt
with as aorists and perfects (Luke 14:7, Acts 3:1, Mark 2:18,
and John 3:22), aorists can be rendered as perfects and perfects
as if they were aorists (e.g. Luke 1:19, 2 Peter 1:14), perfects
can be translated as aorists (e.g. Luke 8:2), imperfects and
aorists can be translated as pluperfects (e.g. John 5:16).
Why don’t Greek verb cases match English verb cases?

They do not match because when God created the world’s
languages at the tower of Babel, he confounded them, that
is, he confused the languages so that men could not
understand one another.
“Go to, let us go down, and there confound

their language, that they may not understand
one another’s speech” (Gen. 11:6-7).
Language has 3 parts: vocabulary, grammar, and

syntax. All three elements of language were confounded in
varying degrees; therefore, men could not quickly
circumvent God’s scheme to keep the nations divided. (For a
further discussion o f verbs see the chapter “M ortal Sins: Living V erbs W ounded in Gram m ars”
and the chapter on W.E. Vine.)
■ Question: Why is hades transliterated as ‘hades’ in new

versions, but lampas cannot be ‘lamp’?
Answer: A lamp is not as hot as hell.
The only uniformity that Trench shows is that he uniformly

strains to make the KJB look wrong. He would transliterate the
Greek hades as hades, instead o f ‘hell.’ Yet he would not

transliterate ouranos as ‘ouranos,’ but instead translates it as
‘heaven.’ If it is correct to transliterate hades, why is it wrong to
transliterate lampas as the English ‘lamp.’ Trench says ‘lamp’ is
wrong because the Hindu had torches. Go figure. (I have
transliterated each Greek letter in the following so that the
reader can see the absurdity of Trench’s definition.). Trench
say8, , ,
“Neither is [lampas] a ‘lamp,’ but a torch, and
this not only in the Attic, but in the later
Hellenistic Greek as w ell...and so I believe,
always in the N.T. In proof that at Rev. viii. 10,
[lampas] should be translated ‘torch’ (‘Fackel,’
De W ette)...”
“It may be urged that in the parable of the Ten

Virgins the [lampades] are nourished with oil,
and must needs be lamps. But this does not
follow. In the East the torch, as well as the lamp,
is fed in this manner: ‘the true Hindu way of
lighting up is by torches held by men, who feed
the flame with oil from a sort of
bottle... constructed for the purpose
(Elphinstone, Hist, of India, vol. i. p. 333)
(Trench, Synonym s, p. 155).
Trench scrapes from the pagan funeral pyres whatever

paltry evidence he can muster, always with the goal o
questioning the words God said. The Bible itself proves that
Trench’s trip to India was wasted. It says, they trimmed t eir
lamps.” A wick is trimmed; a torch is not trimmed (Matt. 25:4,
7). Torches are stocks o f wood which give light as they bum.
■ Formal Equivalency
Suddenly, when Trench gets to two verses which challenge

his corruption o f the word of God, he is more than willing to
ignore any formal equivalency translation.
■ 2 Cor. 2:17 says, “For we are not as many, which

corrupt the word o f God.” He throws every Greek text to
the wind and says, “ [W]e must not stop lamely with our
Translators... but add to it... ‘fo r filth y lucre.” O f course,
these three words occur in no Greek text. He and other
‘volunteer corrupters’ o f the word o f God are off the
hook with just three italicized words (Trench, On the A uthorized,
pp. 141-143).
■ He does a similar twist for Col. 2:8 which says, “Beware

lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit.” He squirms around this verse which attempts to
nail down his error o f spoiling Christians through the
Greek philosophers (Trench, On the Authorized, p. 143).
■ In James 3:5, he hopes to divert the reader’s attention

away from, “Behold how great a matter a little fire
kindleth!” to “Behold how great a forest a little spark
kindleth!” Christians need no warning against
pyromania, but being a “busybody in other m en’s
matters” is a problem (1 Peter 4:15; James 3:8). In
James 3 in the KJB “m em -ber” corresponds with “mat
ter.” The cross references and corresponding sounds in
the KJB are God’s means of “comparing spiritual things
with spiritual” (See In Awe o f Thy Word for details). To
support his definition he references “Homer” and
“Pindar,” two vile pagan Greek writers (see chapter on Thayer
for details; Trench, On the Authorized, p. 146).
Drowning Babies in Perdition
Trench was bom in Catholic drenched Dublin, Ireland and

later became Archbishop of Ireland, Church of England. As
such, he was awash on all sides with the Anglican and Roman
Catholic doctrine of infant baptism as the means o f salvation. In
his biography, written by his daughter M.M.F. Trench, entitled
Richard Chenevix Trench Archbishop: Letters and Memorials,
she notes his belief,
“This letter is given, as of especial interest, the

doctrine of Baptism of the Catholic Church
having been so fully embraced by him before
long” (M. Trench, p. 217 footnote).
His biography contains correspondence to Frederic Maurice,

a name that appears over and over as the progenitor o f much of
the heresy o f the 19th century (see chapter on Liddell-Scott
Greek-English Lexicon). Trench wrote to Maurice in 1836
pleading,
“I trust you are going forward with what you

proposed concerning Baptism. Anything that
would give me a living hold of the Church idea
I would be more thankful for than o f ought
beside” (M. Trench, pp. 216-217).
Trench was an Anglican “High-churchman” and as such

was a sacramentalist, that is, one who believes that ceremonies
are ‘God’s means o f imparting grace.’ He did not believe in
personal faith for salvation (Schaff, vol. 12, P. i; Bromley, PP. 242-243). He
makes it clear that he believes, just like a good Anglican
Archbishop, that infant baptism brings forgiveness o f sins and
no further faith is required. Trench writes,
“ ...but here we come again upon the question o f

Baptism, and what is the announcement to the
baptized [infant], - whether it be, “your sins are
forgiven - that is, directing them to look to
Christ - or, “There is forgiveness o f your sins
upon your believing,” which must o f necessity
bring them to look at their faith as the justifying
thing” (M. Trench, p. 218).
This wrong belief would suggest that Trench himself had

never received Jesus Christ as his Saviour. Like other
Anglicans, such as B.F. Westcott, Trench sometimes writes
eloquently on Christian themes. But without the new birth, they
have only head knowledge o f historical facts. Their Christian
terms are re-defined to match other historical belief systems,
such as Transcendentalism, Platonism and Hinduism. Ignorance
of the entire corpus o f writings o f the men on the RV committee
and the men who influenced them leads the naive to read into
their writings the normal Christian perspective, not the
syncretistic view point which all o f these writings reveal. Such
beliefs are contrary to the Bible and are bound to drive a
linguist like Trench, who knows the power o f words, to strive to
change the Bible to include his own broad views.
In the Original Latin and German?
When the pagan Greeks fail him, he looks to the unbelieving

Germans, such as Cremer’s Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch.
On page after page he references “the German,” just as he
references ‘the Greek.’ Would God have us find his thoughts by
going from Greek through Latin, into German, then to English?
How is this going to ‘the originals’? If Bible critics believe that
vernacular translations are impure and imperfect, why do they
traduce them to get back to their so-called ‘originals’? (Trench,

Synonyms, pp. 18,46).
Elsewhere in this book, as well as in In Awe o f Thy Word

and The Language o f the King James Bible, the myth about any
difference between agapao and phileo is completely shattered.
Trench wrongly distinguishes between agapao and phileo, not
by citing Greek, which is impossible, but by citing the Latin
“Cicero, who often sets the words in instructive antithesis to
one another” (Trench, Synonyms, p. 39). Why is he sending his reader to
Latin? He must admit, “For it should not be forgotten that
agapeo is a word bom within the bosom o f revealed
religion...there is no trace o f it in any heathen [Greek] writer
w hatever...” He is forced to admit that God “devised a new
word” (Trench, Synonyms, p. 4 i). The Biblical usage o f these two words
does not show a distinction between them as shown elsewhere
in this book (see chapter on Strong).
Out-of-Date Trench
Those who use Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Berry’s

Interlinear Lexicon, various Bible Software programs, or new
versions are unaware that their words from Trench’s definitions
are now considered out-of-date. Trench and the pagan Greeks
are no longer fashionable places to find Bible ‘meanings.’
Trench’s posthumous editor, George Sampson, even admits
“Trench’s two most famous books are out of date” and there is
some “fanciful etymology in Trench” (Bromley, pp. 229, 237, 241, 233).
Trench’s biographer admits that Trench has archaic scholarship
when compared with the latest venture to find fault with the
word of God. He says,
“ ...in recent times a new light has been thrown

upon the language o f the New Testament by the
discovery in different parts of Egypt of

contemporary papyri” (Trench, On the Authorized, p. 235).
Which is worse: the reprobate minds o f pagan Greek

intellectuals, translated into English by liberals like Thayer and
Trench, or pagan Egyptian peasants, interpreted through the
shadow of pre-Nazi Germany and the RV in lexicons by
Moulton, Milligan, Bauer and Danker? Other chapters will open
the door to expose their own holocaust, burning Bibles word by
word.
Trench’s O xford English Dictionary: Be Careful
Trench’s ideas wandered away from those o f the Bible.

Therefore he wanted to stretch the Bible’s words to extend
outward to include the broad way. Bromley says that Trench
was stirred by Home Took’s book about “the relation between
ideas and w ords...,” so he wrote a book entitled, The Study o f
Words. Trench was not content with re-defining the Bible’s
words with his Synonyms and his work on the RV Committee.
He wanted to change the meanings o f words in the very English
Dictionary itself! Therefore he set in motion in 1857 the
creation o f the Oxford English Dictionary. Although the
ensuing editors, who did the work, did not follow Trench s
dictates completely, he was influential in upsetting the previous,
generally Bible-based, dictionaries of the day by suggesting a
dictionary that included histories o f various usages o f words,
rather than single prescriptive definitions. His newly conceived
OED would now include how men used words, not merely how
the Bible used a word, which had ALWAYS determined its use
in the culture and therefore its definition. This would show that
many used and defined Bible words not as the Bible used them.
The Bible was too prescriptive, too limited in its ‘meanings.’ He
wanted the dictionary to include what ‘man’ said about words,

not just how God used words. Earlier, in 1828 the Christian
linguist Noah Webster had given Americans Bible-based word
meanings, for the most part. Trench’s revolving serpent was
about to revolutionize what God ‘meant’ once again.
Trench’s scheme began with a lecture which he gave at the

London Philological Society. In attendance were many “social
activists” and even a relative of Charles Darwm. They were
open to “new forms of knowledge emanating from the
Continent” [unbelieving Germany and Catholic France]. L.
Mugglestone, editor o f the Oxford History o f the English
Language and Lexicography and the OED (2002) says that,
“The thrust o f his lectures embraced the ideal of

inclusively, emphasizing the need for ‘impartial
hospitality’...” “[H]is lectures stand as a
‘radical restatement’ o f the future o f English
l e x i c o g r a p h y ” (Lynda M ugglestone, L ost F or Words: The Hidden
H istory o f the O xford English D ictionary, New Haven: Yale U niversity
Press, 2005, jacket, p. 7).
Mugglestone said, “As Trench insisted, notions that a

dictionary was a normative guide to correctness were entirely
mistaken.” After all, as Plato taught, nothing is ‘correct,’ since
truth is relative because things are not actually ‘real,’ (Mugglestone,
pp. 4, 5-7). In protest
“[T]he Cambridge-educated writer John Marsden

publicly declaimed in the pages o f the Edinburgh
Review,” ‘What is this but to throw all barriers
and rules, and to declare that every form of
expression which may have been devised by the
humour, the ignorance, or the affection of any
writer, is at once to take rank in the national

vocabulary’” (M ugglestone, p. 21).
Oxford Professor Mugglestone said,
“the weight o f popular opinion had to be

discarded. ‘A dictionary is nothing o f the kind,’
Trench affirmed. If the new dictionary he
envisaged was to represent a ‘standard’ at all,
then it would be a standard o f actual rather than
merely theoretical usage...” (M ugglestone, p. 149).
Trench’s original plan is evidenced today on the pages of

the OED. Every word is given a smorgasbord o f meanings from
which to choose. Although the OED usually includes a ‘sort-of
Biblical definition, it also gives pages o f non-biblical
definitions for each word. For instance, the word ‘hell’ is
defined in every conceivable way, not just in the way in which
it is presented in the context o f the Bible and the way it has
been accepted for thousands o f years. The Biblical context
describes it with words such as “flame” and “tormented.”
Trench’s plan made way for other definitions, such as those in
“Greek and Latin mythology,” and in “Scandinavian
mythology,” where “Hell was a cold place, a dreary region of
snow and frost.” The OED includes three pages o f optional
usages (revised meanings of ‘hell’) including “a living being,”
“a yawning depth,” “a part o f a building,” “a place under a
tailor’s shop,” “receptacles of waste,” “a gambling-booth,” and
other meanings which extinguish hell’s fire— all thanks to R.C.
Trench who wanted to swallow everything with his
encompassing serpent, including hell itself.
The twenty-volume unabridged OED is an excellent tool to

show that the Bible began and continued as the definer of
English words. The Bible defines its own words via adjoining
words in the context. These adjoining and word-defining words
are invariably the very words used in any dictionary to define a
Bible word. Those Bible definitions became ‘the’ definition in
popular usage and in dictionaries. The OED provides historical
witnesses to the Biblical usage o f words and proves that
subsequent dictionaries gathered their definitions from popular
usage which sprang from the context o f Bible words. Therefore
one does not need a dictionary to define Bible words because
the dictionary’s definition came from the Bible. If the
dictionary’s definition does not match that o f the Bible, it is a
man-made definition (See The Language o f the King James
Bible and In A we o f Thy Word, chapters one).
However the OED is not a source of authoritative

‘definitions,’ just as Trench intended. Nor is it a source for the
definition of Bible words outside o f the context o f Bible usage.
Trench would be aghast to find someone using it as such—
“ ...aptly illustrating the interpretative problems

of which Trench had warned, entries presenting
empirical data on the dating and use of given
words, were perversely read as though they were
prescriptive rulings on correctness” (Milestone, P.
149).
Even the producers of dictionaries find it ‘perverse’ that one

would use a dictionary ‘usage’ to ‘define’ a word. “Trench s
specified role of the lexicographer as witness rather than
ju d g e...” is missed by his readers, who are looking in the wrong
place to determine ‘what a word means’ (M uggiestone, p. iso).
Dictionary makers use the context of a word to define it.

They look at ten words before and ten words after the word in
q u e stio n . W h y are C h ristia n s lo o k in g in d iffe re n t (p a g a n an d

sec u la r) c o n te x ts to d e fin e B ib le w o rd s? A d ic tio n a ry m a k e r
(le x ic o g ra p h e r) w o u ld n e v e r d e fin e a w o rd u s e d in o n e c o n te x t
b y e x a m in in g its u sag e in a n o th e r c o n te x t. T h is is w h y th e O E D
g iv e s m any m ea n in g s, w h ic h are d e riv e d fro m d iffe re n t
Contexts. (For T rench’s pivotal role in the OED see The O xford English D ictionary
(Unabridged), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, vol. 1, “A History o f the Oxford English
Dictionary,” pp. xxxv-xlv and M ugglestone’s The Hidden History o f the O xford English
Dictionary).
T h e c h a p te r on T re n c h is n o t o v er; th e re a d e r w ill h e a r his

e x a c t p ro n o u n c e m e n ts a b o u t w h a t B ib le w o rd s m ean th e v e ry
n e x t tim e h e h ea rs, ‘T h a t G re e k w o rd m e a n s ...’ (e v en th o u g h
th e sp e a k e r h as n e v e r h e a rd th e n am e ‘T re n c h ’). D o n o t ask,
‘W a s th a t T re n c h ? ’; h e ’ll lik ely re sp o n d , ‘T h a t w a s G re ek , n o t
F re n c h .’
(*The ‘X ’ on the
medallion worn by Trench, seen
at the beginning o f this chapter,
is as old as O siris and the
Egyptian mystery religions and
as new as the Masonic Scottish
R ite Journal, June, 2000 (Jim
Tresner, Seventeenth Degree,
K nights o f the E ast an d West).
The ‘X ’ is connected with the
ancient Egyptian mystery
religions (the pyramids are an
‘X ’ in aerial view ) and the
occult lion’s paw hand signal
(hand with curled fingers placed
on chest or with fingers hidden in jacket). It is shown on page 165, used by Origen, the third
century ‘origin’ o f the changes in new versions, as well as Karl Marx, Ruskin, Schaff, Besant,
and many others. (See Transparent Translations DVD from A.V. Publications for many
surprising users o f this hand signal.) The above sketch, from an Egyptian hieroglyphic, shows
the initiation cerem ony o f many occult groups. It shows the ‘X ’ on the chest and the counterfeit
‘resurrection,’ wherein a lion raises the initiate from a coffin. Egyptian m umm ies and statuary
show hands positioned across the chest in the ‘X ’position. See chapters 7 and 27 and p. 165 for
more details. Also see Albert P ike’soccult M asonic M o ra l’s and Dogma, p. 801 and Texe
Marrs, Codex Magica, chapters 4, 5, and 11.)
Lexicons
Defending
Their
Fathers’ and
Grandfather’s
Westcott-Hort
1881 Revised Version
MOULTON & MILLIGAN

MOULTON & MILLIGAN’S CORRUPT GREEK TOOLS 403
Chapter 11
Moulton
& Milligan
Vocabulary
o f the
Greek New Testament
Harold K. Moulton
The Analytical Greek Lexicon
The Moulton Family’s Corrupt Lexicons and Grammars
h e re are th re e g e n e ra tio n s o f m e n in th e M o u lto n fa m ily
T w h o h a v e d o n e d a m a g e to th e w o rd o f G od. T h e first
w a s o n th e W e s tc o tt-H o rt Revised Version C o m m itte e
o f 1881, th e s e c o n d w a s a n e w a g e r a n d th e th ird fo llo w e d w ith
n o im p ro v e m e n t. A ll th re e w ro te c o rru p t G re e k re fe re n c e b o o k s
w h ic h are w id e ly u se d to d a y (The Origin and Scope o f Moulton and Milligan’s
Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament..., G. H. R. Horsley, John Rylands Library,
Manchester, Bulletin. Vol. 76 (1) 1994 ).
William Fiddian Moulton (1 8 3 5 -1 8 9 8 )
“ In 1870 h e w a s s e le c te d ” to b e w ith W e stc o tt a n d H o rt “ o n

th e B ib le R ev isio n C o m m itte e a n d se rv e d v e ry z e a lo u s ly in th e
N e w T e s ta m e n t C o m p a n y . H is in te re st in th e g e n e ra l su b je c t o f
B ib le re v isio n led to h is p re p a rin g ” fu rth e r w ritin g , a n d “H is
c ritic a l” v iew o f th e B ib le is w e ll d o c u m e n te d in th e n u m ero u s
c o m m e n ta rie s to w h ic h he c o n trib u te d (The New Schaff-Henog
Encyclopedia, New York: Funk and W agnalls Co., 1910, vol. 8, pp. 30-31). “ In 1870 he
b e c a m e se c re ta ry o f o n e o f th e N T c o m m itte e s o c c u p ie d w ith
th e R V [R e v ise d V e rsio n ], an d
w o rk in c o n n e x io n w ith th e R V
fille d a g re a t p a rt o f h is life ” (Oxford
Dictionary o f the Christian Church, 2nd edition).
“ W ith D r. M o u lto n , a fe llo w -
m em ber on th e R e v isio n
c o m m itte e , W e stc o tt re m a in e d
c lo se frie n d s, a n d fo r th a t e m in en t
W e s le y a n ’s w o rk o n th e re v isio n
o f th e A p o c ry p h a h e h a d h ig h
a d m ira tio n ” (Joseph Clayton, Leaders o f the
Church 1800-1900: Bishop Westcott, London: A.
R. M ow bray & Co. Ltd, 1906, p. 107). M o u lto n
w as so e n s n a re d in th e n ew
c o rru p t G re e k tex t, h e w ro te a
Concordance o f the Greek Testament

According to the Text o f Westcott and Hort,
Tischendorf and the English Revisers (1897).
H e also tra n s la te d in to E n g lish h e re tic J.G .B .
W in e r’s re v o lu tio n a ry and g ro s sly d isto rte d
Grammar o f New Testament Greek.
W illia m M o u lto n w o rk e d w ith W illia m M illig a n on th e

R V C o m m itte e a n d o n a c ritic a l c o m m e n ta ry o f th e b o o k o f
Jo h n fo r P h ilip S ch aff. W . M illig a n “ ...w e n t to G e rm a n y , and
stu d ie d at th e U n iv e rsity o f H a lle. A fte r h is r e tu r n .. .h e b e g a n to
w rite artic le s o n B ib lic a l a n d c ritic a l su b je c ts fo r v a rio u s
re v ie w s. T h is led to h is a p p o in tm e n t in 1860 to th e
p ro fe s s o rs h ip of B ib lic a l criticism in th e U n iv e rs ity of
A b e rd e e n . In 1870 h e w a s a p p o in te d o n e o f th e c o m m itte e fo r
th e re v is io n o f th e tra n s la tio n o f th e N e w T e s ta m e n t.” W illia m
M illig a n w a s “p ro fe s s o r o f d iv in ity a n d B ib lica l criticism”
(http://www.191 lencyclopedia.org/William Milligan; see also Schaff-Herzog, vol. 7, p. 379 and
vol. 8, pp. 30-31).
Moulton, James Hope (1863-1917)
Ja m e s H o p e M o u lto n w a s th e
e ld e st so n o f th e Revised Version
C o m m itte e m em b er, W illia m
F id d ia n M o u lto n . A n o th e r
g e n e ra tio n of M o u lto n s-M illig a n s
p u t to g e th e r th e ir le x ic o n to try to
d e fe n d th e p re v io u s g e n e ra tio n ’s
Revised Version. “ In c o n ju n c tio n
w ith G. M illig a n ,” Ja m e s H ope
M o u lto n s c o u re d th e w o rld to try to
d e fe n d h is fa th e r’s c o rru p t Revised
Version a g a in st th e sw ell of
c ritic ism it w a s re c e iv in g fro m
B ib le -lo v in g C h ristia n s. M o u lto n fin a lly re so rte d to d ig g in g in

th e “ E g y p tia n R u b b ish -H e a p s” to fin d w o rd s a n d id eas th at
w o u ld m atch th e c o rru p t E g y p tia n m a n u s c rip ts fro m w h ic h th e
Revised Version w a s tak en . M o u lto n q u ic k ly d u m p e d his
fin d in g s in to a n e w le x ic o n e n title d , Vocabulary o f the Greek
New Testament, illustrated from the Papyri and other non-
literary sources (1 9 1 4 -1 9 3 0 ) (Oxford Dictionary o f the Christian Church, 2nd
ed.).
Rubbish, Arabs, Cardinals, & Mummy Cases
Ja m e s M o u lto n ’s le ctu re, g iv e n in 1914, w a s ap tly

e n title d , “ E g y p tia n R u b b ish -H e a p s a n d th e S tu d y o f th e N e w
T e s ta m e n t.” H is L e x ic o n ’s “ G e n e ra l In tro d u c tio n ” said his
p a p y ru s h a d c o m e fro m “ ru b b is h ” fro m E g y p tia n s w h o “ d u m p it
o u tsid e o f th e to w n .” H e said , “ B u t th e g re a t m a ss o f p a p y ri
c o m e fro m th e ru b b ish h e a p s, risin g so m e tim e s to a h e ig h t o f
tw e n ty to th irty feet, on th e o u tsk irts o f o ld E g y p tia n to w n s an d
v illa g e s ’ (Moulton & Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament, General
Introduction). T h e first d is c o v e ry w a s m a d e b y “ A ra b s,” a d isc o v e ry

w h ic h fell “ in to th e h an d s o f C a rd in a l S te fa n o B o rg ia .” T he
n e x t w a s a “ larg e n u m b e r o f p a p y ri fro m P to le m a ic m u m m y -
c a s e s ” (N o w , d o e s n ’t th a t so u n d ju st lik e G o d ... b rin g in g h is
real tru th to us th ro u g h “ ru b b is h ,” “ A ra b s ,” C a th o lic
“ C a rd in a ls ,” a n d d e a d E g y p tia n “ m u m m y ” c a se s .” ) (Moulton &
Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament, General Introduction).
M o u lto n ’s p a p y ri also c a m e fro m E g y p tia n “ to m b s”

w h ic h c o n ta in e d “ m u m m ifie d c ro c o d ile s ” ! T h e c ro c o d ile w a s a
g o d o f th e E g y p tia n s. “ [F ]ro m th e in te rio r o f th e b e a st th ere
c a m e ro lls a n d ro lls o f p a p e r” ... “ [T ]h e w a ste p a p e r w h ic h ca m e
o u t o f th e c ro c o d ile s in th a t to m b w a s e n o u g h to m a k e a lm o st
tw o b ig b o o k s fu ll.” H is lex ica l d e fin itio n s are, in h is w o rd s,
b a s e d o n “tra s h ” fro m “ th e b e a s t” a n d o th e r “ ru b b is h .” H e
b e g in s h is le c tu re w ith th e a d m iss io n th a t h is le x ic a l d e fin itio n s
may be “ ...speculation.” Sometimes speculation may be wrong,

but at least it may possibly prove stimulating” (The entire lecture by
M oulton, given in Northfield in 1914, entitled “ Egyptian Rubbish-Heaps and the Study o f the
N ew Testam ent” can be found at: http://w w w .abcog.org/m oultonl.htm , 10/19/2006).
Language: From God to M an or From M an to God?
According to Moulton, his lexicon bases its word

meanings, wherever possible, on secular writings o f “Greek
speaking E gyptians” from “Alexandria.” He denies the
historically attributed “Hebraic element” in the Greek o f the
New Testament, saying that there was no such thing as “Biblical
Greek (M oulton, The Vocabulary, Introduction). His lexicon’s “General
Introduction” asserts that,
“ ...[T]he language o f the New Testament...has
been regarded as standing by itself as ‘New
Testament Greek’.. .In general it had been hastily
classed as ‘Judaic’ or ‘Hebraic’ G reek...So, far
from the Greek o f the New Testament being a
language by itself, or even, as one German
scholar called it, ‘a language o f the Holy Ghost’
its main feature was that it was the ordinary
vernacular Greek o f the period...It is leading to
the re-w riting of o u r Lexicons and G ram m ars
of the New T e stam en t...” (M oulton, The Vocabulary,
General Introduction).
After nearly 2000 years o f Bible study where Christians

used only the Bible itself, Moulton and G.A. Deissmann sought
“new foundations,” based on secular writings! (Deissmann to Moulton,
27 December 1909, The Origin and Scope o f M oulton and M illig a n ’s Vocabulary o f the Greek
New Testament..., G.H. R. Horsley, John Rylands Library, M anchester, Bulletin, Vol. 76 (1)
1994).
Did it not occur to them that popular language usually

follows and copies the Bible, since the Bible is the most widely
circulated and copied document in a culture? This has
been attested to by the influence Luther’s German Bible had on

the German language and the strong influence the KJB has had
on the English language. This shifting of vocabulary and
language structure from the Bible to the culture does not
necessitate the re-defining of Holy Bible words by secular
standards. Does God care what the Egyptian lawyer’s definition
of ‘love’ is, or what the unsaved Egyptian’s definition of time
is? The purpose o f the Bible is to tell man what God thinks
about things.
M oulton Defends His F a th e r’s C o rru p t RV G reek Text
O f course, the Greek text Moulton advocates is the

corrupt “uncial” type, used by Westcott and Hort. He calls “the
greatest o f all manuscripts, the Vatican manuscript
http-z/wwwahcog.org/mouitoni.htm, io/i9/2oo6). He boasts of “the notable
work of Westcott and Hort, to show that we are in a better
position to-day for recovering the ipsissima verba of the New
Testament autographs...” His lexicon’s “General Introduction
goes on to give examples of how his “rubbish provides
“frequent corroboration” for his father’s Westcott-Hort Greek
text and the Revised Version. The bible he promotes for its
“valuable” translation is his father’s corrupt Revised Version
(M oulton, The Vocabulary, Introduction). His job of justifying his father S
life’s work, the Revised Version, is seen over and over in his
lexicon, where the RV, “need no longer raise any qualms”
(M oulton, The Voeabu,ary, General Introduction). U p o n d i s c o v e r i n g WOrdingS
that matched the King James Bible, Milligan squirmed. He

warned, “ [S]ome may be tempted to quote in support of the
A.V. rendering of Mt. vi:13” one of the Egyptian papyri, which
proves that “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever. Amen” is an early reading (George M illigan, Selections
From the G reek Papyri, Cambridge: University Press, 1912, pp. 132, 134).
Moulton & Deissmann
“ I f th e re fo re th e lig h t th a t is in th e e b e d a rk n e ss,
h o w g re a t is th a t d a rk n e s s !” M att. 6:23
[B Jeh in d th e m a n o th e r n a m e sh o u ld n o t b e fo rg o tte n ,” th at
o l G u sto v A d o lf D e iss m a n n (1 8 6 6 -1 9 3 7 ), “ h is c lo se st frie n d in
G e rm a n y ” a n d a h ig h e r c ritic o f
th e B ib le. D e is sm a n n w ro te Light
from the Ancient East. D e iss m a n n
w as “ o n e o f th e le a d in g fig u re s in
th e in c ip ie n t e c u m e n ic a l
m o v e m e n t a n d in th e fo u n d a tio n
of th e W o rld C o u n c il of
C h u rc h e s ... (The Origin and Scope o f
Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary o f the Greek
New Testament.... G.H.R. Horsley, John Rylands
Library, Manchester, Bulletin, Vol. 76 (1) 1994 ).
D e is s m a n n w a s th e m u c k ra k e r
w h o p ro v id e d th e “g a rb a g e ” fro m
E g y p t fo r th e M o u lto n -M illig a n
lex ico n . M o u lto n ask e d
D e issm a n n to b e h is le x ic o n ’s c o -a u th o r first, b u t D e issm a n n
w as w o rk in g o n h is o w n lex ico n , so G . M illig a n w a s a s e c o n d
ch o ice. [T ]h e d a ta w h ic h D e iss m a n n h a d c o lle c te d o v e r m a n y
y ears fo r h is ‘o p u r v ita e ’ w e re d is p e rse d to th e w in d s a fte r his
d eath by s o ld ie rs ” d u rin g th e R u ssia n o c c u p a tio n , so his
“d ic tio n a ry p la n ca m e to n o th in g ,” b y G o d ’s g ra c e (D e issm a n n
to M o u lto n , 12 Ja n u a ry 1907 (c)). D e iss m a n n w ro te to “ m y d e a r
M o u lto n ” sa y in g “ I ...h o p e o n ly th a t y o u ca n so o n a g a in sw in g
the sw o rd o f th e b ib lic al p h ilo lo g is t.” D e iss m a n n a d m itte d to
M o u lto n , “ I h a v e b ee n a tta c k e d b y th e c o n se rv a tiv e p re s s as, on
th e w h o le , I w e re not a th e o lo g ia n and have m ade no
c o n trib u tio n to th e u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e N e w T e sta m e n t, b u t
ra th e r to th e m isu n d e rsta n d in g o f the
New Testam ent...” Deissmann added that it was only probable

that Jesus understood Greek. (Deissmann to Moulton, 19
February 1908) (The Origin and Scope o f Moulton and M illigan’s Vocabulary o f the
G re^N ew T estam ent..., G. H. R Horsley, John Rylands Library, M anchester, Bulletin, Vol. 76
(1) 1994).
James Hope Moulton Approves Pagan Religions
“Moulton published four books on Zoroastrianism and

Parsism: Early religious poetry o f Persia (Cambridge
University Press, 1911), Early Zoroastrianism (the Hibbert
Lectures; London: Williams & Norgate, 1913), The teaching o f
Zarathushtra (Bombay: P.A. Wadia, 1917), and The treasure o f
the Magi (published posthumous, London: Oxford University,
1917) (The Origin and Scope o f Moulton and M illigans Vocabulary f ^ G r t t k N m
Testament..., G.H. R. Horsley. John Rylands Library, M anchester, Bulletin, Vol. 76 (1) ).
Zoroastrianism is a religion from Iran which worships a

god named Mazda. It professes a dualism wherein Mazda is m
competition with an evil god named Angra Mainyu. Fire
worship is often associated with this religion also. O f this
religion Moulton says it “nowhere includes what is untrue” (James
Hope M oulton, The Treasure o f the Magi: A Study o f Zoroastrianism, L ondon. Humphrey,
Milford 1917, P. 211). His writing entitled, Syncretism in Religion as

Illustrated in the History o f Parsism (Zoroastnans m India)
(1908) speaks of his belief that all religions are good; he, like
Westcott, believed that God approved of such religions a n d that
Christ was just the icing on the cake that they needed.
“Moulton was a pacifist. For some time, in fact he was vice-
president of the London Peace Society...” a * On*.
Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament..., G.H. R. Horsley,
Rylands Library, M anchester, Bulletin, Vol. 76 (1) 1994 ).
“In 1915 he went to India to lecture on and pursue his

studies o f Zoroastrianism” and to travel, “lecturing to the Parsis
on Zoroastrianism.” The Lord saw fit to sink his sinking view ot
the Bible, as “He lost his life through submarine action on t e
return journey in 1917” at the young age o f 54 (Moulton, The Treasure,

The book, The Treasures
p. x; Oxford D ictionary o f the Christian Church, 2nd ed.).
o f the Magi was posthumously published by J.N. Farquhar with

help from “the Right Reverend Dr. Casartelli, Roman Catholic
Bishop of Salford,” whose “friendship” with Moulton the
book S Foreword concedes (M oulton, The Treasure, p. xiii).
Moulton’s books, such as The Treasure o f the Magi: A

study o f Modern Zoroastrianism, are a defense o f the religion of
Iran, not a criticism of it. The following two chapter titles give a
glimpse into Moulton’s Treasure:
Ceremonial Life: Fire-Temples and Towers

The Parsis and Christian Propaganda
He chides John Wilson, an early Christian missionary to

these Parsis “wizards,” for writing a book full o f “attacks he
delivered against their cherished beliefs” (M oulton, The Treasure, pp. 3,
226). I f Moulton was a Christian, he was a very confused one.
The following are direct quotes from his book, The Treasure o f
the Magi (taken from Questia.com):
1.) “Zarathustra...is dimly identified as a storied Eastern

Sage who taught fire-worship and dualism, that is the
division o f the world between Ormazd (Ahura Mazdah)
and Ahriman (Angra Mainyu), the Good and the Evil
Powers, equal and co-eternal” (p. 5). [Moulton ignores
these aspects o f the religion as widely practiced and
historically documented, and tries to ferret out and read
into these ideas a foreshadowing o f ‘Christian’ thought.
Tough jo b ...]
2.) “The doctrine o f the Atonement, as taught in the
popular theology, and even by missionaries like Wilson
himself, presents difficulties enough to the thoughtful
Christian...” (p. 222). [The article in the Schaff—Herzog
Encyclopedia on the Atonement points to “Mystical

Theories and their Advocates” and includes, o f course,
the carver of the Revised Version B.F
W estcott.. .which was based on a hypothesis.. .borrowed
apparently directly from William M illigan...though it
goes back ultimately to the Socinian [the antitrinitarian
m o v e m e n t ] ” ] Schaff-Herzog, vol. 1, p. 352; vol. x, p. 488).
3.) “He [Jesus] left behind in Heaven the omniscience that

would have told him who wrote a Psalm, or what causes
curvature o f the spine” (pp. 236-237).
4.) “Wilson sternly refuses to allow Zarathushtra the title of
Prophet...There are few Christian thinkers now who
would grudge the title o f Prophet to the author of the
Gathas” [Zoroastrianism’s so-called holy book]. “In
Wilson’s day it was hardly possible to read the Gathas
so as to appreciate their religious value’ (pp. 224, 225).
“But out o f the darkness there breaks an excellent glory
and we see the great old saints o f other days. Moses and
Elijah, Zarathushtra and Gautama [Buddha] and
Mahavira, Socrates [sodomite] and Plato, Kabir and
Ram anuja... (p. 232).
5.) He said that “Christians would accept heartily the
statement that, “The term Jesus-Christ expresses the
identity or at-one-ment o f the perfect man Jesus who
had identified himself with Christ, and the Divinity in
man known as Christ” (p. 221).
6.) “Dr. Daji [his translator and the author o f the above
statement] would have done better to apply another
Christian term, the Logos, to represent his conception
o f the Divine Spark in all of us” (p. 222).
7.) “[T]he new impulse given to our knowledge by Charles
Darwin, has taught us of an upward movement
everywhere, every species having before it the unconscious

aim, as it were o f development into something more
advanced” (p. 242). “He [God?] is before all things busying
himself with the higher stages o f an endless development,
which began countless ages ago in the protoplasm ...” (p.
245).
8.) “There are some aspects of prayer in which the best types of
Eastern piety may help the Western seeker to realize ideals
conspicuous in the New Testament” (p. 250).
M oulton’s Grievous Grammar o f New Testament Greek
M oulton’s “Grammar of New Testament

Greek...embodied many o f his [Deissmann’s] conclusions”
about the use o f secular and pagan sources to define Bible
words. Moulton said the Grammar was “a work committed to
me by my father, whose collaborator I was to have been in thus
rewriting as a new book the edition o f W iner’s famous
Grammar Which he published in 1870” (Jam es Hope M oulton, An
Introduction to the Study o f New Testament Greek, London: Robert Culley, Preface, 3rd edition
Revised, p. ix, x; also Oxford D ictionary o f the Christian Church, 2nd ed.).
Observe a few o f M oulton’s grievous mistakes:
1.) Moulton calls Jesus “The carpenter’s Son,” just like the
cynics in Jesus’ day who quipped, “Is not this the
carpenter’s [Joseph’s] son” (Matt. 13:55). This denial of
the deity o f Christ and the virgin birth matches his father’s
RV which changed Luke 2:33 from “Joseph and his
mother to his father and his mother (Jam es Hope M oulton,
Introduction to the Study o f N ew Testament Greek, appendix: A F irst R eader in New
Testament Greek, p. 9).
2.) Moulton’s Introduction to Greek, like all devilish Greek

textbooks, asks the student to “Correct the following
mistranslations o f the A.V.” (M oulton, Introduction to the Study,

appendix, First Reader, p. 44).
3.) Moulton says W estcott’s RV reading is best for Rev.
21:27, because it allows that “some of these evil doers
were written in the Book of Life” (M oulton, Introduction to the Study,
p. 233).
4.) Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20).
Moulton’s trash-to-treasure turns it into “Wherever there
are two, they are not without God.” By leaving out “in my
name” Moulton gives credence to the idea that all religions
are the same. Moulton’s “rubbish adds, Raise the stone,
and there thou shalt find Me; cleave the wood, and there
am I ” (The only thing under a rock is usually a slug; the only thing hiding under the
O f these added WOrds, Moultotl

w ood pile is a snake, not Jesus!)
asserted in his lecture, that “it is highly probable that the

words fell from the M aster’s lips” http://w ww.abcog.org/m ouitoni.htm ,
10/19/2006).
Moulton’s lecture claims that the K JV ’s “faith is the

substance” (Hebrews 11:1) should be “faith is the title deed,
based on some Egyptian legal document. However, a title deed
is not the actual “substance” of which it writes, but only a piece
of paper. With the KJV, one gets the solid substance, the real
thing, not just a promissory note. Why would God lose his
words and the meanings o f them for nearly 2000 years, until
they were discovered in the “rubbish” or inside an Egyptian
“crocodile god?” God was not waiting for these discoveries, he
had already perfectly preserved his word and his definitions
within the Holy Bible. James Hope Moulton was a confused
young man who spent and lost his life trying to defend his
father’s much maligned, corrupt Revised Version. If you haven t
read his father’s RV, you will hear it quoted from those who
say, “That word in Greek m eans...” when they are reading from
the Moulton & Milligan Vocabulary o f the Greek New

Testament or any other book with their name attached.
Moulton, Harold Keeling: UBS Greek Text Contributor
The fruit does not fall far from the tree. Harold was the son
of James Hope Moulton and the grandson o f William Fiddian
Moulton o f the RV. He edited The Analytical Greek Lexicon
(Revised), basing it upon the lexicon o f his father, which was
based upon the RV o f his grandfather. He was the translation
secretary for the British and Foreign Bible Society, which may
account for the corruption which is evident in their foreign
bibles printed during that and subsequent periods. Although
only five or six names are listed as editors o f the early editions
o f the corrupt United Bible Societies Greek New Testament,
there were actually eight participants. In addition to Bruce
Metzger, Kurt Aland, Arthur Voobus, Matthew Black, and
Allen Wikgren, the three other men who participated include:
“J. Harold Greenlee, Robert P. Markham, and Harold K.
Moulton.” The text was done, as Metzger admits, “On the basis
o f Westcott and Hort’s edition o f the Greek New Testament.”
Many unknowingly access Harold Moulton’s definitions

when they use the dictionary in the back o f the corrupt UBS
Greek New Testament. In addition to Harold Moulton’s work
on the punctuation o f that Greek text, among other things, he is
thanked profusely for his “wise counsel” in the production of
the “Greek-English Dictionary” included in M etzger’s United
Bible Society’s Greek Text, 4th edition. The Dictionary’s
Preface thanks Moulton and says, “the meanings are given in
present-day English, rather than in accord with traditional
ecclesiastical terminology.” This diluting and admitted
secularization o f the words o f the Holy Bible, with the help o f
416 HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
Harold Moulton and others, characterizes all lexicons. Imagine,

corrupt Greek text users, accessing Moulton’s English mind via
the dictionary in the back of their Greek text, while KJB users
define KJB words, using Moulton’s same English word choices,
in their Greek Analytical Lexicon. Why would KJB users
consult the admittedly secular English word choice of
Moulton’s lexicon, based upon the Revised Version of 1881,
Westcott and Hort, and the UBS edition, led by Metzger and
Catholic Cardinal Carlo ‘M aria’ Martini? (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland,
Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, and Bruce M etzger, The Greek New Testament,
4,h Revised Ed.; United Bible Societies, 1993, A Concise Greek-English D ictionary Preface>
after p. 918; Bruce M etzger, The Reminiscence o f an Octogenarian, Peabody, Mass.;
Hendrickson Publishers, 1997, pp. 2, 69-70).
Moulton-Milligan Today
Today, the Moulton-Milligan lexicon is being revised by

John Lee and G. Horsely. Lee admits that “the concise,
seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often
does, conceal many sins — indecision, compromise, imperfect
knowledge, guesswork, and above all, dependence on
predecessors” (B iblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in H onor of
Frederick W Danker, ed. B. Taylor, J. Lee, R. Burton, and R. W hitaker, Grand Rapids;
Erdm ann, 2004, p. 66). How unlike the Holy Bible, o f which “every
word of God is pure” (Prov. 30:5).
The Egyptian “rubbish” was blown to the wind but has

settled again in all current lexicons. Logos Bible Software
offers Moulton and Milligan’s The Vocabulary o f the Greek
New Testament. Logos notes, “If you use BADG (Bauer, Arndt,
Danker, Gingrich Lexicon, you have seen the abbreviation ‘M-
M ’ at the end of many entries”
(http://w w w .logos.com /products/prepub/details/2599,10/20/2006).
The dark shadow in Moulton and Milligan is cast over

the remaining lexicons to be discussed: Vine, Wuest, Bauer,
Danker and all subsequent lexicons.
Copycats
• W.E. Vine
• Kenneth Wuest
■ Marvin Vincent
Chapter 12
Vine’s
Expository Dictionary
VINE’S EXPOSITORYDICTIONARY 4 19
Sum mary
fV.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary
■ V ine’s definitions or text is from the Revised

Version o f 1881 and its underlying W estcott-
H o rt G reek text.
■ Vine’s definitions are the very words used in

new versions (NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV,
Holman CSB, etc.). New versions also copy the
Revised Version (R.V.) and American Standard
Version (A.S.V.) o f 1901, the two main sources
of Vine’s definitions and new version
vocabulary.
■ Vine also follows corrupt lexicons, such as

Gesenius, T hayer, and the “Egyptian”
“rubbish” o f M oulton and Milligan.
Sum m ary
W.E. V ine’s Expository Dictionary
Vine’s use o f the Revised Version (R.V.) and

its corrupt Greek text sometimes skews his
theology. His essay on “the blood” is heresy.
Vine contradicts him self (in theology,

definitions, and grammar) in order to match the
corrupt Revised Version (R.V.).
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary o f Old

and New Testament Words is misleading.
Although Vine’s name is printed in almost 3-
inch letters on the cover, it does not contain the
text of V ine’s book, An Expository Dictionary
o f Old Testament Words at all. (New Tappan,
NJ: Fleming Revell, 1978). The Old Testament
section is not Vine’s work, but was done in
consultation with N K JV and NIV translators.
Consequently, those who use his dictionary are
often defining words with the NIV and NKJV.
(Documentation will follow.)

VINE’S EXPOSITORYDICTIONARY 421
Sum m ary
The Collected Writings o f W.E. Vine
It appears at times that Vine cannot read Greek
and does not know the differences between his corrupt
Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament and the pure
Textus Receptus. Note the following example. Vine
states that:
“workers at home, - this R.V. rendering
represents the word oikouros, found in the
most authentic manuscripts” (The Collected
Writings o f W.E. Vine, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996,
vol. 3, p. 240; vol. 4, p. 278).
From that his readers are meant to gather that:

1.) “oikouros” is the word underlying the R.V.
rendering “workers at home” and,
2.) the manuscripts underlying the R.V. Greek text use
the word “oikouros.” He is wrong about the meaning
of the word and he is wrong about the Greek word in
the text.
The facts are:

The Greek word underlying his recommended R.V.
translation (and all corrupt Greek texts including the
UBS and Nestle-Aland) is oikourgos\ it is a
completely different word than oikouros. The word
oikourgos (not oikouros) means “workers at home.”
The first root oikos, means ‘home,’ and begins both
words. The second half o f these words contains two

completely different words, although they appear
similar except for a gamma (y) ‘g.’ The ending o f the
R.V. Greek word, oikourgos, comes from the Greek
word “ergon” meaning “work.” You may have seen
the phrase, ergonomic design, that is, designed for
work. The KJV translates the pure Greek text which
has oikouros. It ends with the word, ouros, meaning
“keeper.” Hence the KJV has “keepers at home” and
Vine’s R.V. and new versions have “workers at
home.”
Vine is neither an expert in Greek, nor in the
Greek textual variants. Throw his books out.
He-Men Woman-Haters’ Club?

Vine’s text continually promotes ‘works.’ In Titus
2:5 it cracks the whip with a guilt trip over
disabled and elderly ladies. It charges all women
to be “workers at home.” He does not tell his
unsuspecting reader that the majority o f Greek
manuscripts have oikouros, which is perfectly
rendered by the KJV as, “keepers at home.” The
KJV word encompasses all women and also
includes all of the spiritual senses that are involved
in keeping a home. Being “keepers at home is
possible for all women. Working at home is not
always possible for the aged and disabled. (More
exam ples, such as his use o f the ‘n ’ word will follow.)
VINE’S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY 423
V ine’s Complete Expository Dictionary o f Old and

New Testament Words
The title of the book is a

fraud! (Thomas Nelson is
the publisher and was
charged with fra u d by the
Securities and Exchange
Commission for other
malfeasance.) Just as there
are commentaries and
publishers who use the
names o f Tyndale and
Wycliffe, so it seems that
this publisher is using the conservatism associated with the era
o f W.E. Vine to hawk what is, in reality, a hybrid product
containing much work by today’s liberal new version editors.
The title o f Vine’s dictionary, being sold today, subtly appears
to misrepresent its authorship. From the title one would assume
that it is V ine’s Expository Dictionary o f Old Testament Words.
It is not.
Instead, it contains N elson’s Expository Dictionary o f

the Old Testament, by liberals Merrill F. Unger and William
White, Jr., a corrupt NKJV translator. (Nelson publishes the
NKJV also.) White was a collaborator on another book with J.I.
Packer, o f the infamous ecumenical ‘Evangelicals and
Catholics’ pact (see his rear dust jacket). Denying inspiration
and preservation, W hite’s Introduction charges that the original
Hebrew Old Testament has been “revised several times in
antiquity” (W.E. Vine, M errill F. Unger, W illiam W hite, Jr., Vine's Complete Expository
Dictionary o f Old and New Testament Words, Nashville, TN: Thomas N elson Publishers, 1984,
p. x). White claims that the vile RSV (1952) is “more scholarly”
than the KJV (V in e s Com plete, p. xviii). The RSV s translators were
known Communist sympathizers and were cited as such by the
U.S. House o f Representatives Committee on Un-American
Activities and the 1960 Official U.S. Air Force Reserve
Training Manual (Bruce M etzger, The Reminiscence o f an Octogenarian, Hendrickson
Publishers, 1977, p. 77). The RSV denies the virgin birth and destroys
Old Testament Messianic prophecies. It had, as its editor, an

unsaved Jewish professor, Harry Orlinsky.
White and Unger’s Old Testament Dictionary includes

contributions by other NKJV members, including Lewis
Goldberg, Leonard Coppes, Horrace Hummel, Eugene Merrill,
and Willem van Gemeren. Naturally, their preface recommends
Nelson’s “New King James,” as well as the NASB, and other
corrupt versions (v in e's Complete, xviii). Some o f Vine s current
contributors were on both the NIV and NKJV committees; these
include R.K Harrison and Walter Roehrs. Its other contributors
include NIV translators Louis Goldberg and Gleason Archer.
The latter’s Encyclopedia o f Bible Difficulties, “is largely
designed to reduce faith in the infallibility o f G od’s word,”
observes British author, Dusty Peterson (letter on file).
Both the NIV and NKJV prefaces admit that they use
the corrupt Hebrew Old Testament, the German Stuttgart Biblia
Hebraica (as originated by anti-Semite Rudolf Kittel and based
on readings in the Leningrad manuscript). Therefore, the
Dictionary’s Old Testament definitions come from a corrupt
edition o f the Hebrew Bible!
The Dictionary’s ‘definitions’ o f each word include

words used in new versions, even though they are not often
identified as such. (Unfortunately, in the process o f researching
the corruption in new versions, I have memorized the new
versions’ substitutes.) These ‘new version words’ cover every
page o f the Old Testament section o f this dictionary. NIV and

NKJV liberal terms and thoughts abound and are used as
‘definitions.’ For example, the KJV’s “sodomites” are ‘defined’
as “cult prostitutes,” the very words used in new versions (;Vine's
Complete, p. 286). Wine, they believe, “clearly represents an
intoxicating beverage to make one feel good (v in e ’s Com plete, p.

289). They seem to give the impression that ferm ented grape juice
is acceptable for a little, just not a big, ‘buzz.’ They miss the
Bible’s own primary definition which says, “wine is found in
the cluster,” not in the keg (Isa. 65:8).
The use o f the corrupt pre-Nazi, anti-Semitic German-

influenced Hebrew Old Testament text is further compounded
by the use o f similarly suspect German-based lexicons. The
Dictionary’s introduction admits that “many o f them are written
in G erm an...” (V in e ’s com plete, p. ix). What an oxymoron: an anti-
Semitic Hebrew Old Testament! The editors encourage and
facilitate looking up words in their favorite reference works, the
“Hebrew and English Lexicon o f the Old Testament by Brown,
D river, and Briggs” (a translation o f the Gesenius lexicon from
Germany). They also recommend “Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance” ( V ine’s Complete, p. 3 1 3 ) .
The entire Old Testament portrays the history o f God

trying to separate Israel from the ways and thoughts o f the
heathen nations surrounding them. Yet the first sentence in most
o f the Dictionary’s Old Testament entries ties the word to an
“Arabic,” “Egyptian,” “Amorite,” or other so-called “cognate”
language. The editors provide the Islamic interpretation, in
addition to getting word meanings from anti-Semitic Germany
(e.g. pp. 264, 260). Devilish combination! The two nations, which
have most persecuted the Jews, team up to annihilate the

Hebrew’s Holy book. The non-Jewish founder o f the publisher,
Thomas Nelson, is of Middle-Eastern origin; illusions that his

heathen heritage provides insight into the real meaning of
Hebrew words could not have made him smile as he read this
dictionary, could it?
The Dictionary’s publisher admits that the New

Testament is not entirely V ine’s work either, as today’s editors
changed what they called Vine’s “numerous factual and
typographical errors’ in the New Testament section (vines
Com plete, N ew Testam ent section, p. iii). Evidently it WaS corrected Using
the corrupt German-based Bauer lexicon, since they encourage

the use o f Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich’s A Greek-English
Literature ” (V in e’s Com plete, New Testam ent section, p. iv).
The following is an examination o f Vine’s actual work

and his contributions to the so-called Vine ’s Complete
Expository Dictionary o f Old and New Testament Words.
“Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou,

and reign over us.” Judges 9:12
Introduction to W.E. Vine (1873-1949) and his own V ine’s

Expository Dictionary o f New Testament Words
Vine’s An Expository Dictionary o f New Testament

Words was first published by Oliphants in four volumes
between 1939 and 1941.
Lexicon authors, Briggs and Bauer, are like the big

Philistine giant, Goliath, who wanted to destroy the people of
God. W.E. Vine, on the other hand, is like Samson. Sometimes
Vine fights fo r God, resounding truths which permeated his
generation of King James Bible believers. But just as often,
W.E. Vine is lying in the lap o f Delilah, listening to her echo
the very words of the Philistines — literally! Satan saw that

giants were too large a target. So he switched to subtle “words
and fair speeches” (Rom. 16:18), by which men are blinded, as
Samson was. Many are blinded to the fact that Vine gives ‘new
version words’ as ‘the definitions’ for KJV words. These are
Philistine words, posed as giants, shadowing over KJV words.
The enemy’s words have now moved into the churches and are
much closer than David would have allowed Goliath to be.
It is frightening to face the dark giant o f our sinfulness

in the clear mirror o f scriptures. The lusts o f the mind lure men
to lurk and hide behind books that inform, rather than read a
Holy Bible that transforms. Man must avoid the natural
temptation to be vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. Vine
takes unfair advantage o f the fact that his dictionary was written
for those who know little or no Greek, but may want to appear
that they do. The natural man would rather say, ‘I know Greek,’
than ‘I know God.’ As a result, Vine’s readers know the mind
o f Vine and not the mind o f God.
Vine’s Sources
Like Delilah, Vine merely repeats the words o f the

enemy’s voice from previous lexicons or versions. When Vine’s
work came out in 1939, Alexander Reese charged him with mis
using the lexicons o f others. Reese said Vine read another
man’s lexicon “on the skew” and was guilty of,
“ ...completely misunderstanding his account o f

the word. “When teachers misread the Lexicon,”
he added, “how can we trust their reading o f the
N.T., which it explains?”” (Collected, vol. 1, p. xvii).
Vine’s original Preface to his, An Expository Dictionary

o f New Testament Words, is now buried in the middle o f the
volume for few to see. I wonder why? Is it because it reveals
and exposes the four corrupt sources o f his definitions? Vine
lists the following sources:
1. The corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort o f 1881.

2. The Revised Version o f Westcott and Hort o f 1881.
3. The lexicons and writings of members of the Revised
Version (and ASV) Committees: B.F. Westcott, J. Henry
Thayer, James Strong, Richard C. Trench, and J.B.
Lightfoot.
4. The corrupt lexicon by the son o f a member o f the Revised
Version Committee, who wanted to defend his father’s
corrupt R.V.: Moulton and Milligan.
Vine pulled his definitions from God’s enemies: These

include Unitarians (Thayer), Spiritualists and New-Platonists
(Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot), Ecumenists (Moulton and
Milligan), and unbelievers (Gesenius, etc.). V ine’s book, The
Roman Empire, found its way to the desk o f Mussolini in 1940.
Mussolini said that he “was interested to hear” that the
scriptures foretold what “he himself has at heart” regarding the
reviving o f the Roman Empire (Collected, vol. l, p. w in ) . Although it
was never Vine’s intent to give Mussolini a ‘go ahead’, Vine’s
work is yet today providing incentive and ammunition to God’s
enemies. Though some o f Vine’s theology would stop him from
being invited to preach in our churches, his words still echo
from their walls and Bible College halls.
Vine Bridges to New Versions
Vine was called,
“A Bridge Builder between Traditional Bible

Translations and New Ones” (Collected, v oi. i , P. viii).
Vine’s Expository Dictionary was and still is naively

used by King James Bible students, but it defines words using
the words in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and Revised Version
o f 1881! These R.V. words were also often copied by the NIV,
NASB, TNIV, NKJV and ESV. Why would a pastor use Vine’s
Dictionary to help people understand what a Bible word
‘actually means,’ when he could more easily just recommend
that they get an R.V. or a new version? Then they would know
what he plans to tell them it means. Haven’t you heard: “That’s
an interesting word. In the Greek it can m ean...” (To Vine’s
R. V. he leans). Such a Bible teacher has been hoodwinked and
has never seen the source o f V ine’s definitions. Travelers
searching for meaning should avoid weak vine bridges.
A visitor, sitting in a church service with a corrupt new

version, will feel quite self-satisfied when he is told that his
NIV, TNIV, NASB or NKJV has the ‘correct’ word. For
example, o f the KJV word “diligently” (the Greek word,
akribos) Vine pretends,
“The word expresses that accuracy which is the

outcome o f carefulness” (W.E. Vine, An E xpository
Dictionary o f New Testament Words, Nashville, TN: Royal Publishers,
Inc., no date, p. 17).
Where did Vine get that word? The R.V. translates

akribos as “carefully” in Matt. 2:8, Acts 18:25, and elsewhere!
The KJV translates it in those two verses as “diligently.” In

Matt. 2:8, the NIV, TEV, Phillips Modem English, and the
NEB echo the R.V.. Most o f the words in the new versions were
taken from either the R.V. (1881) or the ASV (1901). Most
students and Bible teachers do not know that they may be
‘defining’ words with the words that are in the NIV.
From A to Z, front to back, Vine continually tells the

reader that the R.V. is correct and the KJV is wrong. Speaking
o f what the word ‘actually means’, his dictionary’s citation for
“ACTUALLY” comes from the R.V.. Vine says:
ACTUALLY
“...holos, all, whole, is translated “actually” in 1
Cor. 5:1, R .V ...”
“ ...the A.V. “commonly” does not convey the
meaning” (Vine, An Expository, p. 20).
‘Actually’ is not a synonym for the word, ‘whole.’ In

fact, ‘whole’ and ‘common’ are synonyms describing totality of
number; the R.V. word ‘actually’ is about truth and veracity.
A look at the letter ‘A ’ in V ine’s dictionary reveals the

following examples o f the use of the very words of R.V. chief
translator, B.F. Westcott, a neo-Platonist who started a ‘Ghostly
Guild’! Read across the line and see Vine and the R.V. match.
The RV was written by, not only B.F. Westcott, but by child
molester C.J. Vaughan, who is exposed in chapters 22 and 23.
Perhaps the most wicked man the church of England has ever
produced, A.P. Stanley, was on the RV committee and
contributed words now seen in Vine’s. Stanley’s picture, on
page 880 o f this book, will frighten all rodents from any
basement. These men’s RV words echo today in V ine’s work.
VINE ’S EXPOSITORY DICTIONAR Y 431
A
KJV Word R.V. & New Vine’s Definition
Version’s Word A n Expository
Dictionary
abased humbled humble (p. i)

abode stand stand (P . 3)
have been spend spent (p. 3)
ability strength strength (p. 4)
able sufficient sufficient (p. 4)
abolished passing away passing away (p. 5)
in a certain place somewhere somewhere (p. 5)
were about seeking seek (p. 7)
above more more (p. 8)
abundance power power (p. i i )
gladly received welcomed welcome (p. 12)
accompanied set forw ard send forw ard (P. 13)
one mind one accord one accord (P. 15)
diligently carefulness carefully (p. 17)
object accuse accuse (p. 18)
acknowledgeth confesseth confess (p. 19)
acknowledging knowledge knowledge (P.i9 )
righteousness righteous acts act o f
righteousness
(p. 20)
KJV Word R.V. & New Vine’s Definition

Version’s Word A n Expository
Dictionary
giving adding add (p. 22 )

add supply supply (p. 22 )
increased advanced advance (p. 25)
advantageth profit profit (p. 26 )
defraud advantage advantage (p. 26 )
will counsel counsel (p. 27)
a good way afar fa r (p. 27)
affect seek seek{ P. 28 )
affection passion passionate desire (p. 28)
kindly tenderly tenderly (p. 29)

saying affirming affirm (p. 29)
afflicted suffer suffering (p. 30)
terrified affrighten frighten (p. 3i)
again a second time a second time (p. 33)
allow approveth approving (p. 40)
almost little little (p. 40)
now already already (pA\)
bewitched amazed amazed (p. 44)
hath chosen appointed appoint (p. 6 i)
appointed doomed doomed (p. 6 i)
occupation trade trade (p. 69)
assemble come together come together (p. 75)
full assurance fullness fullness (pp. 76-77)
That listing included just a fe w examples using only one

letter (A) from Vine’s An Expository Dictionary o f New
Testament Words. The other 25 letters o f the alphabet, ‘B ’- ‘Z ,’
are full o f Vine’s modus operandi, which is using the corrupt
R.V. to define Holy Bible words.
Vine’s Continual Contradictions
Vine finds fault when the KJV uses a certain word to

translate ‘the’ Greek. But when the R.V. uses that very same
English word elsewhere to translate the very same Greek word,
Vine recommends it. For example, he states,
“In 1 Cor. 4:8 and 1 John 2:8 the R.V.

corrects the A.V. “now”...by the rendering
“already”” (Vine, A n Expository, p. 41).
Then in the next breath Vine switches gears admitting

that elsewhere the usage is:
“A.V., “already,” R.V., “even now””

(Vine, A n Expository, p. 41).
Why doesn’t he say that the A.V. “corrects” the R.V.?

Vine ignores the KJV’s adeptness at selecting the correct
synonym in the correct context. He always puts forward the
purely arbitrary R.V. choice.
Vine Lives in His RV
Vine’s biographer states, “Among English versions he gave

his exclusive preference to the Revised Version, which remains
to this day the best translation for the accurate student o f the
English Bible (Percy O. Ruoff, W.E. Vine: His L ife and M inistry, London: Oliphanats,
1951 , p. 73). In Vine’s New Testament Greek Grammar, he directs

the student to:
■ “Correct your rendering from the R .V ....” (Collected (hereafter
referred to by volum e num ber only), vol. 5, Greek, p. 58).
■ “ ...correct your rendering from the English Revised
Version . . . ” (vol. 5, G reek, p. 43).
■ “Correct the result from the English Version (preferably
the Revised!” [Nelson’s publisher’s note, “or the New
Revised Standard or the New King James”] (vol. 5, Greek, P .
22 ).
■ .. [T]um to the English Version (preferably the R.V.)”
(vol. 5, Greek, p. 50).
The Introduction to The Collected Writings o f W.E. Vine

reveals,
“Mr. Vine’s usual procedure in composing
these commentaries was .. .to print the text o f the
Revised Version clause by clause...Among
English versions he gave his exclusive
preference to the Revised Version . . . ” (vol. 1, p.
xv).
In V ine’s works he states the following:
■ “The R.V. rendering is important for a proper

understanding of the meaning” (vol. 4, P. 23).
■ He believes the truth is “brought out in the accurate
rendering o f the Revised V ersion...” (vol. 4, P. 286).
■ He states, “The quotations in the present volume are
from the Revised Version, the comparatively greater
accuracy o f its translations being important for a correct
understanding o f many o f the passages considered” (vol. 5,
P- 257).
■ He says, “Quotations are from R.V. throughout” (vol. 5, p.
330).
■ He reveals that “The text o f the epistles is printed from

the Revised Version of 1 8 8 1 . . (Preface, vol. 3; vol. 2 . p. 129).
■ When he is not recommending the R.V., he recommends

the “rendering suggested by the American Revisers
[A SV ]...” the Christ-denying Unitarian, J.H. Thayer (vol.
2, p. 141).
Vine practically always chooses the R.V. reading. He says,

“ ...none o f them are as satisfactory as the R.V.. Itseems best
then to adhere to that version” (vol. 3, p. 372). He says, “The R.V.
rendering...is necessary to a right understanding o f the
meaning” (vol. 3, p. 355). He says that the R.V.:
■ “ ... gives the correct m eaning...” (vol. 2, p. 9).

■ “ ... accurately makes the distinction...” (vol. l, p. 198).
■ “ .. .gives the correct rendering” (vol. 4, pp. 71,84).
■ “ ... is supported by the fa c t...” (vol. 3, p. 180).
■ “ ... rightly p u ts... rightly h a s...” (vol. 3, p. 145).
■ “ .. .seem[s] preferable” (vol. 2, p. 36).
Vine Against the KJV
Few if any pages in Vine’s commentaries neglect to

downgrade the King James Bible (internationally called the
A.V., that is, the Authorized Version). He is so delusional that
he says that the A.V. is “now seldom printed” (vol. 2, P. 135). Today
the R.V. is NEVER printed and Cambridge University Press
cannot keep up with the demand for KJVs.
He thinks, “The R.V. rendering is preferable to the A .V ...”

Words are almost always “ ...mistranslated in the
(vol. 2, p. 94).
Authorized V ersion...,” according to Vine (vol. 5, p. 5). A few

examples represent the caustic tone in which he continually
berates the KJV. He pretends the KJV:
■. .does not give the meaning adequately” (vol. 3, p. 178).

■ .. is incorrect” (vol. 3, p. 191).
■ . .misses the meaning” (vol. 3, p. 192).
■ “ . . . i s m is le a d in g ” (vol. 3 ,pp. 365).
■. .tends to mar the translation.. (vol. 3, p. 392).
■ “ ...gives the wrong im pression...” (vol. 3, p. 395).
■ “ .. .is inconsistent with the fact...” (vol. 3, p. 396).
In truth, the KJV simply does not match his corrupt Greek
text and lexicons.
His banter continues,

■ “The accurate rendering o f the R.V., “concerning, removes the
ambiguity o f the A.V. “o f ”’ (vol. 3, p. 341).
■ “[T]he R .V .. ..expresses a change o f preposition which is lost in the
A . V . ” (vol. 3, p. 163).
■ “ ...T he R.V. rendering “from Him” is important (in contrast to the
A.V. “o f Him”)” (vol. 3, p. 342).
Vine and the ‘Originals’
Vine admits that, “No autograph MS. [original

manuscript] of any part o f the New Testament is known to
exist” (vol. i, p. 25). Ignoring the vast majority of copies dating
from the first century to the invention of printing, Vine says,
“Experience teaches us that it is hardly possible

to copy a lengthy document without making
what are called “clerica,’ i.e. clerks, errors...In
these and in other ways mistakes have so
multiplied that no two manuscripts of the New
Testament agree in every particular” (vol. 2 , p. 135).
Such a comment reveals the time Vine has given

exclusively to the text from the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
MSS.. These manuscripts disagree with each other thousands of

times in the Gospels alone.
He continually refers to these few corrupt and

abandoned manuscripts, used by Westcott and Hort, as the “best
manuscripts,” “the best texts,” and “the best MSS” (vol. 2 , PP. 22, 36;
vol. 4, p. 99; Vine, An Expository, PP. 43, 209, et al.). Vine follows this handful
o f manuscripts and ignores the majority underlying the KJV.

He believes, ““authorities” have to be weighed rather than
counted” (vol. 2 , P. 135). (He ignores the fact that a corrupt
manuscript carries little weight.) His handful o f manuscripts
include, “The Sinaitic MS. [Greek Orthodox] and other MSS,”
which include the Roman Catholic Vaticanus MS. (vol. 1, P. 352).
He adds, “ ...the resultant text arrived at by the collation o f the
best manuscripts practically represents the originals...” (vol. 1, P.
25). With his now out o f date resources, he calls these
manuscripts the “oldest” (vol. 1, P. 358). (He lived before the

collation o f the papyri, which prove that the KJV follows not
only the majority o f manuscripts, but also the oldest
manuscripts.)
The wicked Westcott-Hort Greek text o f the 1880s was

later published, with microscopic revisions by Nestle-Aland and
the United Bible Society. In Vine’s New Testament Greek
Grammar he says, “The student should obtain Nestle’s Greek
New Testament...[T]hat is the text that will be used for this
course.” One current publisher o f Vine’s grammar (Thomas
[NKJV] Nelson) adds, “This edition o f V ine’s New Testament
Greek Grammar uses the Fourth Revised Edition o f the United
Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testam ent...” (vol. 5, Greek, P. 8).
This highly cankered text continues to rely on the two
manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which were never used
by the church and were abandoned centuries ago.
Vine says that, “The carelessness o f copyists, for

instance, has given currency to a number o f false readings...
(vol. l, P. 24). He pretends the KJV comes from “discrepancy” in
existing manuscripts which contain “errors on the part of

copyists” (vol. 1, p. 56).
Vine Loves Westcott
B.F. Westcott was the chief architect of the foul Revised

Version o f 1881. He and Fenton Hort personally crafted its
novel underlying Greek text by corrupting or omitting
thousands upon thousands of words. Vine writes that in their
small edition of the Greek Text, Drs Westcott and Hort write,”
that, “the words in our opinion still subject to doubt” are few.
(vol. 2, p. 135). These spiritualists removed all of the words that they
doubted! They tampered with about 9,970 words. Vine’s

biographer says, “much o f his treatment is more in line with that
of such earlier masters as Lightfoot and Westcott” (Ruoff, P. 72).
Readers of New Age Bible Versions know that Church of

England bishop, B.F. Westcott, was a neo-Platonist and
Spiritualist (G.A. Riplinger, Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1993). The Bible
refers to ‘mediums,’ who try to contact the dead, as
necromancers. Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot founded and
trained the members o f their ‘Ghostly Guild,’ as they called it.
Although Vine wrote an article against necromancy, called
“Spiritism Unmasked,” he admits that, “In the latter part of the
last century a number o f distinguished men became interested
in the subject, and in 1891 the Society for Psychical Research
was founded”; its members came from W estcott’s Ghostly
G uild (vol. 5, p. 340; see also New A ge Bible Versions). WeStCOtt S legacy
continued as Vine reports the moving o f “a large number of
ecclesiastics into the ranks of the Spiritist,” including a well-
known bishop o f the Church o f England...” (vol. 5, P. 341). V ine’s

Publisher’s Preface puts Vine’s work in company with
commentaries by Ghostly Guild members Westcott and
Lightfoot (vol. 1, p. ix).
Vine not only defines words using W estcott’s R.V., he

begins the Preface o f Vol. 3 and very first page o f his
commentary on Thessalonians with a comment by “Dr.
WeStCOtt (vol. 3, p. 3, Preface; e.g. Vine, A n Expository, p. 54). He doses Vol.
3 by again quoting Westcott (vol. 3, P. 357).
Vine’s R.V. Follows the Corrupt Sinaiticus, etc.
Vine equates the “original” with the R.V., its underlying

Westcott and Hort Greek text, the Sinaiticus, and other corrupt
manuscripts. Vine sums up his feelings in these statements:
“ ...the R.V. is to be taken as correct, according to the most
authentic MSS.” (vol. 3 , P. 378). He repeats over and over:
■ “ ...T he R .V ....represents...the original. ..’’ (vol. 3 , p. 146).
■ “The R.V. always gives the accurate order according to the

original...[T]he R.V. is in accordance with the most authoritative
and ancient texts” (vol. 3, p. 142).
■ “ .. .the R.V., “goeth onward” follows the most authentic M SS.” (vol.
3, p. 405).
■ “The R.V. follows the most authentic MSS. here” (vol. 3, pp. 3,3 9 3 ).
O f the KJV he falsely claims,
■ “[T]he A.V. lacks authentic MS. authority. Moreover it weakens the

forceful abruptness o f the apostle’s ...” (vol. 3, p. 148).
■ “The R.V. “corrupted in mind” expresses the original more closely
than the A .V .’s “o f corrupt minds”” (vol. 3, p. 192).
It’s all about ‘me’ in the R.V.. It says, “that ye may know
our estate”; the KJV says, “that he may know your estate.”
Vine pretends that “ ...the R.V. reading is supported...The MS.

evidence is decidedly in its favor” in Col 4 : 8 (vol. 2 , P. 372).
Vine’s Definitions Are of the Westcott-Hort Greek Words!!
When Vine gives a word’s ‘meaning,’ he is defining the

Greek word in the Westcott-Hort text, not the Textus Receptus,
the Greek text underlying the KJV. For example, in Phil. 2 : 3 0
Vine follows the corrupt Greek text and translates
paraboleuomoi as “hazarding.” The KJV follows the Received
Text, translating a DIFFERENT word, parabouleuomai, as not
regarding.” So Vine defines the word in Phil. 2 : 3 0 as “to throw
aside,” which is the definition o f the wrong Greek word. If you
were sight-reading Greek, instead of looking at every letter, you
would think that the KJV had wrongly translated the word! (vol. 2,
p. 309).
Look at one Bible chapter (Colossians 4 ) , as an example of

how the words in Vine’s works are definitions o f the WRONG
GREEK word!
■ Vine defines the wrong Greek word, following the

R.V.’s corrupt text in Col. 4 : 1 2 . He charges, “ ...the best
MS. evidence gives the verb plerophored,” which he
defines as “having been fully convinced.” In truth, the
KJV text comes from another Greek word, pleroo,
meaning “complete” (vol. 2, p. 373).
■ Vine defines the wrong Greek word, following the R.V.

text in Col. 4 : 1 3 . He alleges that the R.V. word, from
ponos, is “supported by the best MSS..” He defines it as
“toil.” The KJV translates the true Greek word, zelos,
correctly as “zeal” (vol. 2, p. 373).
Observe more examples of Vine defining the wrong Greek

word:
■ Vine uses the corrupt Greek text to define “king of
saints” (hagion), which he says comes from “inferior
MSS.” He defines it under the heading “AGE,”
according to the corrupt Greek texts followed by the
R V., which say “King o f ages” (vine, A n Expository, p. 34). (The
word “saints” has been completely omitted from the new
TNIV so that only dead Catholics can be called ‘saints’.)
■ Vine ‘corrects’ the KJV’s “alms” (eleemosune) with his

corrupt Greek (dikaiosune, which the R.V. translated
“righteousness”) (Vine, An Expository, p. 41).
■ Vine’s “ ...are ye not men?” gives a hearty compliment!

The KJV’s “ ...are ye not carnal” is a reality check!
Vine pretends, “The best texts have anthropoi, “men,”
here; the A.V. “carnal” translates the manuscripts which
have sarkikoi” (vol. 2 , p. 23).
■ In 1 Tim. 6:13 Vine wrongly professes that zdogoneo is

in the “best manuscripts” and also in the margin o f his
R.V. (vol. 3, P. 195). The KJV correctly says ‘quickeneth’
following zdopoieo.
* The K JV ’s “not being mixed with faith” is falsely

criticized by Vine in favour o f “they were not united,”
which he pretends is used in his manuscripts which have
the plural of the participle (vol. 3 , p. 268).
■ Vine purports that the verb [martured] is in the passive

voice in the texts that are truly “authentic” “as in the
R .V ....” (vol. 3, p. 283).
■ O f Hebrews 10:23 he plays make-believe charging that

“MS. authority” supports the use o f the word “hope”
instead o f the word “faith,” found in the KJV (v o l. 3 , p. 3 0 4 ).
■ Vine misleadingly states that his manuscripts are

“decidedly in favor” of the text that refers to “them” in
bonds, not the KJV’s “of me in my bonds” (v o l. 3 , P . 307).
■ When the KJV says, “And again,” it is used in a literary

sense and means that what follows was stated
previously. The KJV says, “And again, when he
bringeth in the firstbegotten into the w orld...” This is
Heb. l:6 ’s retelling o f Luke 2:13-15. Vine and his R.V.
change the meaning with their, “And when He again
bringeth in the Firstborn into the w orld...” Vine says
that “again” belongs with “bringeth in” and relates to
when he will “bring Him in again...” Novel! Compare
“spiritual things with spiritual” and see the contextual
parallelism: “And again, 1 will be to him a Father
(Heb. 1:5 repeated from 2 Sam. 7:14). This certainly
does not mean that God will become his Father again.
“And again” means, ‘you have heard this before.’
■ Vine really errors in his study o f 2 Tim. 4:1 saying,
“[The] R.V., which follows the authentic

texts o f the original should be noted. The
text used by the A.V. here supports the
erroneous idea that Christ will judge the
living and the dead together at His
appearing and His kingdom” m . 3 , p. 225 ).
■ Vine slides the Lord out o f the Bible in Hebrews 10:30

saying, “The weight of textual evidence is against the
presence here o f the phrase, “saith the Lord”” (v o l. 3 , p. 3 0 7 ).
■ He echoes the lie that the KJV’s “from the beginning” is

not in the “best” manuscripts (v o l. 3 , P . 349).
■ In 2 John 1:7 Vine pretends that the KJV’s “are entered”

should be corrected by his R.V. and its “most authentic”
manuscripts, which say, “are gone forth” (v o l. 3 , P . 404 ).
■ O f 1 Cor. 2:1 Vine alleges that the text of the R.V.

“seems” to have more support than the manuscripts
which have the KJV word “testimony” [marturion] (v o l. 2 ,
p. 16).
■ Vine wrongly charges that the word “but” does not

occur “in the original in the best manuscripts,” o f 1 John
3:2 (v o l. 3 , p. 3 6 4 ).
■ V ine’s delusion brings his charge that his most

authoritative manuscripts do not have “and were
persuaded o f them” (v o l. 3 , p. 313).
■ Vine charges that the KJV’s words “unto him” “are not
part o f the original...” (v o l. 3, P. 3 8 2 ).
■ Vine purports that the KJV’s word “him” “is not in the
most authentic MSS” (v o l. 3 , p. 3 8 5 ).
■ Vine pretends, “There is no word in the original for the

A.V. “usurp”” (v o l. 3, p. 16 4 ).
■ Vine asserts that the K JV ’s “this I do” “follows inferior

M SS” (v o l. 2 , p. 6 5).
Vine & Westcott’s Skewed Views on Inspiration
When giving his ‘theory’ of inspiration, Vine quotes

B.F. Westcott to the effect that the Bible contains ideas from
God, yet has been affected by man (v o l. 1, pp. 20- 21). O f the men
who’penned the Bible, Vine concludes, “ ...the words they use
are truly their ow n...” (v o l. 1, pp. 22, 23). He quotes Westcott as
saying that the “truths which they declare receive the coloring
o f the minds through which they pass” (v o l. i , p p . 22- 23 ). (Is Westcott
admitting that his dark mind shaded his R.V.? In it, things are
not black or white, as in the KJV, but grey, like his mind s grey
matter.’)
According to Vine, these men’s words were perfect, but

only in the lost originals, the “ .. .initial work o f God” (v o l. 1, P. 27).
To Vine it appears at times that it was a “work o f God,” but not
the very words o f God. Vine cites Westcott as saying that the
view in which the Bible is “God’s words,” not man’s, is
“extreme” (v o l. 1, P . 21). Vine calls “fallacious” “the theory that the
words were merely dictated by the Spirit...” (v o l. 1, P . 24). At times
he disagrees with those who give, “undue prominence to the
divine element.” He denies what he calls,
“ ...the mechanical or organic theory. It virtually

rules out the human element. According to this
theory the Spirit o f God used the writers as mere
reporters to record messages word for word as
by dictation; they were simply penmen,
machines employed, as a typist might be
employed, to express the divine m ind...
Professor Westcott well sums up... as follows:”
(v o l. 1 , pp. 2 0 - 2 1 ) .
“ ...The purely organic theory of

inspiration...the prophet becomes a mere
soulless machine, mechanically answering
the force which moves it...” ( b . f . w e s tc o tt,
Introduction to the Study o f the Gospels, p p . 6, 7).
Obedient servants are not “soulless.” Westcott

introduces the word to misrepresent the process.
No Preservation, Just Dying on the Vine
Vine attaches some sort of ‘thought’ “inspiration” to

“the autographs themselves,” but not to any “written rendering
o f the autographs” (v o l. 1, p. 1 7 ) . He then goes on to tell the reader
that “Westcott and Hort tell u s ...” not to expect perfect
preservation:
“Dr. W estcott’s words are forceful in this

connection.. .he says,” (v o l. 1, P . 2 5 ).
“We have no reason to conclude from our

knowledge of the whole character of
G od’s dealings that He might be expected
to preserve ever inviolate what He has
Once given” ( B .F . W estcott, Introduction to the Study o f
the Gospels, L o n d o n : M a c m illa n , 18 6 0 , p. 4 3 ) .
Vine says that, “ ...If we regard translations as o f equal

value with the original text, then we make room for almost
every possible form o f error” (v o l. 1, P . 26). V ine’s God is a dead
man, who can only speak Greek.
Style: Step One to Unbelief
In the science of literary criticism, the style o f the writer

is used to determine who wrote a document. Style includes such
elements as vocabulary, sentence structure, and content. The
modem science of forensic stylonomy has further advanced the
ability to determine authorship.
None of these methods are applicable to the Holy Bible,

a book which claims to be the words o f God, not the words of
men.
“ ...w hen ye received the word o f God
which ye heard o f us, ye received it not as the
word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of
G od ...” (1 Thes. 2:13).
Unbelieving German Higher critics (e.g. Briggs) apply

this secular method o f analyzing the ‘style’ o f a writer to the
various books o f the Bible. They claimed, for example, that
because varieties exist in the names used for God (vocabulary),
that one person (i.e. Moses) could not have been the author of
all o f the first five books o f the Bible. To question the Bible’s
authorship the Higher and Lower (textual) critics have applied
the secular methods o f analysis to many books o f the Old and
New Testament. In their eyes, once the authorship of an
apostolic or eyewitness author is questioned, the book looses its
authority.
The writing styles o f Mark, John, Luke and Paul may

seem to differ, but not because they chose the words. Each
book has a particular audience, as well as purpose and part to
play in the whole composition o f the Bible. If I were going to
draw a simple sketch to quickly communicate to a young reader,
I would use a crayon. Mark supplied such an instrument. If I
were going to do a precise fine-line highly detailed drawing, I

would choose a fine-pointed mechanical ink pen, constructed by
its maker to fulfill that job. Luke, the physician, was just such a
precise tool. If I wanted to paint a soft, gentle, emotional and
moving impressionistic rendering o f a warm and glowing
sunset, one that would catch the emotions and heart, I would use
soft pastel chalk. John was just such a tender instrument. If I
wanted to paint a striking, powerful work, one that exudes
passion and detail, I would use a fine paint brush and oil paints.
Paul provided the brush.
The tools are powerless to do anything; the artist

creates every stroke. God gave every word, every jot, and
every tittle (Matt. 5:18). God prepared and used those
instruments which would be best suited for the varied readers
and materials o f the Bible. The style which God used to write
the book o f Hebrews, by Paul, was a different style from that
which God used to write the books to the Gentiles, by Paul.
The Hebrew language is markedly different from Greek, as is
their culture and literature. God, THE author o f all creativity, is
more than able to write with different styles, unlike mere men
who strain to write with any style!
The cynics say that such differences in style prove that

God did not dictate the pen strokes for every ‘word,’ but left
each writer to express God’s ‘concepts’ as he would. Moreover,
many who say they believe in ‘verbal,’ not ‘concept’
inspiration, fall for the ‘style of the writer’ theory.
Pseudo-Science: Prepositions, Punctuation, Articles, Verbs
Liars must have a good memory. Vine must not, as he

contradicts himself frequently. A casual reader, who might only
look up several words each week, could easily miss Vine’s
contradictions. Few read and study his seven volumes

consecutively, all the way through in several weeks, as this
author did in the preparation of this book.
Vine’s Dictionary usually is used by those who do not

speak Greek fluently. Consequently, he pulls the wool over their
eyes quite often. No Greek text mandates the precise English
contextual translation and usage of English words, verbs,
articles (a, an, the), prepositions (of, in, on, etc.), and
punctuation (,,:;?”etc.). It is hardly a science; therefore no two
translations agree. This is evidenced by the hundreds o f highly
varying English translations which all claim to be translated by
Greek ‘scholars.’ Many double-minded men have even served
on several new version committees, if the price is right. James
Price showed no loyalty to his NKJV (1982), when he joined
ecumenicals (e.g. Catholic, Episcopalian, Church o f England) in
producing the critical text Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Vine pretends to his novice readers that the R.V. is

always the one to grab. One would have to fall for his evolving
bible and its monkey business to swing on that weak vine.
Prepositions
Translators have a field day with prepositions. Vine’s

Foreword says,
“I think it was Bishop Westcott who said
that New Testament doctrine is largely based on
itS prepositions...” (Vine, An Expository, p. viii).
Westcott knew how to remold theology with his subtle

choice of words. Harvard University’s Kirsopp Lake, Professor
o f Ecclesiastical History, exposed W estcott’s heresy (regarding
VINE’S EXPOSITORY DICTIONAR Y 449
Westcott’s denial o f the resurrection o f the body) and

Westcott’s slippery handling of words. In 1922 Lake said,
“ ...Bishop Westcott is really the author

o f the great change...he used all his matchless
powers of shading language, so that the
change from white to black appeared
inevitable, natural, indeed scarcely
perceptible... It speaks much for the power
which these two bishops had over the English
language that they were successful in imposing
the change on the English church with scarcely a
struggle. To historians it was obvious, o f course,
that the Creed had been denied...” ( K irs o p p L a k e ,
Immortality and the Modern Mind, C a m b rid g e : H a rva rd U n iv e rsity P ress,
1 9 2 2 , pp. 3 8 - 4 1 ; see L a k e ’ s "T h e A b an d o n m en t in th e C h u rch o f the
B e l i e f in the R esu rre ctio n o f the F le s h ” ).
The author o f Guide to Prepositions in the Greek New

Testament is Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., member o f the Society
of Biblical Literature. He warns about the incorrect statements
in lexicons and grammars.
“Although every grammar o f New

Testament Greek has a chapter or section on
prepositions, the treatment given to prepositions
is in many instances inadequate, confusing,
misleading, and, in some cases, incorrect.”
Vance adds,
“Because each preposition can have a

range o f meanings even within the individual
cases, there is no one English word or phrase that
is capable o f translating every occurrence o f a
Greek preposition. The context is the

determining factor, and especially the verb the
preposition is used with. This phenomenon is not
restricted to Greek, but occurs with English
prepositions as well (for, with, by, etc.).”
“Because o f the variety o f meanings that proper

prepositions have, and the fact that the same idea can be
translated by different words,” it is false to present the case, as
Greek grammars and lexicons often do, that a Greek proper
preposition ‘should’ be translated differently from how the KJV
translates it (P e n sa c o la , F L : V a n c e P u b lica tio n s, 2 0 0 7 , pp. 5 , 7).
Observe the following examples:
■f Preposition: eis
The tower of Bible builders is still quietly hammering

away. The NIV uses about 186 different words to translate one
Greek preposition (eis). For that same Greek word, the KJV
uses only dozens of words, not hundreds. Translations are either
G od’s best or a grab bag o f never-ending private interpretations.
Take your pick.
Many who dabble in Vine’s have never explored a

Greek New Testament Concordance, such as Smith’s Greek-
English Concordance to the New Testament or W igram’s
Englishm an’s Greek Concordance o f the New Testament. These
show how many different English words have been used to
translate one Greek word. For someone to say ‘that Greek word
means such and such’ is freshman fantasy. One peek at such a
concordance would halt all such dogmatic ‘Greeking.’ Observe
the following contradictions:
S Preposition: epi
The Greek preposition, epi, can similarly be translated a

number o f ways (genitive: on, in, upon, before, over, of, at, to,
etc.; dative: in, at, for, upon, over, on, of, by, with, against, etc.;
accusative: on, upon, unto, to, against, over, in, into, for, at,
toward, among, etc.. (The Greek word epi is translated over 50
times as ‘in’ in the genitive in the KJV and all new versions, so
those new versions which pretend that the mark should be ‘on’
the hand, not “in” the hand (KJV Rev. 13:16) are only playing
Greek peek-a-boo with a Strong’s weak lexicon.)
Vine moves that number o f English words beyond the

range o f probability and dogmatically states that epi means
“doomed to.” A real student o f Greek will be holding on to his
sides, but sadly most o f Vine’s readers fall in line with the blind
leading the blind. Vine asserts,
“Epithanatios, “appointed to death... A.V.,

is corrected to “doomed to death” in the R.V.”
This, as well as all o f Vine’s R.V. “corrections” o f the

KJV are sophomore lore to the core. The word epithanatios is
made up o f epi (for) and thanatos (death). The word ‘epi’ has
virtually nothing to do with the word ‘doomed.’ The KJV’s
“appointed to” is a contextual translation o f epi; it is based on
the English root ‘point to ,’ as a translation o f epi, which means
‘for’ elsewhere in Vine’s Dictionary (p. 6i). The Oxford English
Dictionary defines “appointed” as “to or for a fate.”
Vine tries to divest the Bible o f G od’s built-in

dictionary by translating a Greek word statically. In Acts he
recommends the use o f the R.V.’s word “bishop,” instead o f the
KJV’s “overseer.” This is strange since ‘overseer’ is a direct
translation of epi (over) skopeo (see) (v o l. 4 , p. 240). If epi could be

translated “doomed to” as in his last scenario, he could have
‘doomed to’ seers.
Vine follows the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text

when determining the usage o f prepositions. For example, of
Rev. 1:5 he says, that according to his “best” manuscripts, there
was “no preposition in the original” (v o l. 4 , pp. 22 , 99).
y Preposition: en
This preposition can be translated as: in, by, with,

among, at, on, through, to, within, into, of, unto, for,
throughout, upon, because of, toward, as, when, while, that,
wherein, whereby, therein, there, wherewith, by what
means, etc, etc.
Vine deceives novices again saying,
“The Authorized Version is incorrect

here [Rom. 3:25]. It is not “through faith in His
blood.” The preposition is “by,” not “in”” (v o l. 4 ,
p. 10 9 ).
KJV Vine’s Vine’s Comment

R o m . 3 :2 5
Text
1 .) P un ctuation is n o n -existen t in V in e ’ s n o n -existen t
“through “through “The comma after the word
o rig in als. Y e t he a ffirm s,
faith in faith, by faith is important” (v o l. 4 , p. 10 9 ). (S e e u p c o m in g
P u n ctu atio n sectio n .)
his his blood”
blood” 2 .) V in e ad m its that en is (“ lit, in” ) (v o l. 1 , p. 3 6 2 ). H e
sa y s e lse w h e re that “ ...e n i s . . . “ in ” ” (v o l. 1 , p. 3 7 0 ).
(V in e ’ s R .V . rea d in g o fte n presen ts m ere n o n sen se. F o r in stan ce, h e ch a n g e s the

“ p re a c h in g o f the cro s s ” to the “ w o rd o f the c r o s s,” w h ic h is m ea n in g le ss (v o l. 4 , p. 1 2 5 ) .)
The Greek word en, here translated “in” in the KJV, is

translated dozens o f different ways in the KJV and a whopping
197 different ways by the NIV! No one can say emphatically
that the Greek preposition en means ‘by’ not ‘in’ in this context.
Even Vine’s R.V. translates en using many, many words other
than ‘by.’ Vine has no solid linguistic science on which to base
his rejection o f “faith in his blood.” His “instrumental” pipe
dream lulls the simple to sleep (v o l. i , P P . 362 , 370).
S Preposition: dia
accusative: for, therefore, for this cause, wherefore, because

of, because, by, through, by reason of, etc.
genitive: by, through, with, in, after, throughout, always,
whereby, etc.
From their heady, high-minded vantage point, new

versions view a much smaller Christ. Vine sets the stage for
new versions which say in John 1:3 that “all things were made
through him,” not “by him.” New versions give the false
impression that God made the worlds through Christ. The KJV
says that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth” (Gen. 1:1) and that God is Jesus Christ (John 1:3). (Also
see Eph. 3:9, also changed in Vine’s text.)
The following is a mix o f Greek prepositions (dia and en),

both of which can be translated exactly as the KJV renders
them. The R.V. and all modem versions translate en and dia as
‘by’ elsewhere. They know that they both can mean ‘by.’
The KJV always glorifies the Lord. I wonder WHO its

author is. The new versions always demote the Lord. I wonder
who their author is.
KJV Vine’s Text Vine’s

C o l. 1 : 1 6 (Usually R.V.) Text
“For by him “All these things Ignoring the fact that

were all have been created in prepositions can be
things Him. . .through Him, translated dozens and
created... by and unto Him” (v o l. 4 , p. dozens o f different
him and for 2 0 ). ways, Vine pretends,
him ...and by o f the three
Elsewhere he says,
him all things prepositions in the
“For in Him were all
consist.” 16th verse, “The R.V.
things created...all
C o l. 1 : 1 6 , 1 7 gives these
things have been
correctly...” ( v o l . 4 , p.
“All things created through Him 20 ).
were made by and in Him all things
h im ...” Jo h n 1 :3 consist” (v o l. 4 , p. 9 5).
Are you de-programmed yet? ‘That word in Greek

actually means’ is a pipe dream. Remember, we do not have the
originals; although it seems that words can be translated
numerous ways, we know God is not the author o f confusion.
Therefore he must be the author of today s one perfectly
translated English Holy Bible, the King James Bible. Other
languages have their own perfect Bibles.
Punctuation: Periods, Commas, etc.
Vine states that “the original was written without

punctuation marks” (v o l. 4 , p. 250). Elsewhere he makes emphatic
statements about the correct punctuation o f the R.V.. Since he
has no originals, his comments are vain presumption. We are
not without a long history o f authoritative vernacular Bibles
which contain punctuation. He pretends, “The Revised Version
rightly replaces the full stop [the period] between the two verses
by a comma” (fo o tn o te, C o i. 2 :9 , 10, v o l. 4 , p. 19 8 ). How could the R.V.
“rightly” choose punctuation, if his ‘originals’ have none and
the change contravenes all good vernacular Bibles?
Yet when the KJV has a comma, as in Heb. 10:12, Vine

will not tolerate it. Vine is “in favor o f ’ the Roman Catholic
reading which defends their repeated, daily ‘sacrifice o f the
mass.’ His reading omits the fact that the one sacrifice o f Christ
was sufficient forever. Vine pretends that the “grammatical
structure” and the “context” say that Christ “forever sat down.”
Vine says, “Having offered one sacrifice for sins He forever sat
down on the right hand o f God.” (He did not sit down forever.
Stephen said, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son o f man
standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). Also Acts
23:11 says, “the Lord stood by him.”) The KJV correctly says
that the one sacrifice was sufficient forever. It says, “ ...he had
offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right
hand of God” (Heb. 10:12) (v o l. 3 , p. 3 0 2 ; v o l. 4 , p. 7 7 ).
Articles: A, An, The
Greek has only the definite article (the); it has no

indefinite articles (a, an). To compound matters, Greek and
English do not use articles in an identically parallel manner. For
instance, ‘the’ Greek says, “the Jesus,” which does not follow
English form. Consequently, one finds that the inclusion or
exclusion of an article in Greek makes no binding demands
upon a translator.
Vine, like all translators, sometimes uses the definite

article, when it is not there, and he omits it, when it is there.
(All translators do this and none agree on when the definite
article can be omitted or when the absence o f a definite article
still calls for such an article in English.) For those who do not
know these facts, Vine pretends that the R.V. is always right in
its decisions and the KJV is always wrong. He says, Though
the article is absent in the Greek it should be retained in
translating” (v o l. i , P . 326). Then in another verse he says, “There
should be no definite article, as in the A.V.” (v o l. 1, p. 3 5 2 ) . Vine’s
double-mind is unstable in all its ways.
In Other Words
An English thesaurus gives multiple meanings for each

word. Likewise, some Greek words have multiple meanings and
appear to be interchangeable in various contexts. For instance,
both Greek words huios and teknon can be translated either as
‘son’ or ‘child.’ All versions do so. Vine ignores reams of
‘Greek’ literature and pretends each has only one meaning.
Vine insists on the rendering “children o f God,” instead o f the
“sons of God” (teknon) in one place (e .g . Jo h n i : i 2 ; v o l. l , p. 1 8 7 ) . Vine
is ignoring the fact that we are ‘sons because we are in him,
that is, “in Christ.” In Eph. 1:5 he says the KJV’s “adoption of
children” is a “mistranslation and misleading.” He says it
should be as the “R.V.,” “adoption as sons” (V in e , An Expository, p. 24 ).
Do not try to find Greek word ‘meanings’ by using George
Ricker Berry’s pretend Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament. Newberry, the author of the English portion of
the interlinear, mis-translated huiothesia as “adoption” in
this context. He missed the root “huios” which means “son”
or “child.” More Greek-pretenders.
Vine so often contradicts himself. For example, he

admits that eidos means “appearance.” Then when his R.V.
mistranslated eidos, as “form,” Vine sides with the R.V. saying
that in 1 Thes. 5:22 “form” o f evil is better than the KJV’s
“appearance” of evil. Elsewhere in 2 Cor. 10:7 Vine says that
the KJV’s use o f “appearance” is corrected by the RV’s word

“face.” Is Vine tri-polar? (V in e , An Expository, pp. 5 8 -5 9 ).
Sadly, Christians’ libraries are too full o f mini-lexicons

that adamantly tell their readers that ‘that word really means’
something different from the KJV’s meaning. Any Greek
concordance of the KJV (or even a Greek concordance o f a new
version) will quickly show that the English word in doubt is
used to translate that word elsewhere in similar grammatical
contexts.
Verbs
Greek verb tenses do not match English verb tenses.
One can pare both apples and oranges, but one cannot compare
apples with oranges. Both are round and edible fruits; the
resemblance ends there. Vine feigns that he has the magic
lodestone to transform Greek verbs to English verbs and turn
base metals (such as Sinaiticus) to gold. He cites A.T.
Robertson and admits that, “The Greek aorist and the English
past do not exactly correspond...” (Ditto for other tenses.) Yet
he uses the R.V. error, “so gave he to the Son,” instead o f the
KJV’s “hath he given to the Son” (v o l. 4 , p. 25 ). His defining and
declining o f verbs re-molds their meaning like a wax nose, until
Christ and salvation are hardly recognizable.
Vine’s Verbs Question Salvation!
■ Vine is not afraid o f “private interpretation.” When the

R.V. doesn’t suit him, he makes up his own translation,
or leaps over to the vile R.V. margins. Someone
studying his recommended reading for 1 Cor. 6:11 could
teach salvation by works! He says, “ ...the form o f the
verb here does not signify “ye are washed” (A.V.), nor
“ye were washed” (R.V.), but rather “ye washed

yourself,” R.V. margin” (v o l. 2, p. 43).
■ Passive readers look at these “passive voice” verbs can

lose their salvation simply by reading V ine’s dictionary.
He claims it is the past tense, “ye were sanctified...ye
were justified,” rather than the KJV’s present tense “ye
are sanctified.. .ye are justified...” (v o l. 2 , P . 43).
■ Vine’s verbs sometimes present progressive salvation.

He says that the verbs in 1 Cor. 1:18 are “present
participle” and he would like to see them translated
“correctly” as in the Revised Version [“are
perishing.. .are being saved”] (v o l. 2 , p. 11).
His verbs mimic the Catholic and apostate doctrine that

teaches that you ‘were’ justified at infant baptism and you ‘are
being saved’ by your works. Again matching the Catholic
system and the aberrant ‘Church of Christ,’ Vine mandates a
“weekly remembrance” o f the Lord’s supper (v o l. 4 , p. 273 ). (He
also mandates “washing the feet” as a part of the church service
(v o l. 4 , P . 277 ). Although he writes much anti-Catholic material, he
calls Mary, “the Virgin Mary” (v o l. 4 , P . 18).)
Demoting God, Christ, and the Trinity: V ine’s Greek Text

and Commentary
Vine empties the Bible o f word after word, and mars its
meaning, following the Westcott and Hort Greek text and
Revised Version.
“ ...for the emptiers have emptied them out, and

marred their vine branches” Nahum 2:2.
Vine’s generally orthodox theology, which no doubt

conies from an early life raised with the KJV, is steered off
course by his R.V. text. Often to communicate his orthodoxy he
must back-peddle from what his text directly states. Mr.
Contradiction is Vine’s real name. In his books, one can find
highly orthodox sentences which disagree with just about any
of his statements in this chapter. Such orthodoxy does not
disannul the doubt-raising leaven in his work.
KJV Vine’s Vine’s Commentary

1 T im . 3 : 1 6
Text
“God “who was V in e preten ds, " . . . “ g o d ” h as b een p ro v e d to b e an

in n o vatio n o f a later s c r ib e .. .O n e nam ed M a c e d o n iu s is
was manifested said to h a v e b een e x p e lle d fo r m a k in g the c h a n g e ” (v o l.
3 , p. 1 7 2 ) .
manifest in the
in the flesh” L ik e so m e n e w v e rs io n s, e lse w h e re V in e s a y s , “ H e
flesh” w h o w a s . . . ” V in e adm its that, “ T h e w o rd “ H e” d o es

not fo rm part o f the o rig in a l” (It is ad d ed b y som e
ve rsio n s). S o V in e and h is ‘ o r ig in a l’ h a v e a sen ten ce
w h ic h h as no su b ject. W h o is the ‘ h e ’ o f th eir in ven ted
su b ject? The K JV h as a su b ject, ‘ G o d ,’ w h ic h is
attested to b y m o st m an u scrip ts (v o l. 4 , pp. 6 5 , ISO-
18 1).
In V ine’s verses, “God” was not manifest in the flesh

and “the Lord” did not come from heaven. Two strikes, Vine is
out.
KJV Vine’s Text Vine’s Comment

1 Cor. 15:47
“the Lord “man is of V in e ’s im aginary originals lead him to

think that the w ords “the L ord” are
from heaven” heaven” “absent” from “the original” because they
are absent from his “ m ost authentic
M S S .” (vol. 2, p. 114).
Christ is also not coming again in this verse of Vine’s.

2 T h e s. 3 :5
“the patient “the patience Vine thinks it means be

waiting for of Christ” patient as Christ is patient
(v o l. 4 , p. 69).
Christ”
The martyrs died for the inclusion of the word “living,”

while Vine is dying to omit it (S e e G .A . R ip lin g e r, In Awe o f Thy Word, A ra rat,
V A : A .V . P u b lic a tio n s, 2 0 0 3 ).
K JV Vine’s Text Vine’s Comment

1 T im . 6 : 1 7
Vine wrongly charges that the two words

“the living “God”
“the living” (A.V.) are “not found’ in his
God” “most” authentic MSS (v o l. 3 , p. 19 7 ).
Vine emasculates Jesus Christ. Where the KJV says, “/

am he that liveth,” Vine substitutes, “the Living One” (v o l. 4 . P .
133). Elsewhere V ine’s neuter, “the One Being,” omits the male
gender and presages the gender-neutral bibles of today.
V ine’s omissions have the spirit o f antichrist, according

to the Bible’s own definition. 1 John 4:1-3 says, “Beloved,
believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of
God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of G od:... every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not o f God: and
this is that spirit o f antichrist...”
Vine, following the R.V., omits those words in bold!


1 Jo h n 4 :3 (Usually the
R.V.)
“Christ is Following his typically weak MS.

come in the omit evidence, Vine charges that his
Revised Version is right in
flesh”
omitting this because it follows the
"most authentic MSS” (v o l. 3 , p. 3 7 8 ).

1 C o r. 9 :1 (Usually the R.V.)
“Christ” omit He repeats his error saying that this

“title” is “absent” in his “authentic”
manuscripts (v o l. 2 , p. 6 1) .
So often Vine uses the definite article when it is not

there and omits it when it is there, that his omission o f the
article in John 1:14 is hypocrisy and blasphemy. Why does he
say elsewhere, “Though the article is absent in the Greek it
should be retained in translating” (v o l. i , P . 326) ? The heretics could
take great pleasure in his reading which allows for more than
one “begotten Son,” (“an”) and more than one “Father” (“an”).

John 1:14 (Usually R.V.)
“the 1.) “an only 1.) Vine follows the R.V.’s preposition, “from.” The KJV’s
the son “of...” is definite, singular, and genealogical; Vine’s
only begotten from a son “from” is indefinite and shows no direct lineage and
paternal connection! Of “only begotten” he says, it “does
begotten a Father” not refer to generation in respect of His humanity” (vol. 4,
pp. 7, 8).
of the 2.) Vine’s misunderstanding of the word ‘begotten’ leads
Father” him to say that John 3:16 “cannot be taken to mean that
Christ became the Only Begotten Son by Incarnation” (vol.
4, p. 92).
Furthermore, he adds a “begotten God that is not co-

eternal with the Father.

Jo h n 1 : 1 8
only-
“th e V ine’s corrupt manuscripts lead him to
“the
begotten God, say, “Some” MSS with “considerable
only authority” have the Greek word [theos]
begotten the O ne B ein g ”
for ‘G od’ (v o l. 4 , pp. 7 , 8 ) .
Son”
Later he wrongly claims “strong”
proof exists for this Jehovah Witness
reading o f an “only begotten God” (v o l.
l , p . 2 2 6 ).
The Introduction to Vine’s Collected Writings states that

Vine,
“concludes rightly that the idea of
generation, though etymologically present in
the word [monogenes], is actually otiose; in its
[,monogenes] general usage in the Greek Bible it
“signifies both uniqueness and endearment’’
(v o l. 1 , p. x x i; R u o ff, p. 84).
An adopted son with red hair would have the qualities

o f both ‘uniqueness’ and ‘endearment,’ but he would not be
God’s begotten Son. He used the word “otiose because few
would know what it means. The Oxford English Dictionary
states that otiose means,
“sterile.. .superfluous, useless.. .having

no practical function”
According to him, God inspired a word, monogenes

(mono, only; genes, begotten) o f which the greater part (genes)
has no ‘practical function’! I thought the words were inspired.

The only begotten Son’s flesh was generated! You w on’t be
surprised to discover that modem versions have a ‘unique’ Son,
not a ‘begotten’ Son.
Does God say that Jesus Christ is “his Son”? The KJV
rightly says, “For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the w orld...” Vine’s ‘translation’ contradicts the
Bible in two ways, saying, “For God sent not the Son into the
world to judge the w orld...” (John 3:17). First, Vine’s verse
denies that Jesus Christ is his Son. (He could be the son of
Joseph.) Then he pretends that God’s Son will not judge the
world. Actually, the Bible says, “For the Father judgeth no man,
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22). A
criminal stands before a ‘judge’ to be judged; he can be
‘acquitted’ or ‘condemned.’
His text continues to deny that Jesus Christ is “his Son.”

E ph. 3 : 1 4
(Usually the R.V.)
“the Father of “the Father” V in e puts h is thum b on the sc a le and

preten ds, " . . .t h e w e ig h t” of e v id en ce
our Lord dem an d s the o m issio n o f “ o f o ur L o rd
Jesus Christ” Je s u s C h rist” (v o l. 4 , p. 26 ).
The meekness of Christ and his humbling himself to

take on flesh in no way empties him o f his deity. Vine and most
new versions blasphemously state that Christ “emptied
himself.” Actually, nothing was lost or reduced, as the word
‘emptying’ implies; only the veil of flesh was taken on. “For in
him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).
K JV Vine’s Text
P h il. 2 :7 (Usually the R.V.)
But made himself o f no emptied Himself (also NASB)

( S e e v o l. 4 , pp. 2 8 , 4 1 et al.).
reputation
Read the following phrases as if you were saying them

about yourself, by starting the sentence with ‘I.’ Any man could
say V ine’s text in reference to himself, but he could never say
the KJV text when referring to him self
K JV Vine’s Text
P hil. 2 :6 (The R.V. and margin)
“ ... thought it not “ .. .counted it not a prize to be on

robbery to be equal with an equality with G od...” (S e e v o l. 4 , pp.
2 8 , 4 1 et al.).
G od:...”
“ .. .counted it not a thing to be
(In the KJV, the word
grasped to be on equality with
‘not’ modifies
G od...” (v o l. 4 , p. 1 2 3 ) .
‘robbery.’)
(Polly Powel, former Clemson University English

instructor, says, “the word ‘not’ is usually an adverb, to modify
‘thought.’ But here it seems acceptable to say that it modifies
‘robbery.’”)
We love pizza and puppies, not Jesus Christ, according

to Vine. Why is Vine’s text omitting ‘God’ as the object of our
love and worship? Diagram the verse as it appears in new
versions; those verbs have no objects.

1 Jo h n 4 :1 9 (Usually the R.V.)
“We “We love...” V ine’s corrupt manuscripts lead him

love astray saying that the word “him” in
the KJV is not in his “most authentic”
h im ...”
manuscripts (v o l. 3 , p. 3 8 5 ).
KJV Vine’s text Vine’s Comment

Phil. 3:3 (Usually the R.V.)
“worship “worship” Vine blindly grabs his so-called

G od” “ .. .most authentic M SS.” to excuse
dropping “God” as the object o f
worship in the text (vol. 2, p. 311).
Vine Destroys Proof-Texts for Trinity

1 John 5:7 (Usually the R.V.)
“For there are Omit entire Vine has no ‘original,’

three that bear verse! but affirms that, “The
record in heaven, (V ine and new seventh verse, given in
versions m ove the
the Father, the the A.V. is not part of
end o f verse 6 dow n
Word, and the and pretends it is 1 the original” (vol. 3 , p. 3 9 0 ).
Holy Ghost: and John 5:7! Som e new
versions steal som e o f
these three are
verse 8 and p retend it
one.” is verse 7!)
In Col. 2:2 the KJV honors all three persons o f the

Godhead: 1.) God (Holy Ghost), 2.) the Father, and 3.) Christ
(Son). This important section, showing the deity of the Holy
Ghost, is removed by Vine’s text. Is this dangerous
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? His corrupt text also
removes the Father.

Col. 2:2 (Usually the R.V.)
Vine recom m ends his "R evised
“The mystery of “the mystery of Version” here and notes that
God, and of the God, even m anuscripts “differ.” He thinks that in
his text the words after the com m a are
Father, and of Christ” “explanatory” o f those before (vol. 4, p.
Christ” 179).
O f Rom. 8:16 Vine charges that the KJV and Greek

text’s use o f the neuter “itself’ in reference to the Spirit is
inaccurate. How then is “itself’ inaccurate if ‘the original’ is
neuter? Vine is correcting God, who refers to the Son by the
words “it”, “thing,” and “which” (Gen. 3:15, Luke 1:35, Phil.
4:13, 1 John 1:1) and refers to the Holy Ghost as “it” in John
1:32, and 3:8 (vol. i , P. 384). Each o f these contexts clarifies why
this is done. Our theology comes from the Bible; we do not
bring our ideas to the Bible.
In the following, Vine’s text omits the spirit which God gave.

1 Cor. 6:20 (Usually the R.V.)
omit Vine ignores the good manuscripts

“and in
and says that the seven additional
your spirit,
words rely upon “insufficient MS.
which are evidence. ..” (vol. 2, p. 47).
G od’s”
V ine’s text denies the entire verse in Matt. 17:21, which

says, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting.” The spirits moving Vine toward the corrupt R.V. do
not want to ‘come out.’ Vine’s text also omits “and fasting” in 1
Cor. 7:5.

1 Cor. 7:5 (U su ally the R.V.)
“fasting” omit A few corrupt manuscripts lead Vine to

assert, that his “most authentic”
manuscripts skip the word “fasting” (vol.
2, p. 48).
John MacArthur’s Roots: Bad Bibles
Well-known radio teacher and author, John Mac Arthur,

wrongly believes that it is just Christ’s death that saves sinners,
not his blood sacrifice for the mercy seat. Could Jesus just have
had a heart attack shoveling snow when he was old? What about
the Old Testament examples o f the blood sacrifice? They extend
from Abel, to Noah, and all throughout the entire Old
Testament. The Bible says, “without shedding o f blood is no
remission” (Heb. 9:22). Heb. 9:12 tell us that “ ...by his own
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us” (see also Rev. 11:19). Does
MacArthur get his scripture-twisters from sources such as Vine
and new versions that often substitute the word “death” for the
word “blood”? Why does Vine change, “through faith in his
blood”? (vol. 4, p. 137). Vine says,
“The “blood” o f Christ stands for His D eath...”

“The blood does not simply denote the physical
material, it stands for the death o f Christ” (vol. 4,

pp. 137, 251).
Vine writes heresy about “the blood’ in his essay

entitled, “The Table o f The Lord and The Lord’s Supper.” He
feels that the ‘blood’ is simply used to “illustrate” his death, just
as the term the “table” o f the Lord illustrates the communion.
The blood was not merely a ‘picture.’ It was God’s blood
offered for our sins.
Vine and MacArthur share another subtle theological

error. Tinges of MacArthur’s Lordship salvation mar Vine’s
interpretations (based on Vine’s rendition of Rom. 10:9). Vine
says,
“When he expounds the conditions upon
which salvation is to be possessed, he stresses
the necessity of acknowledging the Lordship of
Christ: If thou shalt confess with thy mouth
JeSUS U S Lord..." (bold m ine, vol. 4, p. 117; vol. 1, p. 403).
Vine changes the KJV’s text from the reading, “confess

with thy mouth the Lord Jesu s...” to “confess with thy mouth
Jesus as Lord" (Vine and his R.V. contradict themselves by
omitting “Lord” many times and also by demoting our “Lord”
to a mere ‘M aster’) (e.g. vol. 4, p. 130).
Faith or Acts of Righteousness
We are saved by faith not by works. Throughout the

Bible, even in different dispensations, God describes giving us a
robe o f “God’s righteousness” to cover our shame (Rom. 10:3).
In the following in Isa. 61:10, each word in one line parallels
and defines each word in the other line,
he hath clothed me with the garments o f salvation,

he hath covered me with the robe o f righteousness
In that parallelism, positional righteousness is equated

with salvation. Rev. 7:14 mentions those who “washed their
robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
Nowhere in the Bible are we robed in our own righteousness.
Isa. 64:6 says, “and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.”
Philippians says, “not having mine own righteousness...” (Phil.
3:9).
Vine contradicts the KJV with his R.V. saying, “The
fine linen in which the wife o f the Lamb is granted to array
herself hereafter, is the “righteous acts o f the saints”” (Rev.
19:8) (vol. 4, p. 144).
KJV Vine’s Vine’s Comment

Rev. 19:8
Text
“fine linen “fine Vine thinks, “For these acts they will
is the linen, is have been rew arded.. .These
garments.. .are symbolic o f the rewards
righteousness the
bestowed for faithfulness in service
of saints” righteous h ere.. .in their life on earth by their acts
acts o f the of righteousness.. .The service which we
saints” render to Him” (vol. 4, pp. 71,79,87).
Elsewhere Vine applies this kind o f translation to Christ.

He says that, “the A.V. rendering “the righteousness o f one” is
both inaccurate and m isleading...” He changes it to “the one act
of righteousness,” because he says it is “not His obedient life.”
Without Christ’s sinless life, he could not offer a perfect
sacrifice. Vine ignores the parallelism o f “the gift of
righteousness,” which saved sinners receive because of Christ’s
righteous life. We trade our sins for his “righteousness.” His

righteousness cannot be limited to his obedient death on the
cross, but includes also his sinless life, which allowed him to
O f f e r a p e r f e c t S a c r i f i c e f o r OUr s i n s (see Rom ans 5:15-21; vol. 4, p. 131).
Compare the following KJV text with Vine’s, which

leans toward works salvation:
KJV: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace

with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”
Vine: “Being therefore justified by faith let us

have peace with God.”
Vine and the “Revisers” base that reading on what he

calls the “preponderance” o f manuscript evidence (vol. 1, P. 3 6 i). No
wonder Vine says, “we are o f all men most pitiable” (1 Cor.
15:19). According to the KJV we are most “miserable,” if we
have our hope in this life only (vol. 2 , p. ios).)
He-Men Women-Haters’ Club?
■ Vine has no “benevolence” for a wife, charging that, “In

the original, in the most authentic MSS. there is no word
for “benevolence” (as in the A .V .)...” (vol. 2 , p. 48). He
says, “Let the husband render unto the wife her due,”
rather than the KJV’s “due benevolence.” (Get ready to
duck, ladies!)
■ Vine thinks men are not told to help their widowed

mothers. Vine thinks only the daughters must help. He
and his R.V. say, “If any woman that believeth hath
widows, let her relieve them.” He admits that the
Received Text says, “man or woman” [must both
relieve them] (vol. 3, p. 186).
■ The adulterers are off the hook in Vine’s R.V.. The KJV
says, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses.” He falsely claims
that, “here the R.V. rightly omits the word “adulterers.”
It Was added by a copyist (Vine, A n Expository, p. 25).
■ Yikes...dykes! Vine sees women’s head coverings or

butch haircuts as mandatory saying, “if a woman insists
on having her head uncovered, let her insist on having
her hair cut short or shaven” (vol. 2 , P. 76; vol. 4 , 274 ). Don’t
think this is a stretch. I have actually seen Old Order
Amish women who shave that part o f the head which is
not quite covered. Ugly. Scary. (I realize that there are
good Christians who believe in the head covering.)
■ In Eph. 6:4 Vine’s text cracks the whip over little

children, as well. It says that parents are to raise them
“in the chastening and admonition o f the Lord” (vol. 4 , P.
278). He sounds like Dr. Kevorkian, not the kind nurse of
the KJV, which says, “the nurture and admonition of

the Lord.” The word ‘nurture’ comes from the same
word as ‘nurse,’ which is used to describe breast-feeding
and medical care. (O f course we are to chasten our
children, just as God chastens his children. But this
verse is not about that; it provides a balance.)
■ Women aren’t to speak to pastors, according to Vine. He

states that a single woman should have her questions
asked through a married woman (vol. 2 . P. 103). (T his speaks o f
an era w here the adm onition in P roverbs w as strictly heeded, to “ R em ove
thy w ay far from h er,” i f she is a “ stranger.” T oday this is not bad advice to
young preachers. A sk any com puter geek w hat a ‘p a th ’ is. “ [G ]o not astray
in her p a th s,” jo g g in g from thread to thread and blogging on ‘m y sp a ce ’ or
internet ‘fo ru m s,’ w here she “ lieth in w ait at every co m e r,” saying, “cam e I
forth to m eet thee” (Prov. 2:16, 5:8, 7:12, 15, 25).)
Boost or Boot the Pastor?
Actually, Vine does not believe in a pastor, but a

plurality of elders and bishops in a church. He says, “ ...it
was not according to the teaching of the New Testament that
a single ordained minister should conduct a m eeting...but
that a local assembly was a body in which spiritual activities
were carried on by the various m em bers...” (vol. 4, p. 351 et al.).
He adds, “The divine intention was for a number o f men to
act in the capacity of bishops in every church” (vol. 4 , P. 357).
“There is a call to escape from the bonds o f ministerialism
[one m inister]...,” he quips (vol. 4 , p. 373). Why do so many
‘pastors’ ‘believe in’ Vine, when he does not ‘believe in’
them ? Vine does not believe in deacons either. He charges
the KJV with “ecclesiastical bias” when it uses the term
“office” of a deacon (vol. 4 , P. 244).
Vine’s Other Corrupt Sources
When you read Vine’s you are not reading ‘Greek’; you are
really reading Westcott, Hort, and Thayer. You are not
reading ‘Hebrew’; you are reading Gesenius’ and his Old
Testament Lexicon. Vine’s additional sources are listed here in
bold type (vol. i , P. 34). (All of these men’s heresies have merited a
chapter in this book or a discussion in this author’s other books
New Age Bible Versions, The Language o f the King James
Bible, or In A we o f Thy Word.)
Vine’s An Expository Dictionary o f Old Testament Words

recommends the following materials which were available
during Vine’s life (Old Tappan, N.J.: Flem ing Revell Com pany, 1978, see the
bibliography by David Huttar, pp. 169, 172, 173, 176.).
S Rudolf Kittel’s corrupt pre-Nazi German-

propelled Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica, with
its notes critical o f the pure Hebrew text
Gesenius ’ Hebrew Grammar
S C.A. Briggs and S.R. Driver’s, The Interna
tional Critical Commentary
S Francis Brown (Driver and Briggs), A Hebrew
and English Lexicon o f the Old Testament
(Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and Briggs are exposed in their

respective chapters in this book.)
Vine consults the following other men:
■ He consults James Strong, RV/ASV committee

member, and his ‘meanings’ in his Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance (Preface, vol. 3, p. 4).
■ Vine refers to R.V. committee member, Archbishop

Trench S Synonyms (vol. 3, p. 162; vol. 1, p. 40, Vine, An E xpository, p.
70, et al.).
* Vine thinks, “We learn from Origen’s w ritings...” ( v o l.2,

p. 86; vol. 1, p. 48). New Age Bible Versions (chapters 38 and
39) exposes Origen as the very w olf who corrupted the

Bible in the first centuries after Christ.
■ Vine recommends the comments o f Bishop J.B.

Lightfoot, another RV translator and ‘Ghostly Guild’
member (vol. 2 , p. 193; vol. 4 , p. 94). The “scheme” set forward
by Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot is revealed as Hort’s
son tells us,
“Hort was to edit the [Bible] text in

conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was
to be responsible for a
commentary and Lightfoot was
to contribute a New Testament
Grammar and Lexicon (Arthur Hort,
The Life and Letters o f Fenton John Anthony
Hort, NY: M acm illan & Co., 1896, vol. 1, pp.
240-241, as cited in New A ge B ible Versions,
Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1993, pp. 416-436
et al.).
■ Vine’s current publisher

recommends the “Shorter Lexicon o f the Greek New
Testament by Gingrich and Danker, available from
Zondervan,” a subsidiary of HarperCollins, the publisher
of The Satanic Bible (vol. 5, Greek, p. 60;
http://w w w.HarperCollins.com ).
■ “V ine’s very first sentence in his Preface of 1939 admits

that:
“To ascertain the exact meaning of the words and
phraseology of the originals o f the Holy
Scriptures...The research work o f the past fifty years,
with the discovery of a large number of inscriptions and
documents, and especially of the non-literary writings
in the tombs and dust heaps of Egypt, has yielded
much light upon the use and meaning of the language of
the originals...The fruit of these researchers has been
provided in such volumes as the “Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament,” by J. H. Moulton and G.
M illigan... References will be found to some of these in
the following pages...In many cases the student is
referred to the occurrences in the Septuagint V ersion...I
have also made use o f...Thayer’s [who uses the pagan
Greeks] ... A.T. Robertson’s Grammar [who used the
Westcott-Hort Greek text].. .also of such works as
Trench s New Testament Synonyms (v in e, A n Expository, pp.

xiii, xiv).
■ Vine refers often to the Septuagint. It is a very corrupt

Greek edition o f the Old Testament created by Origen in
the first centuries after Christ, not before. See the
bibliography in any current printed edition. They admit
that the Greek text used was the Old Testament o f the
corrupt Vaticanus (4th century A.D.) and Alexandrinus
(5th century A.D.) manuscripts. Origen made his New
Testament quotes match his Old Testament quotes.
Therefore, the uninformed often wrongly say that, ‘Jesus
quoted the Septuagint.’ It was not used by Jesus or the
apostles. The Hebrews would not allow a Greek into the
temple (see Acts 21:28), how much less a “polluted”
Greek version of their H oly Hebrew scriptures.
Vine adds an acknowledgement to F.F. Bruce for

“making corrections and valuable suggestions previous to its
being printed...” Bruce’s “Foreword to the New One Volume
Edition” o f Vine’s Dictionary notes his praise for “Grimm-
Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Bauer” as well as the then in
progress work o f “Kittel’s encyclopaedic Theological
Dictionary o f the New Testament” (Vine, An Expository, p. xiv; see also
Collected, vol. 1, p. xiv et al.; Ruoff, p. 70).
Rubbish vs. the Holy Ghost
V ine’s foreword, by W. Graham Scroggie, admits that

Vine does not encumber his book showing his “extra-biblical
references” (Vine, An Expository, p. vii). What were Vine’s “extra-
biblical references”? Vine is particularly fond o f rooting around
in Moulton and M illigan’s rubbish, which is discussed in detail
in their chapter in this book.
The serpent still slithers around the tree of knowledge.

Science (falsely so called) echoes his Bible-doubting, “Yea,
hath God said...?” Like Adam and Eve, Vine was impressed
with the possibility o f becoming wise, even if it meant
questioning God’s word, like the serpent. Secular scholars are
perennially looking for ‘p ro o f that the Bible is the words of
mere men and not the words of God.
Many miles and years from the writing o f the New

Testament, some of its unique vocabulary had migrated to far
away Egypt. These words were found in secular documents
with the unearthing of piles of Egyptian rubbish. God said he
“brought a vine out of E gypt...” (Ps. 80:8). But Vine wants to
go back, just as the doubting children of Israel did. Vine became
sand-blinded and substituted this mirage of desert documents
for a Holy Ghost inspired Bible. Vine particularly follows the
lexicon o f Moulton and Milligan, particularly the Grammar o f
New Testament Greek and Moulton and Milligan s Vocabulary.
It is a lexicon which, unlike its predecessors, defines words
based on the findings of Egyptian secular papyri found in buried
tombs and rubbish. These included grocery lists, private letters,
legal documents, and other personal notes. These findings were
popularized by Deissman’s secular, “Light from the Ancient
East,” which Vine recommends (vol. 2 , p. 241 ). The words which
archeologists found in the papyri may have been the language
o f the day, but:
The date of the rubbish has not been scientifically

proven to be earlier than or current with the New Testament.
Precise dating o f objects which have been buried in the sands
for well over a thousand years is guesswork at best. These
findings prove only that the Bible affected the language and
usage o f people. God did coin words for the New Testament
which subsequently migrated into common speech.
Assuming that the Bible took all o f its vocabulary and

word meanings from its pagan surroundings puts the egg before
the chicken. Only an evolutionist would say that a mutant egg
became the first chicken. A Christian knows that God made a
chicken; the egg is a by product o f the chicken.
Both the Bible and language come from God. “Forever,

O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven...” Psa. 119:89. God
created languages (and their component words) at the tower of
Babel. He created the words before the Egyptians could use
them. His Bible showed them how he defines those words. It is
an established fact that literacy is a gift from God and branches
off from G od’s revealed word. Most languages are oral until
God brings the scriptures to the language group. Literacy
develops from that. The Cambridge History o f the Bible is full
o f examples of how the Bible brought literacy, codified the
language, and served as the repository of word meaning. The
Oxford English Dictionary (unabridged) shows the English
Bible as the root source and oldest citation for a large majority
of words. The unsaved secular world always sees MAN as the
source; a Christian recognizes GOD as the source. An unsaved
man sees an evolutionary, culture-dependent vehicle and reason
behind things. A Christian sees God’s unseen hand everywhere,
particularly as it relates to his holy scriptures.
When a culture adopts Bible words, it sometimes adapts and

degrades them to the mindset o f the natural man. The ensuing
dark, secular contexts in which these words find themselves
cannot shed light on the ‘true’ meaning of these words, nor
usurp the Holy Ghost’s original meaning. Subsequent secular
usages and contexts cannot overshadow or circumvent that of
the God-given Bible, when one is looking for the meaning o f a

word as used in the Bible. They may reveal how a word was
adapted or distorted in secular usage and within the secular
context in which it was later found. But to determine how
the Bible uses the word, one must study the context of the
Bible alone. One must see how the Bible uses the term.
(Conversely, one could not take the Bible’s definition o f ‘love’
and use it to explain how Hugh Hefner used the word ‘love.’
And visa versa. This is why the Oxford English Dictionary
(unabridged) gives numerous definitions and usages of a word
and shows the contexts from which those varied definitions
arose.) Only someone who believed that the Bible was a product
o f the men and culture of its time would care to examine a
w ord’s usage in a secular context. Unfortunately, the unsaved
scholar believes just that. Christians are na'ive about such
linguistic discussions. Only their old ‘natural man’ would be
tempted to move in such arenas.
In spite o f this, Vine thinks that he can use Moulton and

M illigan’s Lexicon to examine a “meaning which is common in
Greek documents contemporary with the New Testament” (vol. 2 ,
p. 234 ). V ine’s Dictionary leaves the Holy Ghost out of the picture
and goes on a treasure hunt in the trash. The Foreword says,
“...this Dictionary is compiled in the light of

the new knowledge which has come to us by the
discovery o f the papyri... waste paper...
rubbish...” (Vine, An Expository, p. viii).
Following Vine’s line o f thinking is just a flea jump to

the dump. Why would God wait 1900 years and then radically
change or suddenly reveal what his words mean, thwugh
garbage? Vine’s Foreword charges just that saying,
“[Some New Testament w ords]...it was

supposed, were created by the Holy Spirit for the
conveyance of Christian truth, but now all or
nearly all such words have been found in the
papyri. The Holy Spirit did not create a special
language for Christianity... This fact has
radically affected our approach to the New
Testam ent...the whole [dictionary] is produced
in the light o f it” (Vine, An E xpository, p. ix).
V ine’s admits that all such words have not been shown
to exist outside o f the New Testament. This topples their theory.
Ignoring the Bible’s command to compare spiritual

things with spiritual and having no scientific dates to back up
his claim, Vine encourages the examination o f “Egyptian
papyri” to understand New Testament words previously
regarded as “purely biblical, coined so to speak, for spiritual
purposes” (vol. 4 , P. 168).
Scroogie’s Foreword to Vine’s Dictionary repeats that

the “New Testament Greek is not” ...“a language o f the Holy
Ghost as one scholar called it (Vine, A n Expository, p. ix). Vine’s
preface cites liberal F.F. Bruce. He mocks the Biblical scholars
of old saying,
“But they recognized certain marked differences

between classical and New Testament
G reek...they concluded that it must be a
specially devised “language o f the Holy Ghost””
(Vine, A n Expository, p. xi).
He then comments that the discovery o f non-literary

papyri proves that,
“ ...“the language of the Holy Ghost” is nothing

other than the language o f the common people”
(Vine, An Expository, p. xi.).
This is a subtle ploy to intimate that if the ‘original’

Greek Bible were in the “language of the common people,” and
not “holy, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26), then
the language of the common people in new versions should
replace the KJV. This writer’s research, documented in the
book, In Awe o f Thy Word, demonstrates through many
examples that ‘uncommon’ words in the KJV are exclusively
and primarily Bible words. For example, the word “holpen,” has
always been primarily a Bible word and is much less archaic
than the word “help,” which dates hundreds of years earlier.
Observe the following examples of Vine’s use o f Egyptian

“rubbish” as he cites J.H. Moulton’s, Grammar o f New
Testament Greek and Moulton and M illigan’s Vocabulary (vol. 3,
p. 23; vol. 2, p. 303; V m e ,A n Expository, p. 210).
■ Using the secular, non-literary papyri (unearthed grocery

lists, personal letters etc.) as his benchmark, Vine
destroys the legal precision of the Bible. The KJV’s
“Grace be with thee” (singular objective) in 1 Tim. 6:21
is changed by Vine and the R.V. to “Grace be with you”
(plural or singular objective). This is imprecise because
the letter to Timothy was addressed to the singular,
Timothy, and closes with its very last verse returning to
the singular addressee. Vine is following the corrupt
“text followed by the R.V..” He excuses this saying
Moulton says that in secular materials, “singular and
plural alternated in the same document with apparently
no distinction o f meaning (Moulton)” (vol. 3, P. 199).
Common secular documents are not judicial. The Bible
is judicial, because Jesus said, “the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John
12:48).
■ Vine re-defines Christ’s “coming” based on such things

as “a papyrus letter a lady” wrote about “her property”
(vol. 2, p. 109).
■ The Greek word, crio refers to ‘anointing’ and to

‘Christ.’ Vine says, “In a papyrus document chrisis is
used o f “a lotion for a sick horse.” Does this shed light
on the New Testament usage? He reminds his reader,
following “Moulton and Milligan, Vocab o f Greek
Text,” that “The distinction referred to by Trench (Syn.
xxxviii), that aleipho is the mundane and profane, chrio,
the sacred and religious word is not borne out by
evidence (Moulton and Milligan Vocab. o f Greek
T est)...” Vine concedes that “Among the Greeks it was
used in other senses than the ceremonial, but in the
Scriptures it is not found in connection with secular
m a tte rs (Vine, A n Expository, p. 51).
■ Vine follows more Greek ‘foolishness’ in fragments of

carelessly made wills and deeds. He says the KJV is
wrong in saying, “answer” in 1 Peter 3:21 because, “It
was used by the Greeks in a legal sense ...” Yes, but
how was it used by G odl (Vine, An Expository, p. 53).
■ Vine follows what he calls, “evidences o f the current

literature and inscriptions” to change the KJV’s
“confound” to “put to shame” (vol. 2, P . 14). What a shame!
W.E. Vine’s preface is a W ho’s Who o f heresy and unbelief.
Although he himself was a believer, he unwisely dipped his pen
in the poison from the past and perpetuated it to the present.
Deissmann, whose research Vine cites frequently had such low
regard for the Bible that he said, “Paul had no thought of adding
a few fresh compositions to the existing Jewish epistles...far
less that one day people would look on them as Holy
S c r i p t u r e s ” (W illiam Barclay, The M aking o f the Bible, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1961,
p. 66).
Vine & Pagan Greek Philosophers
Other lexical writers, such as Thayer, Liddell, and Scott,

shroud Bible words in the garb of dead pagan philosophers and
playwrights, whose works they access to determine word
meanings. The Bible says the word o f God was foolishness
unto the Greeks. We cannot learn God’s meanings from
unsaved heathen philosophers. Yet, in the Introduction to
V ine’s vol. 1, F.F. Bruce states that Vine was a “student in the
ancient classics” (vol. 1, p. xiii). Vine s use of Thayer reveals his
reliance on the pagan Greeks to form his word-definitions.
The Bible tells us to compare “spiritual things with

spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13), but Vine compares the spiritual with the
pagan. Vine defines terms based on the writings of
homosexuals, “Plato” and “Socrates (just as ALL lexicon
authors do) (vol. 2 , p. 101). For example, he notes, “The use o f the
word is shown in the following dialogue freely translated from
Plato’s “Lysis” . ..” (vol. 2, P. 197).
The Bible says to, “Come out from among them.” Yet
Vine says, “Among the Greeks the term was applied to victims
sacrificed to make expiation.” Since when does pagan religion
define Bible Christianity (vol. 2 , P. 33) ?
■ Under V ine’s bold heading, “Pagan Mysteries,” he

declares,
“In the heathen religion o f the Greek...Those

who had passed through the various stages o f
initiation were known as “the perfected.” This
was probably present to the mind o f Paul when
he said, “...the perfect”” [in 1 Cor. 2] (vol. 4, p. 178).
Hardly — the Bible is not the mind o f Paul; it is the mind

o f God.
■ Vine will not translate the Greek diamon, rendering it

instead as ‘demon.’ Vine himself admits that, to the
pagan Greeks, the word means, “a knowing one...” (vol. 2,
p. 7i). The word can have a positive connotation in Greek
culture, because the Greek philosophers believed in both
‘good’ and ‘evil’ demons. The KJV knows that they are
all evil, hence it calls them ‘devils.’
* Vine makes reference to the “theater” and “gladiators in

an arena” (vol. 2, P. 32).
■ He comments on the word ‘shaken’ saying that in the

Bible it means to ‘shake,’ “but in Greek authors,” he
notes, it means something else (vol. 3, P. 114). Goats ‘but’;
sheep follow.
Extinguish the English
Vine and new versions water-down and extinguish the

English word ‘hell,’ leaving readers in the dark with the non-
English transliteration ‘hades. ’ Billy Sunday (1862-1935), a
well-known evangelist, was a contemporary o f W.E. Vine. In
reaction to such a trend, Sunday told his audiences:
“I stand firm in my belief that the Bible is the

word of God and I believe in hell, not hades, -
hell H-E DOUBLE L with fire and brimstone!”
(Rachael M. Phillips, Billy Sunday, Urichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing
Inc., 2001, quote cited on cover; See V ine’s, vol. 4, pp. 59, 206 et al.).
Doting About Words
Vine condemns his own dictionary with his definition of

the Greek word logamachia. He says it means, “wordy quarrels
or quarrels about words” (vol. 3, p. 191- 192). Vine’s Dictionary and
Commentaries are full of wordy quarrels about words. Such talk
is forbidden by 1 Tim. 6:3-5.
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to

wholesome words, even the words o f our Lord
Jesus Christ...H e is proud, knowing nothing, but
doting about...w ords...from such withdraw
thyself.”
What would the critics say if we tried to apply the

Bible’s definition of one kind o f ‘vine’ to another context (or
Vine’s surname!)? They would cry ‘foul— out o f context!’ As
well, Vine’s secular definitions of Bible words are also out of
their context. His B.A. and M.A. was in the wild and spiritually
barren “ancient classics” (Ruoff, p. 69).
“The vine is dried u p ...”

Joel 1:12
“For their vine is o f the vine of Sodom.

Deut. 32:32
“And one went out into the field

to gather herbs, and found
a wild vine
... So they poured out for the men to eat.

And it came to pass, as they were eating o f the
pottage, that they cried out, and said,
O thou man o f God,
there is death in the pot.
And they could not eat thereof’
2 Kings 4:39, 40.
“Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed:

how then art thou turned into
the degenerate plant of
a strange vine
unto me?
Jer. 2:21
Weeds and vines will grow by themselves. Christians are

“trees o f righteousness, the planting o f the LORD” (Isa. 61:3).
God has planted us, like fruit and flowers, which have to be set.
Vine likely was a Christian, which is more than can be said

for many o f the lexicographers discussed in this book. He is
found “fulfilling the desires o f the flesh and o f the mind” (Eph.
2:3), however. He apparently saw no harm in drinking the
fermented fruit o f the vine. His biographer states that he wrote,
“To one greatly troubled about the use o f

intoxicating wine at the Lord’s Supper, he
w rites:... ‘I am thankful to say that in several
assemblies the spirit o f grace and forbearance is
manifested so that where any particular kind of
wine has been in use for years in the assembly,
there is a desire and willingness to avoid
controversy and division.. (Ruoff, p. 93).
O f recreational drinking Vine says, There is a difference
between a single act o f becoming intoxicated, say upon an
occasion, and the practice which makes a person a drunkard”
(Ruoff, p. 120). On the contrary, God identifies both behaviors as
sin. Vine’s uproarious behavior manifests itself on occasion,

when, as his biographer says, he “performed “the nigger boys’
song,” which by his skilful manipulation became “noisier and
noisier, and furiouser and furiouser”” (Ruoff, p. 26). Use o f such
deprecatory terms by a Christian has been questioned, when
used by other individuals. And not h ere...?
Chapter 13
Copycat: Kenneth S. Wuest
■ Golden Nuggets in the Greek New

Testament
* W uest’s Word Studies From the Greek

New Testament
Gold Nuggets Like Mormon Golden Tablets

hallenges to the Holy Bible by Kenneth S. Wuest |
C began as early as 1940 with his Golden Nuggets in the

Greek New Testament, followed by Treasures From
the Greek New Testament in 1941, Studies in the Vocabulary o f
the Greek New Testament in 1945, Prophetic Light in 1955, and
Great Truths in 1952. His Word Studies from the Greek New
Testament spanned from 1942-1955. He also made his own
corrupt translation o f the New Testament! All o f his works were
ripe for picking by new version editors in the 1960s and
following. After groping for Greek in the dark world of other
men’s lexicons, he flinches at the light in the King James Bible,
charging that it “works havoc” with facts, as he sees them
(Kenneth S. W uest, Golden Nuggets in the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: W m. B.
Eerdm an’s Publishing Company, 1940, p. 36).
Wuest pretends his books convey “untranslatable elements

that the preacher ought to know.” If they are untranslatable,
why and how can only he translate them? If it is something
Christians “ought to know,” why didn’t God put it in the Bible
for all to see? (Kenneth S. W uest, Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament,
Grand Rapids, M l: W m. B. Eerdm ans Publishing Company, 1966, vol. 3, Preface). H e
alleges that he gives “more truth.” But Jesus said, “thy word is
truth” (John 17:17; W uest, vol. 2, Pastoral Epistles, p. 17). The Canon of the NeW
Testament is closed. W uest’s ‘advanced revelations’ smack of
heresy. It is no different from the extra-biblical Mormon Golden
Tablets. God never said that he would not translate the canon,
as demonstrated in Acts 2. But he is not adding “more truth”
outside o f the translated sixty-six books. Wuest adds new
“truth” through what he calls his “expanded translation,” that is,
adding “more English words than the standard translations
d o ...” (W uest, vol. i, Mark, Preface). His and other translations, such as
W UEST’S WORD STUDIES 489
the Amplified Bible, add to God’s word and are condemned by

Revelation 22 which says,
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the

words of the prophecy o f this book, If any man
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the plagues that are written in this book;”
Wuest promises insights to the wealthy book-buying

intelligentsia, which are hidden from ordinary Bible readers.
Like the Babylonian mystery religions, he offers to replace the
illuminating spirit of God with the Gnostic spirit o f hidden
knowledge. He feels that in “minor details” he corrects the Holy
Bible; his minor details take up many volumes and his “shades
of meaning” cast the dark shadow o f doubt and heresy across
the light o f the scriptures (W uest, vol. 3, Preface).
Wuest invites his reader on the golden path o f truth,

attracted by occasional gleaming verses from the King James
Bible. Quickly the traveler is tripped-up by the ‘nuggets’ he
tosses. Those, who gather good things from W uest’s books, are
not getting them from his detours which descend into dangerous
trenches and surround the reader in deep darkness. The reader,
and even Wuest himself, gather orthodox theology from the fine
gold in the King James Bible verses which sometimes surround
Wuest’s linguistic clinkers.
^rom Bad Men to Wuest to New Versions & KJB Pulpits
The adulterated words in new versions, such as the TNIV,

N'V, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, come directly from
corrupt Greek and Hebrew study tools. Sometimes these new
Version words were taken directly from their wicked originator,
Such as Trench, Vincent, or the American Standard Version.
But more generally they were probably taken from the copycats
who compile Greek study tools by ‘borrowing’ their so-called
definitions from the early lexicographers. New version editors
can access many old lexicographers by using more recent books
such as those by Kenneth S. Wuest or Spiros Zodhiates.
Unlike the KJB translators who had the actual entire works
o f the early Greeks, Wuest admits his work is merely that o f a
pick-pocket. He says,
“The authorities used are as follows: Greek-

English Lexicon, Thayer, Vocabulary oj the
Greek Testament, Moulton and
M illigan...Synonyms o f the New Testament,
Archbishop Trench; Word Studies in the New
Testament, Marvin R. V incent...W ord Pictures
in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson...” [and
others] (W uest, vol. 2, Pastoral Epistles, Preface; see also vol. 1,
Rom ans, Preface; vol. 1, Galatians, Preface).
“ ...Bishop J.B. Lightfoot.. .Liddel [sic] and

Scott” (W uest, vol. 1, Galatians, Preface).
The Preface to his other works gives a similar list. He admits

that these and other “authorities on the Greek New Testament
were consulted as the writer studied the words, phrases, and
sentences of the text... [some as] supplementary authorities...”
He admits that the definitions of these other lexicographers
cover his book like a blanket
“The story o f this book can be summed up in the

following words: “Other men have labored. The
author has entered into their labors.” . . .Where the
portions are quoted verbatim, due recognition
W U EST’S WORD STUDIES 491
has been given the particular author, but the

writer has for the most part made the material
his own, and has put it in words which the
average Bible student can understand” (W uest, vol. 1,
G alatians, Preface).
How can his reader gather, as he claims, “a clearer, more

vivid portrait o f the Lord Jesus than he could from the
translation he is using,” by reading the skewed definitions o f a
Unitarian who does not even believe in the deity o f Christ
(Thayer), liberals who think that pagan Zoroastrianism was a
preview o f Christianity (Moulton and Milligan), or Trench, who
used the serpent logo o f Luciferian Madame Blavatsky? He
calls these men “the great Greek masters” (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, Preface).
They are none other than masters of deceit and doubt; their
heresy is so extensive that they each merit an entire chapter in
this book. He also uses Liddell-Scott’s corrupt and secular
Greek-English Lexicon. He says, “The foregoing estimate of
hagios is taken from Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and
Scott” (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, p. 16; vol. 1, M ark, p. 149; vol. 1, Romans, p. 32; vol. 1,
Ephesians, p. 42). Imagine using a secular lexicon derived from
pagan usage to define the word ‘holy’! The Holy Bible defines
the word ‘holy’ on every page, hence its title, Holy Bible.
Nuggets, Dug From the Trench
His opening words reveal the pit from which he dug his
"gold nuggets.” His first words in Treasures in the Greek New
Testament are, “ARCHBISHOP TRENCH in his Synonyms o f
the New Testament says... (caps in original; W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 15).
His Studies in the Vocabulary o f the Greek New Testament
likewise begins with the blazing words “ARCHBISHOP
TRENCH on the Study o f Synonyms” (caps in original; W uest, vol. 3,
studies in the vocabulary, p. is ) . He proceeds throughout all o f his books
to cite Trench’s original and vile mutations o f the word o f God.

He says such things as, “Trench in his Synonyms in the New
Testament, has some excellent m aterial...” (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, P. 64).
The second page reveals the true source o f W uest’s and even
Trench’s definitions. Wuest echoes Trench extolling in the
pagan Greek “Aristotle” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 16; vol. 2, The Pastoral
Epistles, p. 193; vol. 1, Rom ans, pp. 29, 41, 42, 145; vol. 1, Ephesians, pp. 20, 137; W uest,
Golden N uggets, pp. 80, 81 et nausium).
There are many pockets to pick and pick-pockets see profit

in them all. Wuest quickly follows his mention o f Trench
saying, “We submit Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary
o f the Greek Testament as our first authority.” Wuest continues
dragging the Holy Bible’s words through the streets,
“Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary o f

the Greek Testament give some illustrations of
its [another word’s] use in the secular
documents o f that time, which throw a flood of
light upon the way the average person used the
word in ordinary conversation” (W uest, vol. i,
Ephesians, p. 19).
Like Trench, Moulton and Milligan use “secular

documents” to define Bible words, as Wuest admits. Should the
student of the Bible care how the man-on-the-street used the
words, ‘love,’ ‘hell,’ ‘charity,’ ‘sister,’ and ‘faith’? The Bible’s
very purpose is to renew the mind. Lexicographers know that
the context must determine a w ord’s usage. Secular usage in
“The Papyri” will not give the Bible’s elevated usage. Yet
Wuest pretends, “These latter are the last court of appeal on the
usage of Greek words in the first century” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, PP.
34, 28). Page after page he tramples the KJB to powder in his
gold rush to dig through Moulton and Milligan’s secular

WUEST’S WORD STUDIES 493
papyrus, where secular contexts give soiled, not spiritual

m e a n i n g s (W uest, vol. 2, Hebrews, p. 193; vol. 1, Mark, p. 12; vol. I, Mark, pp. 36, 46, 47,
123, 135; vol. 1, Romans, pp. 12, 13, 77; vol. 1, Ephesians, pp. 19, 43, 49).
Unitarian Joins Wuest in Dissolving Jesus & the Trinity
Wuest defines words citing the Greek-English Lexicon of

Unitarian J. H. Thayer, who did not believe in the Trinity, the
Deity o f Christ or the blood atonement. Thayer’s lexicon
divests Christ o f his deity and disassembles the Godhead
(Trinity) at every opportunity. His warped Unitarian viewpoint
dilutes God’s words at the turn o f every page in W uest’s books
(e.g. W uest, vol. 3, Studies in the Vocabulary, p. 83; vol. 2, Philippians, p. 71; vol. 1, M ark, pp.
14, 168; vol. 1, Romans, pp. 23, 32, 157, 200, 206; vol. 1, Galatians, pp. 158; Ephesians, pp. 28,
40,41, 137).
Wuest himself charges, ‘T he words “Jesus Christ our Lord”

are rejected by both Nestle and Westcott and Hort,” therefore
Wuest omits them from his ‘W uest’ translation whenever
Nestle’s corrupt Greek text does, which is often (W uest, vol. 1,
Romans, pp. 14-16). Again elsewhere Wuest says, “the words, “the
Lord Jesus Christ,” do not appear in the Nestle or the Westcott

and Hort texts.” Consequently Wuest chops him from his
translation (W uest, vol. 1, Colossians, p. 171). O f Mark 15:37-39 Wuest
blasphemously charges,
“The centurion, impressed with all that had taken

place, exclaimed (A.V.), “Truly this man was the
Son o f God.” There is no definite article before
the word “Son.” What this soldier said was,
“Truly, this man was a son o f God.” Swete says:
The testimony which the Gospels attribute to
him (the centurion) is merely that of a man who
was able to rise above the prejudices o f the
crowd and the thoughtless brutality o f the
soldiers, and to recognize Jesus as an innocent

man (Lk.), or possibly a supernatural person
(Matt. Mk.)” (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, pp. 284-285).
Wuest copies this rendering, “a son o f God” in his own

translation. This diminution o f the one who died for men’s sins
is cause enough to throw Wuest’s books in the trash. Articles (a,
the) are not used in English as they are in Greek; often Greek
usage must be adjusted to fit English usage. For example, the
Greek text says, “the Jesus,” but all versions omit the definite
article (‘the’) because this is not proper English usage.
Wuest nudges Christ off his throne again and says, “The
best Greek texts have judgment seat “of God,” not “of Christ”
(W uest, vol. 1, Rom ans, P. 235). As if that were not enough, he omits
“through his blood” from “in whom we have redemption

through his blood” in Col. 1:14. He changes the simple word
“redemption” to “procured by the payment of ransom.” The
Bible’s own letters in ‘redemption’ (‘red-empti-on’) signal ‘red
(blood) empty on.’ ‘Redemption’ spells out Rev. 7:14 which
says, they have “washed their robes, and made them white in
the blood of the lamb.”
Watch Jesus Christ shrink again when seen through Wuest s

myopic spectacles. O f Jesus he says,
“He is often called in the A.V., ‘ the Master as

in John 11:28. The Greek word is didaskalos,
which means “teacher” (W uest, vol. i , Mark, P. 82).
The word can be translated either way, depending on the

context. The KJB recognizes that the word “Master” has an
English connotation beyond that o f a mere teacher.
W U EST’S WORD STUDIES 495
Wuest Wipes Away the Trinity
Wuest wipes out the Trinity in his translation o f Romans 1.

He first offers this bait,
“The Greek word translated “Godhead” needs

some study. It is theiotes..."
He goes on to cite Trench, the serpent-man, who divests the

word o f its Trinitarian definition, “Godhead,” weakening it to
merely “divine attributes.” Wuest adds Vincent’s charge that:
“Theiotes is godhood, not godhead. It signifies

the sum-total of the divine attributes” (W uest, vol. 1,
Rom ans, pp. 30-31).
Observe the melt-down from the Trinitarian, ‘G odhead,’ to

merely the “attributes” of “godhood.” W uest’s translation
therefore drops the Trinity (Godhead) and replaces it with
“divinity,” a quality. In his commentary on Colossians he says
theiotes means,
“ .. .He is a Being having divine attributes...”
This could be said o f any man who was walking in the spirit.
Wuest strangely introduces such compromising jabs in the
midst of his generally orthodox commentary (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians
and co lossians, p. 203). These lexicographers joined and “smote him
with the palms of their hands.” Wuest offers his fawning KJB-
derived platitudes once the beating is over (Matt. 26:67).
Wuest Follows the RV, RSV, and Nestle’s Greek
According to what version did Wuest model his ‘Wuest

translation’? He likes the Revised Version and its inbred child
the Revised Standard Version. His pen jabs at KJB words which
have “been discarded by the R.V., and rightly so” (W uest, vol. 1, Mark,
p. 157). He recommends the “Revised Standard Version, whose
translation team, according to an official U.S. government
manual, included many who were members of communist front
organizations (e.g. w u est, Golden Nuggets, p. 42). He makes glowing
remarks about the readings in this “Revision” (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians,
p. 122).
Wuest Defines Words Using a Corrupt Greek Text
Hear from Wuest the battle cry of all would-be gods, who
must first wrest the Holy Bible o f its holy title, so that they can
take its ruling scepter in hand and beat the Bible back to pulp.
He says,
“We do not claim verbal inspiration for any

translation. Therefore, the Greek text is the final
COUrt o f appeal” (em phasis mine; W uest, Golden Nuggets, p. 40).
Which Greek text is his “final court o f appeal”? I can

immediately name 70 different printed Greek editions and there
are more: Nestle-Aland (27), UBS (4), Pierpoint-Robinson (1),
Hodge-Farstad (1), Westcott-Hort (1), Tischendorf (1),
Griesbach (1), Tregelles (1), Colineas (1), Erasmus (5), Beza (4
folio; 6 sm.), Stephanus (4), Elzevir (2), Fell (1), Saubert (1),
Mill (1), Bentley (1), Wells (1), Mace (1), Bengal (1), Wettstein
(1), Lachmann (1), Lloyd (1), Scrivener (1).
Philip Sch aff s Companion to the Greek Testament and

English Version takes twenty-six pages to list at least 666
separate printed Greek New Testament editions printed
between 1514 and 1883 (NY: H arper and Brothers, 1885, Appendix I pp. 498-524,
2nd ed. rev.; facsim ile available from A.V. Publications, Ararat, VA; see also “ Index I.
Editionum ” from the Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, Brunsvigae, 1872 (pp. 289-301).
Wuest constantly deceives his nai've reader using the expression

“the Greek text,” as if there existed in print today an easily
accessible exact duplicate of the first century edition o f the
Koine Greek (e.g. W uest, vol. I, Mark, pp. 109, 154, 176, 177; The KJB translators said
they had it; we have it in English; ancient Greek is no longer m andated; see chapters “The
W obbly Unorthodox Greek O rthodox Crutch,” “The Textual Heresies o f F.H.A. Scrivener,” “A
Little Leaven,” “V ery W ary o f George Ricker Berry,” and “The Scriptures to All N ations”).
In his “Introduction” Wuest boasts that his book adds the

“accuracy which the original autographs afford.” He admits,
“ ...the Greek text used is N estle’s” Greek New Testament, a
near copy o f the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text. He
thinks that the Nestle text (currently called the Nestle-Aland or
NA) is basically “the same as those o f the original
autographs...” He has utmost confidence in this text saying,
“The errors which crept in during 1500 years of copying by
hand have been eliminated and a correct text form ed...” O f his
faulty Nestle text he claims, “The original h a s...” He frequently
repeats, “The Nestle text h as...,” it “is not in the Nestle text,”
the “Nestle text omits,” and “is not in the Nestle text” (W uest, vol. 1,
Ephesians, Preface; vol. 2, Pastoral Epistles, Preface; see also vol. 1, Mark, Preface; vol. 1,
Galatians, Preface et al.; vol. 3, Great Truths To Live By, p. 21; vol. I, Mark, p. 103 et al.; vol.
1, Mark, p. 66; vol. 1, M ark, p. 79; vol. 1 M ark, p. 124; vol. 1, M ark, p. 143, 163; vol. 1,
Galatians, Preface).
There have been 27 different editions o f the Nestle text. The

edition o f N estle’s text which would have been available when
Wuest wrote his books between 1940 and 1962 (Nestle 1st
through 24th) were not “the original” as he claims. All scholars
today, even the most recent editors o f the Nestle text, now
recognize many of Nestle’s earlier errors. The 25th edition came
out in 1963 after Wuest had completed his books. The 26lh and
27th editions had to admit the error o f the previous twenty-five
editions and make 470 changes back to the KJB readings. The
current Nestle-Aland text still changes the Received Text in
about 8000 places (For a detailed account o f the NA text see The Remtroduchon o f
Textus Receptus Readings in the 26'h Edition and Beyond o f the Nestle-Aland Novum
Testamentum-Graece; For particulars see Jack M oorm an, 8000 Differences- both ava.lable from
A.V. Publications).
A Bible student who is aware o f the scores of thousands of

missing words in new versions and their underlying texts would
never knowingly use such materials. However, one is using just
that corrupt Greek text when one uses W uest’s books. His
books contain his own translation of the text, which is translated
very loosely from one of the first twenty-four erring editions of
the corrupt N estle’s Greek text. Wuest charges the KJB with
error because its correct text does not match W uest’s incorrect
text! For example, he admits, “The words “And the cock crew
are rejected by Nestle” therefore they are omitted from his
“Translation” (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, p. 275).
W uest’s word definitions are therefore sometimes

definitions of the wrong Greek word. For this reason his
English translation and definitions do not match the KJB. Those
using Wuest to define the words in the KJB are often using
definitions of the word in a different and highly corrupted
Greek text. For example, the Nestle text has rantizo to
sprinkle,” instead o f “baptizo” “to immerse” in Mark 7:4. Try to
bury someone by sprinkling dirt on them! (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, P. i « ) .
His Nestle text leads him to use “boats” rather than the KJB s
“little ships,” “a reading which Nestle has put in the apparatus
(W uest, vol. 1, M ark, P. 96). Elsewhere he charges the KJB with error
saying, “N estle’s Greek text so punctuates the passage” (W uest, vol.

1, M ark, p. 35). He occasionally admits the disagreement between
different Greek editions saying of Romans 14:19, “The A.V.,

Westcott and Hort, Denny, and Robertson take it as subjunctive,
Eberhard and Irwin Nestle report it as indicative” (W uest, vol. 1,
Romans, p. 239). He admits that the Nestle family does not always
agree,
“Eberhard Nestle includes echdmen in his text

while putting echomen in his apparatus. Irwin
Nestle in his sixteenth edition o f his father’s text,
uses echomen, putting echdmen in the apparatus”
(W uest, vol. 1, Romans, p. 75).
He pretends that “The Authorized Version follows a faulty

Greek tex t...” (The veracity o f the KJB was proven in New Age
Bible Versions). He proceeds to change Hebrews 12:7, which
completely destroys the meaning o f the verse (W uest, vol. 2 , Hebrews, P.
218). He frequently says “the best texts” do not match the KJB
(e.g. w uest, Golden Nuggets, p. 75). He identifies his ‘best texts’ as the
frequently disagreeing “uncial manuscripts Vaticanus and

Sinaiticus” (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, p. 149). His “best Greek texts” are
clearly wrong in Mark 1:2 with their use of the phrase “in Isaiah
the prophet,” since the quote comes from Malachi 3:1 and
Isaiah 40:3 (W uest, vol. i, Mark, p. 12). The KJB correctly says, “in the
prophets.”
Wuest pretends to have “The literal Greek,” but any

translator or linguist knows that few Greek words have only one
potential literal English meaning (W uest, vol. i, Mark, P. 235 et al.).
Digging for nuggets in any Greek text can unearth boulders to
bolster even the foothold o f liberal ladies. Wuest props up the
“weaker vessel” and hands her the scepter too. He calls Phoebe
a “deaconess” in his translation, not distinguishing the varied
meanings o f the Greek word, which include both ‘deacon’ and
‘servant’ (W uest, vol. 1, Romans, p. 258). He neglects to compare
“spiritual things with spiritual.” 1 Tim. 3:12 says, “Let the
deacons be the husband o f one w ife...” If this dangerous
digging continues, someone will eventually unearth an

unscriptural modern-day ‘deaconesses’ with “one wife.”
W uest’s Pagan Panoply
The meanings used by the “pagan writers” fill much of

W uest’s books (i.e. W uest, vol. 3, Great Truths to Live By, p. 19). Wuest S I
resources also include:
■ the corrupt “classical Greek” (e.g. w u est, vol. 1, M ark, PP. 69,270).
■ the LXX (Vaticanus or Alexandrinus texts) (e.g. w u est, vol. 1,
M ark, p. 74; Rom ans, p. 61).
■ the corrupt Hebrew “Talm udists” (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, P. 94).
■ Plato, the homosexual (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, p. 158; Rom ans, p. 57).
■ B.F. Westcott (W uest, vol. 1, Romans, p. 61).
Does God care how Xenophon, Polybius, and Herodotus use

the word paradidomf! Wuest thinks his readers care — all in
the name of changing the Holy Bible (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, P . 93). Wuest
would have us take our definition of baptizo from the violence
in The Battle o f the Frogs:
“Baptizo is used in the nineth book o f the

Odyssey, where the hissing of the burning eye of
the Cyclops is compared to the sound of water
where a smith dips (baptizo) a piece of iron,
tempering it. In the Battle of the Frogs and Mice,
it is said that a mouse thrusts a frog with a reed,
and the frog leaped over the water, (baptizo)
dyeing it with his blood. Euripides uses the word
of a ship which goes down in the water and does
not come back to the surface. Lucian dreams that
he has seen a huge bird shot with a mighty
arrow, and as it flies high in the air, it dyes
(baptizo) the clouds with his blood. An ancient

scholium to the Fifth Book o f the Iliad makes a
wounded soldier dye (baptize) the earth with his
blood. In Xenophone’s Anabasis, we have the
instance where the Greek soldiers placed
(baptizo) the points o f their spear in a bowl o f
blood” (W uest, vol. 3, Studies in the Vocabulary, p. 71).
What Bible verse would direct a Christian to read the pagan

myths, which are full o f gore and violence, to find G od’s usage
of this word? The Bible warns, “[H]im that loveth violence his
soul hateth” (Ps. 11:5). Instead, a Christian is taught to “keep
himself unspotted from the world” James 1:27.
A babe, reading the English Bible, would clearly see that

“they went down both into the w ater...and he baptized him”
(Acts 8:38). The Holy Bible has no one-eyed babies, no
sprinkling Cyclopes, and no blood-filled baptismal basins in
any context describing baptism. The context defines its own
words. However, religionists do not like the Holy Bible’s ‘holy’
‘separate from sinners’ definitions. Therefore Wuest creates his
own one-eyed beastly books marking the forehead and mind
with man’s ‘definitions.’ Lexicons serve to keep the Bible
teacher’s two eyes out o f the Holy Bible, where “the wisdom
that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and
easy to be entreated...” (James 3:17). We are not to “speak of
those things which are done o f them in secret” (Eph. 5:12).
Elsewhere Wuest cites Bible-despiser Marvin Vincent’s

inebriated definition o f “drunk,” saying, “A curious use o f the
word occurs in Homer, where he is describing the stretching of
a bull’s hide, which in order to make it more elastic, is soaked
(methuskd) with fat” (W uest, vol. i, E phesians,p. 127). How much easier it
would have been to read the Bible's context to determine that to

be “drunk” is to be “filled” to “excess” with “wine (Eph 5.18).
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent

beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds
should be corrupted from the simplicity that is
in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
Air Conditioned Hell & Its Escape Hatch
In W uest’s chapter, “Is Future Punishment Everlasting?” he

cites Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary, leaving the hint that
“aion refers to a limited period of time,” which “lies no farther
than the span of a Caesar’s life” (W uest, vol. 3. Treasures, pp. 34, 35).
Although he proceeds to give the scriptural usage of awn he
has left the impression that perhaps, just perhaps, the word did
not mean that the punishment of the unsaved wicked is
everlasting. To further shade the contextual meaning of awn, he
says,
“We come now to the testimony of A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament by
Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D. He gives as the first
meaning o f aion, age, a human lifetime, life
itself, and for the second meaning an unbroken
age, perpetuity of time, eternity” (W uest, vol. 3,
Treasures, p. 36).
As a Unitarian, Thayer does not believe in everlasting

punishment. His definition leaves the reader to choose how awn
is translated in every context. The Holy Bible has given no such
options to the reader. Hence, the dangerous element 'n Gre
lexicons is showing the Bible reader what is assumed to
the Greek text and then showing them that certain words
have “shades of meaning” in other contexts which, if applied

in a different context, can completely uproot a given reading
in the English Holy Bible. As if Moulton, Milligan and Thayer
were not enough, Wuest also goes all the way back to the
unholy genesis of Greek-English lexicography and cites
Liddell-Scott. He says,
“Finally, we quote Liddell and Scott in their

Greek-English Lexicon (classical). Aion means a
space or period o f tim e...eternity” (W uest, vol. 3,
Treasures p. 36).
Wuest then concludes “These authorities agree on the two

meanings o f aion, that o f a limited space o f time, and that of
eternity...” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 36).
All o f the liberal and New Age theology in new versions

could have been gathered from W uest’s weedy garden.
Judgment is so often re-painted in W uest’s books. He
recommends the New Age version reading, “end o f the age,”
where hippies just turn the page on their calendars. He rejects
God’s judgment which speaks o f the “end o f the world” (KJB),
where the calendar and the corrupter are together consumed
(W uest, vol. 3, Studies in the Vocabulary, p. 59). Often it is not just what Wuest
says that brings deception; it is what he does not say. He will

never tell his reader that all versions must translate “aion” as
both ‘world,’ ‘age,’ ‘eternal,’ ‘evermore’ and a number o f other
words. O f course, he and the serpent will let you pick which
goes where, to lend strength to the never ending questioning of
the word o f God.
To add to the confusion about everlasting punishment,

Wuest quotes Thayer as saying that in 2 Thes. 1:9 “everlasting
destruction” means “death” (W uest, Treasures, vol. 3, p. 41). Aha,
annihilation of the wicked is taught here, coinciding with

Thayer’s Unitarianism. Wuest throws the dice and almost
always lands up on the orthodox side, but he and his merry band
o f lexicographers have succeeded in exposing the reader to
options which do not exist in the English Holy Bible, at which
we are told to “tremble.” What Wuest calls “the four Greek
authorities quoted” have opened wide a door through which
weak and carnal souls have thronged for hundreds ot years
(W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 38).
Before Wuest is done with any topic, he is sure to tell his

reader that the A.V. (King James Bible) is wrong. W uest’s
corrupt Greek text weakens the Bible’s eternal punishment,
changing “damnation,” to merely “sin.’ He says,
“As to Mark 3:29, the best Greek texts have

“sin” instead o f “damnation,” which latter word
appears in the A.V., as the translation o f a Greek
word meaning “judgment,” and which is a
rejected reading” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 40).
The substitution of “sin” for “damnation” sweeps away G od's

“damnation” and condemning judgment on “sin. W“ es
follows the unsaved liberals who are deathly afraid of eternal
damnation.” He says,
“Vincent is most emphatic in his denunciation of

the translation offered here by the A.V. He says,
“An utterly false rendering. Rightly as Revision
[RV], o f an eternal sin” (W uest, vol. i , M ark, p. 78).
He then quotes Hereford and Purvey’s false edition of Wycliffe

in support of his views. He adds,
W U E ST ’S WORD STUDIES 505
“The A.V. has gone wrong in following

Tyndale, who, in turn, followed the erroneous
text o f Erasmus, kriseos, judgment, wrongly
rendering damnation. The Nestle text has
aidniou hamarteematos, “an eternal sin” (W uest, vol.
1, M ark, p. 78).
Wuest says, “As to the words “shall be damned,” Vincent says:

“A most unfortunate rendering...”” (W uest, vol. 1, Mark, P. 292).
W uest’s lexicon is a wax-museum, where KJB words are

melted and molded to match the face o f age-old liberalism.
There for modem readers to admire hangs Trench’s bright
repainting o f the “blackness o f darkness for ever,” as “the
setting sun” and “twilight” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 42). The gavel of
God’s holy judgment on sin is replaced by a feather duster.
Wuest tells the reader that the Greek word ‘Hades’ does not
mean “hell,” but “The Unseen” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 45). His own
translation o f Rev. 1:18 says, “I have the keys of the Unseen
and of death (W uest, vol. 3, Studies in the Vocabulary, p. 49). Wuest gets his
definition ‘the Unseen’ from the pagans. He admits, “The
“Hades” o f the pagan Greeks was the invisible land, the realm
of shadow ...” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, pp. 45-47). If that is what hades
means, why has God never lead any pure translation, in any
language, to use a word with that implication? W uest’s private
interpretation will not stand up against all o f the Bibles world
wide, which use a word very similar in meaning and etymology
to the English ‘hell’ (See The Language o f the King James
Bible). With W uest’s definition o f Hades as ‘the Unseen,’ hell
could be anything from ‘heaven’ to a blind date.
The King James Bible speaks o f eternal punishment saying,

“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not

quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off:
it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than
having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:45
Echoing the standard liberal cry, Wuest says, “The oldest and
best manuscripts do not give these verses.” “Nestle rejects the
words, “into the fire that never shall be quenched”” (W uest, vol. i,
Mark, p. 192). He remolds what he considers wrong here in the KJB.
Throughout his books, he gives his own translation. Usually

his “translation omits words not found in the Nestle text, but ^
which appear in the A.V” (W uest, vol. i , M ark, P. 238). Revelation 22: 19
sternly warns,
“And if any man shall take away from the

words o f the book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out o f the book o f life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which
are written in this book.”
W uest’s books are the dangerous product o f a man who has

both removed and added words to the Holy Bible. Would God
give such a rebel insights which he would not give a humble
reader of the Holy Bible? (See N ew A ge Bible Versions, Appendix C, "How To
U nderstand the King Jam es Bible” ).
Those who already have orthodox beliefs will ferret-out

these same beliefs from W uest’s books and call him a good
teacher. But all is also well for those who scour books, such as
W uest’s, looking for an escape hatch from the lake of fire an
the Holy Bible which warns o f it. With Wuest s rubber-ban
bible, he and publisher, Wm. B. Eerdman’s, can stretch their

market to include both the Bible student and the Bible scomer.
Calvinism: Gospel for the Select Elect
Wuest promises readers that his book offers “a far more

intelligent understanding o f the Gospel than they could obtain
from the translation they are using” (W uest, vol. 1, Mark, Preface). The
charge that his words are “far more intelligent” than those in the
Holy Bible hisses like the serpent’s subtle offer “to make one
wise” (Gen. 3:6). The ghost o f John Calvin, which hounds the
true church today, walks through walls via much o f the standard
printed material used unwisely by many who are not Calvinists.
W uest’s books are one such specter. His full-blown Calvinism
haunts his definitions o f “predestinate, “choose,” and
“foreknowledge.” He says that, “Divine election refers therefore
to the act o f God in which He chooses out certain from among
mankind for salvation.” He refuses to see predestination as
based on foreknowledge saying, “These words when used of
God in the New Testament, signify more than merely the fact of
knowing something beforehand...” He says it involves
“determining the destiny o f someone” (W uest, vol. 3, studies in the
vocabulary, pp. 34-35). Wuest parrots Calvin’s fatalistic doctrine of
‘irresistible grace’ saying,
“It is true that according to the A.V., the

doctrines o f salvation were delivered to us, and
we by the grace o f God believed them. However,
that is not what Paul said in his Greek. The
verb “delivered” is second person plural. The
Greek text reads, “the form o f doctrine into
which you were delivered”” (em phasis mine, W uest, vol.
1, Rom ans, p. 111).
The KJB says, “that form of doctrine which was delivered

you.” His ‘Wuest Translation’ changes it to Calvinism s the
type of teaching into which you were handed over” (em phasis mine,
w u e s t vol. 1, Romans. P. in). Wuest hammers his Calvinism into the
ground in his study of Ephesians. His translation says, “having

previously marked us out with the result that He placed us as
adult sons through the intennediate agency of Jesus Christ for
H im self...” (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, p. 50; for a rebuttal o f Calvinism , see the section
on Beza in the chapter on Scrivener).
Wuest adds,
“We have here three steps God takes in the

salvation of a sinner. God the Father selects him
out from among m ankind...the Holy Spirit
brings that sinner to the act of faith in the Lord
Jesus...” (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, p. 30).
Wuest quotes another author speaking of, “the issue of an

election prior to their call or conversion, a blessing that came
to them in accordance with a definite choice of them out of a
mass of others by God for H im self’ (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, P. 30).
Wuest even follows Nestle’s groundless change of verse

separation and punctuation in Ephesians 1:4, 5, so that it reads,
“in love having predestinated” (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, P. 34). Wues
says, “A.T. Roberson said that the first rule of scripture
interpretation is that one should ignore chapter and verse
divisions as one studies the Word” (W uest, vol. i , M ark, P. m ) . This i
contrary to the Bible which says in Acts 13:33, “again as it is
also written in the second psalm.”
Wuest’s Definitions Are New Version Words
Like all lexicons, W uest’s definitions are the very words

used by new versions, such as the NKJV or NIV; if one had not
read a new version one would not be aware o f this. Observe a
few examples:
■ Like new versions, he exalts man and replaces the word

“vile” with the word “humiliation” (W uest, Golden Nuggets, p.
66).
■ Just like the erring new versions in John 4:24, he gives

the monistic rendering, “God is spirit,” instead o f the
correct KJB reading, “God is a spirit.” He is forgetting
that all spirits are not God (W uest, Golden Nuggets, p. 76). The
Greek language has no indefinite article; the context
determines whether the word “a” is used or omitted.
Frequently Wuest dumps the God-honored rendering in
the English Bible in favor of his own choice.
■ The error o f his secularized use of “good news,” in place
o f the holy, separate from sinners word “gospel,” is
thoroughly discussed in The Language o f the King
James Bible and In Awe o f Thy Word (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, p. 11).
■ In Mark 1 Wuest would change the word “way” to the
secular word “road,” thereby losing many cross
references. The “way o f the Lord” is in the heart; the
secular “road,” misses the meaning completely. He says,
“The idea would be clearer if one translated by the word
‘road ’ (W uest, vol. 1, M ark, p. 13).
■ The K ing’s “servants” grovel as “slaves” according to
Wuest and all new versions (W uest, vol. 1, Ephesians, P. 137).
Who Wants To Be Perfect? Not Thayer, Moulton or Vincent
Lexicon authors should sub-title their dictionaries: How to

Change the Bible, Before It Changes You. They follow this
rapid road to apostasy:
1.) Find the Greek word in a Greek text (not necessarily

always the original).
2.) Translate it into English any way you like.
3.) Then pretend that your English translation is THE
‘meaning’ in English.
Moulton and Milligan and all lexicographers do this. Then new

version editors copy the English ‘meaning’ invented by the
lexicographers. Observe one example:
The KJB’s word “perfect” melts down to “adequate in the

world o f laid-back liberals (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:17). Watch as Moulton
and Milligan change a qualitative attribute (perfect) to a
quantitative evaluator (complete, full, mature).
“It [teleios] is found in the phrases.. .women who

have attained maturity are mistresses... four fu ll-
grown cocks...fourteen acacia trees in good
condition; four cocks in perfect condition; a
complete lampstand...one perfect Theban
m ill...” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 113).
Once these three baseless English words - mature, complete,

and full — have been engraved in a ‘Holy Lexicon,’ they now
become THE ‘meaning’ of the word and now appear in all new
versions of the Bible. A real translator could have used the wor
‘perfect’ in all of these cases. Notice that they do use it in some
cases; why not all cases? The Greeks did not speak English.
Moulton has no right to assume what they meant by teleios. Let

another classicist translate this one word and he could use the
English word “perfect” ’ for all o f its usages - perfect
lampstands, perfect cocks, and perfect women.
Like the Word, the Bible is “made higher”; Christians are

supposed to be above chickens and trees, since we are made in
God’s image. The believers “he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image o f his Son” (Gen. 1:26, Heb. 7:26,
Rom. 8:29; notice that we are not predestined ‘to be saved,’ but
to be like Jesus, once we are saved.).
New versions echo W uest’s assertion that Christians are not

to strive to be “perfect,” merely ‘mature’ like the old “mistress”
or the gnarled and overgrown tree. Centenarians (100 years old)
may be mature, but are not necessarily perfect.
New Versions King James Bible
maturity Heb. 6:1 perfection

mature Eph. 4:13 perfect
mature 1 Cor. 2:6 perfect
A lampstand made in China may be ‘complete,’ but it is

hardly perfect. College students may complete their degree and
be fu lly trained, but are not perfect.
New Versions King James Bible
fully trained Luke 6:40 perfect

complete 2 Cor. 13:11 perfect
complete Rev. 3:2 perfect
complete 1 Thes. 5:23 blameless
complete Matt. 19:21 perfect
Wuest echoes the Unitarian Thayer, saying that the word

means “completeness” and “mature.” He adds “The word
“completeness” speaks of a well-rounded Christian
character.. .proper balance” (W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 113-114 et al.).
In ANY English dictionary, the words ‘complete,’ ‘mature,’

and ‘perfect’ are not synonyms. Wuest carries the Thayer,
Moulton, and Milligan debacle for many pages insisting that
‘perfect’ is not the correct word. His ideas are all based on
someone’s English, NOT GREEK, private interpretation,
relating to, o f all things, some ‘chickens.’ He always lowers the
bar, loosens the restraints, and draws the spiritual baby chicks
out from under the M aster’s safe wings. Moulton and M illigan’s
secular non-sense is like chicken scratch, running rampant
through the book’s pages (e.g. W uest, vol. 3, Treasures, p. 126).
The Bible (& even W ebster’s) Had It All Along
Wuest wrongly charges the KJB with using “obsolete

English” (W uest, vol. 1, Mark, p. 130). In Awe o f Thy Word proves that
the vocabulary o f the KJB was not the vocabulary o f 1611, but
is Biblical English. He has evidently never traced the historical
etymology of the KJB’s words using the unabridged Oxford
English Dictionary, examined common usage in 1611, or
collated the difference between the common vocabulary o f the
Tyndale, Coverdale, and Bishops’ Bibles against the “separate
from sinners” vocabulary o f the KJB. Scholarship in the
receptor language, which is half the job o f the lexicographer, is
completely missing in all lexicons.
W uest’s keeps readers panning for fool’s gold by implying

that his ‘definitions’ were mined from the very veins o f the
original. For the word ‘quicken’ or ‘quick’ he says,
“This verb in classical Greek meant “to produce

animals,” used especially o f worms and grubs.
The noun meant “a making alive”” (W uest, vol. 3,
Studies in the Vocabulary, p. 69).
A student of the actual Bible already has seen “quick” used in

the Bible in the opposing comparison between “the quick and
the dead.” He had no need to purchase a book about Greek
worms to discover that ‘quick’ meant ‘alive.’ (See The
Language o f the King James Bible, chapter 1, for the K JB’s use
o f opposites to define words.)
In closing, W uest’s general orthodoxy stems from the fact

that he was reared, trained, and surrounded by the milieu that
used only the King James Bible. Works such as his have
uprooted that sure foundation for future generations. Even
Wuest must admit that, “The Holy Spirit owns and quickens the
translated Word, and has always done so” (W uest, vol. 3, Preface).
Amen.
C h ap ter 14
Marvin Vincent
Marred and Sin-Bent

Word Studies in the New Testament
• Logos Bible Software

■ Olive Tree
A.T. Robertson’s
Word Pictures in the New Testament
Summary: Marvin Vincent
1.) Vincent defines words using the

corrupt Greek Text.
2.) He denies the existence o f Satan.
3.) He parallels Lucifer and Jesus

Christ.
4.) He denies the blood atonement

of Jesus Christ.
5.) To gather his definitions, he

references the pagan Greeks, the
liberal Germans, the most
secular lexicons, and the worst
commentaries.
VINCENT’S WORD STUDIES 515
Marvin Richardson Vincent
eptember 11, 1834 was a dreadful day for the Bible.
S Vincent was bom and brought with him a whining

distaste for the sincere milk o f the word. He languished
through his early years and found a like-minded congregation to
pastor in the worldly-wise metropolis o f New York City. As an
adult he passed on his scorn for the meat o f the word in his
books, Critical Commentary on Philippians and Philemon
(1897), History o f the Textual Criticism o f the New Testament
(1899), and The Gospel o f Luke in the Temple Bible (London,
1902). By 1883, he had joined the other Bible-criticizing
barbarians at Union Theological Seminary, wielding his club as
a professor o f Bible “criticism” (The New Schaff-H erzog Encyclopedia, Funk
and W agnaiis, vol. 12, 1912, p. 197). He did most o f his Bible battering in
his multi-volume Word Studies in the New Testament (1887).
Why Do Some Believe the KJB is Wrong?
The preface o f that book begins by saying, “The critical

student o f the Greek Testament will, therefore, find himself here
on familiar, and often on rudimental, ground.. .” (M arvin V incent, Word
Studies in the N ew Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. E erdm an’s Publishing, Co., 1972 ed,
He charges that the
originally printed by Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887, vol. 1, p. v).
KJB is “uncertain” and claims “A.V. confusion” abounds. He

first cites the “authorized version” and then hammers away at it
until the Word is crucified once again (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xiii et al.). He
inflicts the Word with his own twenty-lash harangue saying,
■ “Nothing could be more infelicitous than the A.V.

[Authorized Version, i.e. KJB] rendering...” (v o l.4 , P. 477).
■ “The A.V. entirely misses this point.. (vol. 4 , p. 453).
■ “The A.V. is wrong” (vol. 4 , P. 467).
■ “The A.V. overlooks...” (v o l.4 , p . 462).
■ “A.V. misses the sense...” (vol. 4, p. 85).

■ “The A.V. wrongly lends itself to ... ” (vol. 4, p. 89).
■ “The A.V. completely destroys the beauty o f this verse” (vol.
4, p. 522).
■ “The A.V. misses the force...” (vol. 4, P. 1 14).
■ “The A.V. entirely misses the idea o f interpretation” (vol. 4, P.
437).
■ “As given in the A.V. the illustration throws no light on the
Subject” (vol. 4, p. 447).
■ “The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless
obscurity.. (vol. 4 , p. 486).
■ “The A.V. is wrong” (vol. 4, PP. 489,499).
■ “The full sense of the statement is missed in A.V.” (vol. 4, P.

524).
■ “The A.V. is misleading, and narrows the scope o f the
passage” (vol. 4, P. 538).
■ “A.V. entirely obscures the true m eaning...” (vol. 4, P. 438).
■ The “A.V. misses the sense...” (vol. 4 , P. 85).
■ “The A.V. wrongly lends itself to ...” (vol. 4, P. 89).
How many naive students have read Vincent’s words and

lost their confidence in their Holy Bible? He constantly says the
RV [Revised Version] is “better” and more “correct” (Vincent, vol. 3,
P. 26; vol. 4, p. 52). He repeatedly claims the KJB is “Wrong” and the
RV renders words “correctly” (e.g. Vincent, vol. 3, p. 4). He also

recommends “the American Revisers” [ASV] renderings (Vincent,
vol. 3, p. 34). He says words “cannot mean” what the KJB says
(Vincent, vol. 4, p. 36). He, o f course, defines words “More correctly,”
using the RV, which to him usually seems “correct” (Vincent, vol. 4,
pp. 39, 52).
This rapture with the RV, wherein dictionary makers and

lexicographers use the words o f the RV to define words, is most
dangerous. The chapter, “Child Molester on New Version
Committee,” brings to justice the men behind the RV, whose

words infect many other study aids. It is not a pleasant chapter
to read, but is a necessary bitter tonic for those enamored with
study tools that are infected with RV words (e.g. Strong, Vine,
Vincent, Brown, Driver, and Briggs, etc.).
It is time for a reading break. Some can skip this chapter and
go on to the next; Vincent was such a copycat that he merely
mimics what others have said and is discussed elsewhere in this
book. Only died-in-the-wool Vincent groupies need to read this
chapter. New version editors and recent lexicons frequently
follow his suggestions. If you have wondered where the NIV
scoured for its words, look into Vincent’s Word Studies. Nearly
one hundred years before the NIV, he said we should not be
“followers o f God,” but “imitators,” (like Lucifer, who also
wanted to be “ ...like the most High” Isa. 1 4 : 1 4 ) (vol.4, P. 17).
Vincent leads his readers through the dank and dim

corridors o f the pagan past to bring them to his “secret chamber
of a word.” This contradicts God, who said, “I have not spoken
in secret, in a dark place o f the earth” (Isa. 4 5 : 1 9 ) (Vincent, vol. 1, P.
xii). The Bible says o f G od’s words, “They are all plain to him
that understandeth...” (Prov. 8 : 9 ) . Vincent promises “clear

light” on the English “translation” of the Bible, through the dark
minds o f homosexuals, such as Plato, Socrates, and Symonds.
He charges God with becoming progressively more feeble

and out-of-breath, as he travels through time. He quips,
“Something must exhale in the transfer from one language to
another...Reading an author in a translation is like hearing
through a telephone.” However, what does he offer in the place
of the English translation o f the Holy Bible? He offers the same
thing: his own English translations o f its words. How is it that
his English translation is not, “like hearing through a

telephone”? (Vincent, vol. l,p p . v, vi).
Vincent is dead; his multi-volume Word Studies generally

all sit gathering dust. Only a passel o f pastors and pack of
professors know about Vincent’s Word Studies in the New
Testament. The average Christian has only heard V incents ;
definitions repeated across microphone wires, as they shock
listeners while charging the word of God with error. Like a
lexicographers, he criticized the KJB on nearly every page of
his books. A few aficionados may access his Word Studies via
Logos Bible software or Olive Tree software, but the ^ JB lives
on on millions of coffee tables and night stands. God has
preserved and honored his word, while Vincent’s words pine
alone on the shelf and he perhaps languishes beyond the great
gulf- |
Vincent’s Blasphemy
Hebrews 9:12-14 says,
“by his own blood he entered in once into the

holy place, having obtained eternal redemption
for u s .. .the blood of Christ
Vincent stabs,
“Regarded merely as blood, Christ’s offering is
not superior to the Levitical sacrifice. If
Christianity gives us only the shedding o f blood,
even Christ’s blood, it does not give us a real or
an efficient atonement” (Vincent, vol. 4, P. 482).
Vincent appears to be a proponent of B.F. W estcott’s brand

o f “Incamational” theology, which emphasizes Christ’s
incarnation, not his atoning blood, death, and bodily

resurrection. Incamational theology teaches that when Christ
became flesh, Christ, as the “Son o f Man,” infused all o f
mankind with divinity (Vincent, vol. 2, pp. 4, 5; see Riplinger’s N ew A ge Bible
Versions and James Sightler’s A Testimony Founded F or E ver for details about W estcott’s
Vincent cites Godet who SayS, it is not

heresy o f ‘Incam ational’ theology).
by the blood atonement but “ ...by the Incarnation believers are

restored to that communion with the Word, and that living
relation with God, of which man had been deprived by sin”
(Vincent, vol. 2, pp. 23-24).
Vincent discards Jesus Christ, whether by following the

corrupt Greek text or by ignoring the context. Note the
following examples:
■ Vincent says, “The best texts omit Jesus” in 1 Peter 5:10

(Vincent, v o l.l.p . 671).
■ He chops “Christ” in Acts 9:20 and pretends, “Christ

was not yet current as his personal name” (Vincent, vol. 1, P.
493).
■ Jesus Christ, the Son o f God, is demoted to a “servant”

by Vincent in Acts 3:13. Vincent never tells his reader
that the Greek word used there is translated as “son” by
all versions elsewhere in the New Testament. Jesus was
crucified, not because he said he was the “servant o f
Jehovah,” as Vincent and Trench pretend, but because
he said he was the Son o f God (Vincent, vol. 1, p. 461, et al.).
■ Vincent says Christ was “begotten before the creation.”
This is the “begotten God” o f the Jehovah Witnesses and
the NASB (see NASB John 1:18; V incent, vol. 3, p. xxxii).
■ O f the reading in 1 Peter 2:7, “he is precious,” Vincent
stomps, “Wrong. Render as Rev. [RV].” He prefers,
“For you therefore which believe is the preciousness”
(Vincent, vol. 1, p. 643).
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
After citing several pages about “Judaeo-Alexandrine

Philosophy,” Platonic philosophy, and the Gnostic
Logos, Vincent says,
“John’s doctrine and terms are colored by these

preceding influences. During his residence at
Ephesus he must have become familiar with the
forms and terms of the Alexandrian theology”
The fact is— John did not write the book of John. God
did. God was not “colored” by the pagan usage of the
word “Logos” in his choice of that word for the title of
his Son. Vincent speaks of the “mystical views o f the
book of John (Vincent, vol. 2, p. 12). He says, The history is
the practical exhibition of the Logos-doctrine in the
person and earthly life o f the Man Jesus” (Vincent, vol. 2 , P. i \
He speaks o f “Jesus’ position as the representative of
humanity” (Vincent, vol. 2 , P. 7). To support this he cites
Westcott, whose “matchless powers of shading
language” cloak his perverse theology, as both he and
Vincent re-define even the most basic Christian terms
(V incent, vol. 2, p. 8; citation elsewhere in this book). ^ ^
He states that God created all things “through,” not by
Jesus Christ, thus demoting Christ (Vincent, vol. 2, P. 13).
Vincent says of Romans 1:20, “Godhead” is wrong, as
“Godhead expresses deity" He prefers the RV s
“divinity,” as “It signifies the sum-total o f the divine
attributes” (Vincent, vol. 3, p. 16). Attributes are not the
Godhead. A Christian may have divine attributes (e.g.
longsuffering, gentleness), but these qualities are not the
persons of the Holy Trinity.
Vincent apparently would not want to be called a

“Christian,” as he claims the term is used,
“Only three times in the New Testament, and

never as a name used by Christians themselves,
but as a nickname or term o f reproach...Hence
Peter’s idea is, if any man suffer from the
contumely o f those who contemptuously style
him Christian. . .” (Vincent, vol. l , p . 664).
Links Lucifer and Jesus
New versions omit Lucifer from Isa. 14:12 and replace

him with Jesus Christ, the morning star. They also
blasphemously put a footnote next to the verse on Lucifer,
connecting it to Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:19. Vincent makes the
same diabolical connection. O f Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 he
says, “like Lucifer.” To defend this he sends the reader on a
wild goose chase to the vile Greek author “Aeschylus” and his
““Agamemnon,” 245” (Vincent, vol. i , P. 688).
No Satan
The devil does not exist, according to Vincent. Just as do

the German higher critics, Vincent claims that the Old
Testament references to “Satan” are due to “the contact o f the
Jews with the religions o f Babylon and Persia.” This notion,
that the Jews borrowed their religion and language from
neighboring pagans, comes from the same German higher
critics that set the theological stage for the Nazi holocaust. O f
the New Testament usages o f the word, ‘Satan,’ Vincent
concludes, “any attempt to base the doctrine o f a personal devil
on this and similar passages is unsafe” (Vincent, vol. 4, P. 3i). Vincent
takes Satan off the hook and uses the critical Greek text to hang
Jesus and his word back on it.
Vincent appears to be like some who lived in the late 1800s.

Luciferians denied the existence o f Satan and said that Lucifer
was the true morning star. (See New Age Bible Versions for
complete details.)
Salvation
Salvation is easy for Vincent. He thinks that^ Ephesians

3:14-21 teaches “the universal fatherhood of God. He writes
of, “one universal “Father,” ruling, pervading, and dwelling in
all.” He says, “all men are brethren in Christ” (Vincent, vol. 3, P. xxxvi
et al.). Note that he did not say, ‘all men in Christ are brethren.
His incamational theology immerges all of mankind into Christ

automatically, through the incarnation. He notes that the “one
Baptism” is inscribed on “the baptismal laver” (Vincent, vol. 3, pp. xxvi,
xxix). Vincent is a proponent of what he and other liberals call the
“sacraments” o f “Baptism and of the Eucharist” (Vincent, vol. 2, pp. 6,

10).
Vincent Uses Critical Greek Text
Vincent claims that his Word Studies provide contact with

“the original words,” yet the Greek text he uses is the corrupt
Greek text, which was only original with Origen, Westcott, and
Hort (Vincent, vol. 1, p. v; see New Age Bible Versions). He SayS,
“I have followed principally the text of Westcott

and Hort, comparing it with Tischendorf s eighth
edition, and commonly adopting any reading in
which the two agree” (Vincent, vol. i , p . xiii).
In other words, the Greek text followed for his definitions is not
any one Greek text in print, but a composite, the creation o f his
own personal imagination. For example, he says,
■ “The A.V. follows T.R. [Textus Receptus],” which should

“Omit labour” (Vincent, vol. 4, p. 448).
■ The KJB is “Entirely wrong, following T.R .” (Vincent, vol. 4, p.
507).
■ The word “mount is omitted by the best texts...” (Vincent, vol. 4 ,

p. 550).
Note the following other examples:
■ When charging error to the Received Text in 1 Thes. 2:7,

Vincent says the Greek text o f “Westcott and Hort” “gives a
stronger and bolder im age.. (Vincent, vol. 4, p. 24).
■ Elsewhere he boasts saying, “The best texts, however,
read __ ” (V incent, vol. 1, p. 498).
■ He says, “the best texts omit,” some o f Jesus’ words at the
end o f Luke. Therefore he would delete, “And saith unto
them, Peace be unto you” (Vincent, vol. 1, P. 437).
To determine which Greek readings to use, he cites the worst of

the corrupt Greek editions including:
1.) “R evisers’ Text o f the Greek Testament. Oxford, 1881” (Vincent,

vol. 1, p. xx).
2.) “W estcott, Brooke Foss, and Hort, Fenton J.A.: The New
Testament in the Original Greek. American edition. New York,
1881” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xxiii).
3.) “Tischendorf, Constantine: Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th
edition, Leipzig, 1878” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xxiii).
4.) “Tregelles, S.P.: An Account o f the Printed Text o f the Greek New
Testament. London, 1854” (Vincent, vol. l, p. xxiii).
5.) “Alford, Henry: Greek Testament. 5 vol. London, 1857-1861”
(Vincent, vol. 1. p. xv).
6.) “W etstein, J o h n J.: N o v u m T e s ta m e n tu m G r a e c u m , w ith v a rio u s
r e a d in g s a n d c o m m e n ta ry . 2 v o l. A m s te r d a m , 1751 (Vincent, 1977 |
printing, vol. 2, p. v).
Vincent credits the 1742 work o f Bengel as a budding

beginning for “textual criticism” (Vincent, vol. i , P . xii). Vincent is so
enamored with corrupt texts that he translates, with C.T. Lewis,
Bengel: Gnomon Novi Testamenti, 2 vol. Philadelphis, 1860 |
(V incent, vol. 1, p. xv).
Usually he uses the corrupt Greek text and does not reveal
this to the reader. Occasionally, he does. For example,
- Vincent claims, “The A.V. has gone wrong in following

Tyndale, who, in turn, followed the erroneous text of
Erasmus.” He says, “Eternal damnation” is an “utterly
false rendering.” He thinks it should be as the “Rev[ised
Version]., of an eternal sin” (Vincent, vol. i, p. iso).
■ In 1 Peter 3 :1 5 “God” himself is chopped by Vincent.
He asserts, “The A.V. follows the Text. Rec., [Textus
Receptus] reading...” (Vincent, vol. l , p . 653).
Vincent’s “List of Authors and Editions” Cited
I like my Bible plain; keep the nuts out o f it. Yet, Vincent s
sources for his definitions are a rogue’s gallery and Who s W o
of apostasy and unbelief. You may not recognize all o f the
names, but once you have finished this book, New Age Bible
Versions, and The Language o f the King James Bible, you wi
know the brash heresies of the men Vincent cites.
In addition to a large number of German lexicons, m

follows the most corrupt secularized Greek-English lexicons
available. He lists the following authors, whose heresies also

merit a chapter in this book:
1.) “Liddell, Henry G., and Scott, Robert: Greek-English Lexicon, 7th
edition, New York, 1883 (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xix). Vincent writes,“the
A.V.” is “inaccurate,” citing “Liddell and Scott,” who reference the
homosexual “Plato” (Vincent, vol. 4, pp. 42-43 footnote).
2.) “Trench, Richard C.: Synonyms o f the New Testament. 8th edition.
London, 1876” (Vincent, vol. 1, xxii). In addition to this book, Vincent
lists eight o f Trench’s other books, including Trench’s diatribe against
the KJB, On the Authorized Version o f the New Testament. New York,
1873 (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xxii). Vincent admits, “Trench long ago
directed English readers in his “Study o f Words” and his “New-
Testament Synonyms” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. viii). He continually refers to
Trench (Vincent, vol. 1, e.g. pp. 29, 327, 631 et al.).
3.) Thayer’s “Grimm, C.L. Willibald: The Same [W ilke’s Clavis Novi
Testamenti] Translated, revised, and enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer.
New York. 1887” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xviii). Vincent cites Thayer often
(e.g. vol. 4 , p. 111).
Throughout this lexicon, one will constantly observe

references to German meanings (e.g. Vincent, vol. 1, p. 60). Going from
Greek to German to English is hardly getting closer to the
original.
Grammars
Vincent’s Greek grammars are the epitome o f deviance:
1.) “W iner, G.B.: Grammar o f the New Testament. 8lh English Edition.
Edited by W. F. Moulton. Edinburgh, 1877” (Vincent, vol. 1, p.
xxiii; see The Language o f the King James Bible).
2.) “Farrar, Frederic W.: Greek Syntax. London 1876” (Vincent, vol.
1, p. xvii).
Vincent cites more books by F.W. Farrar than almost any other
author cited (e.g. Vincent, vol. 3, p. iv). Farrar actually is the least likely
candidate for ‘correcting’ the Holy Bible. Farrar s filthy book j

on onanism (Eric...) and his “photo album” “show his own keen
appreciation of male adolescent beauty” and his homosexual
leaning (Christopher Tyerm an, The History o f H arrow School, Oxford U niversity Press,
2000, p. 261; see chapters 22 and 23 on Vaughan in H azardous M aterials).
Bible
Vincent’s Bible is the Revised Version o f Westcott and
Hort. He cites the RV of Westcott, Hort, and C.J. Vaughan, the
child-molester:
1.) “Revisers’ Text o f the Greek Testament. Oxford 1881.
(Vincent, vol. 1, p. xx).
2.) “Old Testament. Revision o f 1885. Cambridge” (Vincent, vol. 1,
p. xx).
Commentaries
He follows the most extreme of the higher critics (those who
deny that God had anything to do with the Old Testament). This
includes:
1.) “Cheyne, T.K.: The Prophecies o f Isaiah. 2d. edition. 2 vols.

London, 1882” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xvi). J
2 ) “Ewald, Heinrich: The History o f Israel. Translated by J. E.
Carpenter. 5 vols. London. 1874-1878” (This history o f Israel
denies the B ible’s history completely; Vincent, vol. 2, p. v).
3 ) “Ginsburg, Christian D.: Coheleth. London, 1861” (Vincent, vol. 2,
p. iv). (Ginsburg attended the meeting o f Luciferian Madame
Blavatsky; see chapter 28)
Vincent uses the commentaries by men discussed (along

with their families) elsewhere in this book. His references rea
like a W ho’s Who on the RV committee:
1.) “W estcott, Brooke Foss: Commentary on the Gospel o f John.
Speaker’s Commentary. New York, 1880” (Vincent, vol. 2, p. v).
2.) “W estcott, Brooke Foss: Introduction to the Study o f the Gospels.

5th edition. London, 1875” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xxiii; he cites a number o f
other commentaries by Westcott. See vol. 3, p. vii). Vincent cites “B.F.
W estcott” to prove that Jesus said, “show yourselves approved
m oneychangers.” Fie says, “The saying about money-changers is
probably a genuine logion o f the Lord” (Vincent, vol. 4, p. 51).
3.) “Lightfoot, J.B.: On a Fresh Revision o f the New Testament. 2d
edition. New York, 1873” (N.T. criticism; Vincent, vol. 1, p. xix).
(Lightfoot founded the sinister Ghostly Guild with Westcott and Hort;
see New Age Bible Versions, chapter 31).
4.) “Milligan, William: The Revelation o f St. John. Baird Lecture for
1885. London, 1886” (Vincent, vol. 2, p. iv).
5.) “Milligan, William: Commentary on the Revelation o f John S chaff s
Popular Commentary. New York, 1883” (Vincent, vol. 2, p. iv).
6.) “M illigan, William, and Moulton, William F.: Commentary on St.
John’s Gospel. S ch affs Popular Commentary. New York, 1880”
(Vincent, vol. 2, p. iv).
Vincent also gathers a defense o f his heresies and

definitions from the following Bible critics: Bengel, Cremer,
Delitzsch, Farrar (Frederic W.), Grimm, Jowett, Liddell, Ruskin
(the pedophile), Schaff (ASV chairman and platform speaker at
the Luciferian Parliament o f World Religions), Robert Scott,
Stanley (RV committee member, who covered up for his
brother-in law, C.J. Vaughan, another RV committee member
and child molester). On page 81 of volume 4, Vincent lists his
most used “Commentaries on Galatians.” Most o f them are in
“German” and by Germany’s most notorious Bible critics. The
English ones are by B. Jowett and Philip Schaff, two o f the
most evil heretics o f the late 1800s.
He references the “Septuagint. According to the Vatican

edition. Bagster, London” (Vincent, vol. l, p. xxi). This is actually the
Old Testament o f the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript. By using
the Septuagint, he determines to change Joseph from a “just”
man to a “kindly” man (Vincent, vol. 3, p. 13).
He cites anti-Christian book authors such as Charles Gore |

(Lux Mundi!), Charles Kingsley (see chapter on Liddell), James
Anthony Froude (See In Awe o f Thy Word), Max Muller (See
Appendix A on Liddell and Dodson), and to top it all off, John
Addington Symonds, the man who wrote the first book
promoting homosexuals ‘coming out of the closet’! See chapter
on Vaughan.) (vol. 3, pp. w , v. vi). Observe some other examples of
Vincent’s liberal outlook:
■ Vincent’s liberal bent knows no end, as he even titles

“Phoebe the deaconess” (Vincent, vol. 3, p. x). Caution reader,
playing the Greek game will bring unscriptural lady
deacons, as that Greek word is translated as ‘deacon’
elsewhere in the N.T.. We must have an inspired Holy Bible
to circumvent non-contextual translations.
■ Calvinistic leanings pop up here and there as the divine
election” and the “absolute divine sovereignty,
unconditioned by human merit” (vol. 3, P. xi). He began as a
Methodist and became a Presbyterian, therefore his views
on this subject change throughout his books.
- O f the book of Romans, he is quick to remind readers,
“Critics are not unanimous as to the integrity of the epistle^
The authenticity of the doxology has been questioned, an
the Tubingen critics declared the fifteenth and sixteent
chapters to be spurious” (vol. 3, P . xii).
Pagan Greeks ,
The chapter in this book on J.H, Thayer demonstrated the
vile contexts that are accessed by those who go to the secu a
and pagan Greeks for definitions. Vincent says,
“The words o f a language which traverses the

period from Homer to Aristotle.. .voiced the
tremendous passion o f Oedipus [who lusted after

his own mother], and formulated the dialectic o f
Plato [the homosexual]... must enfold rare
treasures; and the more as we follow it into its
later development under the contact o f Oriental
thought, which fused it in the alembic of
Alexandria...[neo-Platonism]” (V incent,vol. i,p .v iii) .
He adds, “I have collected and sifted a large amount o f this

material from various and reliable sources” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xi). His
secular citations are innumerable and include:
1.) “Jowett, B.: The Dialogues o f Plato, translated into English. 2d

edition. 5 vol. Oxford, 1875” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xix).
2.) “Ackermann, C.: The Christian Elements in Plato and the Platonic
Philosophy. Translated by S.R. Asbury. Edinburgh, 1861” (Vincent,
vol. 2, p. v).
3.) Augustine: Sermon on the Mount. Edited by Trench. 3d edition.
London, 1869.” Augustine was a founding ‘father’ o f Catholic and
Calvinistic heresy (Vincent, vol. 1, p. xv). Vincent is not sure what
the “man o f sin” is, but provides the Catholic view as one o f his
options. He says, “Romanists discover him in some representative
enemy o f Romanism” (Vincent, vol. 4, p. 67).
4.) “Apocrypha, Greek and English. Bagster, London, 1871” (Vincent,
vol. 1, p. xv).
5.) “Vaughan, Robert Alfred: Hours with the Mystics. London. 2 vols.
3d edition. 1879” (This is not C.J. Vaughan; vol. 2, p. v).
Some examples of his use o f the pagans follow:
* Vincent cites “Plato” and “Socrates” (V incent, vol. 3, PP. 10, ii). He
admits that Socrates was a homosexual (who committed
suicide after being publicly charged with being a child-
molester), yet cites his writings just two pages later.
Socrates calls those in “Hades, these uninitiated” (V incent, vol. 3,
p p . 22 , 20 ) . O f the word “mysteries” in Mat. 13:11, Vincent
says, “In classical Greek, applied to certain religious

celebrations to which persons were admitted by formal
initiation...Some suppose them to have been revelations of
religious secrets; others o f secret politico-religious
doctrines...” (Vincent, vol. 1, p. 78).
Seeing the word “mystery” through the blinded eyes of

diabolical heathen initiations hardly brings the Christian to the
elevated sense brought through the context o f the Holy Bible.
He cites “Plato’s Symposium” to bolster his support for
criticizing the A.V.. The Symposium was used by Jowett and
Symonds to justify homosexuality (footnote, vol. 4, p. 102; see chapter on
Vaughan).
■ He chides the KJB’s use o f the word “sickness,” in Matt.

4:23, 24 noting, “Homer always represents” this word “as
the visitation o f an angry deity. Hence it is used o f the
plague which Apollo sent upon the Greeks (“Iliad,” i. 10)”
Secularization
■ He thinks the book o f Revelation is “figurative and
symbolical” and says it describes no “particular events”
other than rehearsing memories from the Old Testament
(Vincent, vol. 2, pp. 17-18).
■ He defines God, who is the world’s “builder and maker,” as

merely its “architect.. .framer.” He completely disavows the
usage “maker.” Having taught architecture at a State
University, I can attest to the fact that architects do not
make anything. They merely assemble previously made
materials (brick, mortar, glass). Even these materials were
not actually made, but, again, were assembled from their
constituent parts, which God made (sand, water, clay etc.)-
Only God can make something. To diminish God’s
miraculous work, Vincent cites Plato and the Gnostics who

said that it was a “secondary God, who created the world”
■ He would discard the holy ‘gospel,’ replacing it with the

secular phrase “good news.” He says, “Thus Homer makes
Ulysses say to Eumaius, “ ...good news” ...In Attic Greek it
meant (in the plural).. .good tidings.. (Vincent, vol. i, P. 9). As a
consequence, teachers and new Bible versions parrot this
English rendering. Dear reader, the Greeks did not write in
English, nor did they leave any Greek-English dictionaries.
The English ‘meaning’ is Vincent’s own (or copied from an
earlier Lexicon). In Awe o f Thy Word contains a discussion
of the dangerous secularization of the word “gospel,” into
“good news.” O f the “gospel of Christ” in Romans 1:16,
Vincent says “Omit o f Christ.” So his bible would say
“good news” instead of the “gospel o f Christ” (Vincent, vol. 3, P.
9; See The Language o f the K ing Jam es Bible for m ore details on the word ‘gospel’).
■ Vincent secularizes and paganizes the word “spirit.” He

admits that “pneuma” is “almost always translated spirit:’’
Then he goes on to say it is derived fro m a Greek word,
which means “to breath or blow.” In the first place, the
derivation is not absolute, merely presumed; in the second
place, his definition “breathe” is for the other word, not
pneuma, which is never translated as “breathe” in any
historic English Bible in any verses. He defines, not the
Greek word that occurs in the verse, but this other Greek
word that does not occur in the verse under discussion (2
Thes. 2:8). He follows Philo, the apostate Jewish
philosopher, who tried to make tangible (breath) what is not
tangible (spirit). He says, “The spirit o f God signifies, in
one sense, the air, the third elem ent...” (Vincent, vol. 4, pp. 64, 65).
(See chapter on “The Seven Proofs o f the KJB’s
In s p ira tio n ” fo r a c o m p le te a n a ly sis o f th e w o rd s pneutna

a n d ‘s p irit’.)
Hell Melts as Vincent Pelts the Bible
V in c e n t’s a m b ig u o u s id eas a b o u t s a lv a tio n a n d Jesu s C h rist,

w ill not bear th e th o u g h t of “ h e ll” and “ ev e rla stin g
p u n is h m e n t.” H is w ritin g c a p e r u n fo ld s at h is d esk , w h e re these
w o rd s are sh e a re d in h is p a p e r sh re d d e r, th e n sto m p e d in his
stap ler. T h o u g h ts o f h e ll’s flam e s are q u ic k ly e x tin g u ish e d , as
V in c e n t d istra c ts h is re a d e rs w ith a to u r o f th e lib ra ry sh e lv e s o f
th e p a g a n G re ek s. H e say s th e “ g a te s o f h e ll” a n d ‘h a d e s ’ com e
fro m —
“ ...th e n a m e o f th e g o d w h o p re s id e d o v e r the
re a lm o f th e d e a d .. .th e re a lm o f shadow. It is the
p la c e to w h ic h all w h o d e p a rt th is life d esc en t,
w ith o u t re fe re n c e to th e ir m o ra l c h a ra c te r”
“ In th e N e w T e sta m e n t, H a d e s is th e re a lm o f the
d ead. It c a n n o t b e su c c e s sfu lly m a in ta in e d th a t it
is, in p a rtic u la r, th e p la c e fo r sin n ers (so C rem er,
“ B ib lic o -T h e o lo g ic a l L e x ic o n ” ) (Vincent, vol. 1, p. 95).
H e say s, “ H a d e s is in d e e d co u p le d w ith D e a th ...a p a r t fro m

all m o ral d is tin c tio n .” H e re m in d s h is re a d e r, “ T h e p a g a n p o ets
g av e th e p o p u la r m in d d e fin ite p ic tu re s ” o f th e u n se e n w o rld
a n d a lle g e d it in c lu d e d “ h a p p y p la in s w h e re d e a d h e ro e s h eld
h ig h d is c o u rs e ” (Vincent, vol. i, pp. 93-96). H e sa y s Jo b h o p e s “ G od
w o u ld h id e h im w ith lo v in g ca re in H a d e s .. . ”
In 2 P e te r 2 :4 h e says,
“It is strange to find Peter using this Pagan term

[another word translated as hell], which
represents the Greek hell, though treated here not
as equivalent to Gehenna, but as the place o f
detention until the judgment” (Vincent, vol. i , P. 6 9 1).
This proves that the various Greek words translated as “hell” in

the KJB are all “hell.” Following anti-Semitic German
etymology and the syncretist, Max Muller, Vincent says even
the word for ‘heaven’ comes from “a Sanskrit [e.g. India] word”
(Vincent, vol. 4, p. 19). Elsewhere he says, “Everlasting destruction” is
wrong. Like all lexicographers, he trembles at the word

“everlasting” (Vincent, vol. 4 , P. 56). He says the word ‘aion’ cannot
mean something “endless or everlasting.” (The word aion and
‘everlasting’ are discussed exhaustively in several other
chapters).
Vincent asserts, “The A.V. gives a wrong impression as of

the end o f this visible world. The true sense is the
consummation o f the ages” (V incent, vol. 4, P. 492). He flatly denies
the cataclysmic destruction o f the earth, saying the elements
“are in process o f dissolution,” entropy, as it were. In 2 Peter
3:10, he turns the volume way down on the “great noise” which
occurs when the elements melt with fervent heat; the bursting
crash shrinks to a “sound o f a shepherd’s pipe; the rush of
wings; the plash o f water,” as Vincent consults “classical
Greek” (Vincent,vol. i, p. 706). He says the “wrath o f God” is “Not
Punishment, but the personal emotion” o f God (Vincent, vol. 3, p. 15).
In Closing
One must wonder at times if Vincent can read Greek. He

Says, “Lam ps...Lit., torches.” The word, “Lit.” is an
a b b re v ia tio n fo r ‘lite ra lly ,’ w h ic h co m e s fro m th e sam e w o rd as

‘le tte r.’ H o w e v e r, th e G re e k “ lite ra l” tra n slite ra tio n w o u ld b e
“lampadas ,” w h ic h is lite rally , “ la m p s,” n o t to rc h e s (Vincent, vol. 1,
p. 1 3 1 ). V in c e n t m isse s n o o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t as c ru d e and

u n fin is h e d th e K in g Ja m e s B ib le, w h ic h is a lam p u n to o u r feet
a n d a lig h t u n to o u r p a th (P sa. 1 19:105). W e w ill leav e th e
b a rb a ric to rc h e s to th e B ib le -b e a tin g b a rb a ria n s, su ch as M a rv in
V in c e n t. (S ee also “ H a z a rd o u s M a te ria ls” c h a p te r 1.) (O n p.
9 1 8 see a p h o to o f V in c e n t w ith h is fe llo w B ib le c ritics a n d
U n io n T h e o lo g ic a l S e m in a ry p ro fe sso rs S ch aff, B rig g s, an d
B ro w n .)
A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures
A .T . R o b e rts o n ’s Word Pictures in the New Testament,

h o p e s to tak e u p w h e re V in c e n t le ft off. R o b e rts o n sa y s o f
V in c e n t, “ M o re sc ie n tific m e th o d s o f p h ilo lo g y are n o w in use.
N o lo n g e r are G re e k te n se s a n d p re p o sitio n s e x p la in e d in term s
o f c o n je c tu ra l E n g lish tr a n s la tio n s ...” R o b e rts o n in ste a d b rin g s
h is re a d e r in c o n ta c t w ith “ M o u lto n a n d M illig a n ’s Vocabulary
o f the New Testament” (a v a ila b le to d a y as H a ro ld K . M o u lto n ’s
co rru p t Analytical Greek Lexicon). T h e e rro rs o f M o u lto n an d
M illig a n are e x a m in e d in a n o th e r ch a p te r; R o b e rtso n m e re ly
re p e a ts th em . T h e re fo re , it w ill n o t b e n e c e ss a ry to in c lu d e an
a n a ly sis o f th e e rro rs in R o b e rts o n ’s Word Pictures. R o b e rtso n
also c o p ie s V in c e n t’s e rro rs fre q u e n tly . R o b e rtso n w a s tra in e d
b y D r. Jo h n A lb e rt B ro a d u s to u se th e critic a l G re e k text.
R o b e rtso n ad m its th at, “ T h e te x t o f W e s tc o tt a n d H o rt w ill b e
u s e d th o u g h n o t sla v ish ly .” In o th e r w o rd s, R o b e rtso n c reates
h is o w n G re e k tex t, w h ic h re p re s e n ts n o G re e k m a n u sc rip t on
earth . H e o m its w h o le v e rse s, c h a rg in g th e “ T e x tu s R e c e p tu s”
w ith e rro r a n d fo llo w in g th e “ R e v ise d V e rs io n ” o f 1881. (Archibald
Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930,
Vol. 1, pp. vii, viii, ix, e.g. 39, 181, 183,383).
Lexicons
with a
Nazi, Gnostic,
& Heresy Trial
Connection
BAUER
DANKER, ARNDT, GINGRICH
KITTEL
(See New Age Bible Versions, chapter 42 for Kittel.)
Chapter 15
Walter Bauer’s Lexicon

The G reek-E n glish Lexicon o f the New Testament
and other Early Christian Literature.
English Editors:
- William Frederick Arndt

. F. Wilbur Gingrich
■ Frederick Danker
Various editions edited or translated by ‘gender-inclusive

liberals such as Danker, Arndt and Gingrich; variously
called BAG (1st), BAGD (2nd), BDAG (3r ).
Keywords:
. “Nazi,”
. “Heresy,”
- “The Gospel of Judas” &
. “The Da Vinci Code”
BAUER-DANKER-ARNDT-GINGRICH GREEK LEXICON 537
W alter B auer (G erm any, 1877-1960)
auer’s heretical views are expressed in his book,
B Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. In

Bauer’s upside-down world the early Christians who
spread the New Testament were ‘heretics’ and the pagan
philosophers, who wrote heretical documents, held the ‘truth’
(e.g. The Gospel o f Judas, Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians,
and Montanists). Even the secular Wikipedia states that
“Bauer’s conclusions contradicted nearly 1600 years of
essentially uncontested church history and thus was met with
much skepticism among Christians.”
(http://w ikipedia.org/wikiAValter_Bauer)
The full title o f Bauer’s lexicon is The Greek-English

Lexicon o f the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature. His “Early Christian Literature” was actually, ‘Early
Heretic Literature,’ since even secular encyclopedias reveal that
he switched the two in his mind. The serpent was more subtle
than any beast and still is. Please read Bauer’s views in his book
Orthodoxy and Heresy, before being contaminated by his
lexicon; or see Michael Makidon, “The Soteriological Concerns
with Bauer’s Greek Lexicon,” Journal o f the Grace Evangelical
Society, Autumn, 2004, p. 11.
B auer and the Nazis
Search the words “Bauer” “Nazi” on the internet to find this

yet another Nazi connection with lexicography. Bauer’s book
Orthodoxy and Heresy and Hitler’s regime were ushered in
during the same year (1933-34). Their ideas were identical. For
both Bauer and Hitler, Judeo-Christian history was a “Heresy”
and a myth, while volkish mysticism was “Orthodoxy” and the
‘truth.’ There can be no doubt that the Bauer mode of thinking

sparked the flames o f the Reichstag. Bauer’s book promoting
“Heresies” echoes perfectly Hitler’s Gnostic and theosophical
predilections, wherein the philosophies of the mystic are to be
preferred over those o f orthodox Christianity. Fortunately for
those outside o f Germany, “The cultural isolation of Nazi
Germany precluded a wider dissemination o f Bauer’s ideas until
after World War II” http://answers.com /topic/walter-bauer).
Bauer’s Greek-German Lexicon was produced under the

long shadow which fell from the ‘higher criticism’ o f the
previous century, further darkened by the reign and cultural
mindset o f Adolf Hitler. Not surprisingly, the NIV and Catholic
New American Bible, in Hebrews 9:10 echo Bauer and Hitler’s
“neue ordnug” or “new order,” instead o f the KJV’s
“reformation,” notes Harvard linguist Dr. John Hinton (See
Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der iibrigen
urchristlichen Literatur.)
Orthodoxy and Heresy According to Bauer’s Reich
The following, unless otherwise indicated, are taken

from the University o f Pennsylvania’s digital online edition of
Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
(http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~human/Resources/Bauer/bauerOO.htm).
The book’s “Foreword” begins by saying, “In earliest

Christianity, orthodoxy and heresy do not stand in relation to
one another as primary to secondary, but in many regions
heresy is the original manifestation o f Christianity. In the
present work, Walter Bauer has developed this thesis in a
consistent fashion, and not only has called into question in a
fundamental way the traditional understanding o f the
development o f church history and the historical foundation of
ecclesiastical-orthodox self-understanding, but at the same time
has indicated historical foundations for ecumenical discussion”

(Foreword to the Second German Edition).
Bauer himself begins his Introduction stating that it is

wrong to assume that heresy, that is, “divergence really is a
corruption o f Christianity.” Bauer’s bible is not ‘sacred,’ nor
‘prized,’ neither is it a “celestial charter of salvation.” Bauer’s
Introduction continues saying, “Our day and age, there is no
longer any debate that in terms o f a scientific approach to
history, the New Testament writings cannot be understood
properly if one now looks back on them from the end o f the
process of canonization as sacred books, and prizes them as
constituent parts o f the celestial charter o f salvation, with all the
attendant characteristics.” He goes on to say that “We must
also approach the ‘heretics’ in the same way. We need to
understand them also in terms o f their own time, and not to
evaluate them by means of ecclesiastical doctrine which was
developing, or which later became a ready-made norm.” He
adds, “What constitutes ‘Truth’ in one generation can be out of
date in the nex t...” “Perhaps— I repeat—perhaps—certain
manifestations o f Christian life that the authors of the church
renounce as ‘heresies’ originally had not been such at all, but, at
least here and there, were the only form o f the new religion -
that is, for those regions they were simply ‘Christians.’ The
possibility also exists that their adherents constituted the
majority, and that they looked down with hatred and scorn on
the orthodox, who for them were the false believers.”
Bauer’s Introduction denies three basic ideas to which all

Christians adhere:
1.) “Jesus revealed pure doctrine to his apostles..
2.) “The apostles” ...“[EJach takes the unadulterated
gospel...”
3.) “After the death o f the apostles, the gospel branches

out further. But...The devil cannot resist sowing weeds
[heresies] in the divine wheatfield ...”
These three facts are foundational Christian thinking.

But Bauer concludes that, “Scholarship has not found it difficult
to criticize these convictions...neither can I regard it as self-
evident or even demonstrated and clearly established. Rather,
we are confronted here with a problem that merits our
attention.. .As we turn to our task, the New Testament seems to
be both too unproductive and too much disputed to be able to
serve as a point o f departure...It is advisable, therefore, first of
all to interrogate other sources concerning the relationship of
orthodoxy and heresy...”
Bauer denies the basics o f the Christian faith, as well as the

Bible from which they stem. He commends instead the writings
of ‘Heretics’ from the second century, such as the Gnostics,
Marcion, etc.
In Chapter Seven Bauer claims that those doctrines, called

‘heresies,’ were simply “different tendencies in Christianity.”
O f one author he stabs, “His pronounced inability to admit
anything good about the heretics is even more offensive.”
In Chapter Nine he states that, “Each individual and each

special group is fighting for its Christ and against the Christ of
the others...A t that time there probably was no version of
Christianity worthy o f note that did not have at its disposal at
least one written gospel, in which Jesus appears as the bearer
and guarantor of that particular view ... [including] the Gospel o f
the Nazarenes and o f the Ebionites, as well as the Gospel o f the
Hebrews.. .Gospel o f the Egyptians ...Gospel o f P e t e r ...Gospel
o f Basilides ...Apocryphon o f John...Gospel o f Judas."
He closes with Chapter ten, calling Jesus one ‘god’

among others.
The W ikipedia’s article on “Early Christianity,” states that

“Walter Bauer” believed that “heresy is the original
manifestation of Christianity.” O f course, “Bauer’s was
admittedly a minority opinion in contrast to the view (which he
himself calls “the overwhelmingly dominant view ...”
(http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Early-Christianity) . )
Reviews of Bauer’s ‘Heresy”
Harvard’s review of Bauer’s “Heresy” book states that

Bauer believed that “ [H]eresy was in fact the original
manifestation of Christianity.” “A gnostic form o f
Christianity,” as well as the beliefs o f the ‘heretic’
“Marcion,” represent the ‘original’ and true form of
Christianity (Daniel J. Harrington, "The Reception o f W alter B auer’s O rthodoxy and
H eresy in E arliest Christianity D uring the Last D ecade,” in H arvard Theological R eview 73
(1980): 289-98).
The Jesuit priest, Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., professor of

New Testament at Weston Jesuit School o f Theology, is
sympathetic toward Bauer’s “Heresy.” He reviews Lost
Christianities, by Bart Erhman, Bauer’s present-day
spokesman. This received its hearing in the Catholic
magazine, America: The National Catholic Weekly. Anderson
says “Bauer sought to overturn...[the] model o f an original
orthodoxy going back to Jesus and the Apostles. Because of
the “discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents in Egypt in
1945...there is now more material to be fitted into Bauer’s
model of early Christian history” (“A Clash o f Ideas,” Am erica M agazine,
Vol. 189, No. 21, December 22, 2003; http://w w w .am ericam agazine.org/BookReview ).
Gerald Christianson, Professor o f Church History, says,

“Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy has established
itself as a classic refutation o f the “myth” that “in the
beginning” orthodoxy was there first and heresy was a
deviation from the norm” (http://w w w . Siglerpress.com/Bauer.htm).
Harvard Divinity School’s Professor o f New Testament

Studies and Ancient Church History writes o f the “new era”
brought in by Bauer’s book which “argued that early
Christianity did not begin with a unified orthodox belief, from
which heresies broke off at later tim e...D uring recent
decades, the investigation o f newly discovered texts, such as
the Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi in Egypt, have fully
Confirmed Bauer’s insights” http://w w w . Siglerpress.com /Bauer.htm .
Harvard University author, Karen L. King, wrote the

book, What is Gnosticism? In a review o f her book by
Michael C. McCarthy, he states that “Walter Bauer’s
influential “Orthodoxy and Heresy” challenged the
assumption that chronological priority determined theological
orthodoxy.” Bauer contended that the later belief system,
which is now called ‘orthodox Christianity’ was preceded by
the real Christianity, which was Gnosticism (M ichael c. McCarthy
“W hat is Gnosticism ? ” Theological Studies, Volume: 65, Issue 3, 2004, p. 639 (The Gale
Group).
Christianity Today’s Executive Editor, Timothy George,

says, “Bauer contends that what emerged as mainstream
Christian orthodoxy in the second and third centuries was
merely one strand o f a very diffuse Christian movement and
no more normative for the life of faith than the many other
trajectories we can identify in apostolic and post-apostolic
times. Bauer’s thesis has, o f course, become the reigning
orthodoxy within the wider academy. Witness Elaine Pagels
books on Gnosticism and the Gospel o f Thomas - to say
nothing o f Dan Brown’s blockbuster novel, The Da Vinci

Code” (Tim othy George, “The Pattern o f Christian Truth,” F irst Things: A M onthly Journal
o f Religion a n d Public Life, Issue 154, June-July 2005, pp. 21+; Institute on Religion and
Public Live; Gale Group.
One Oxford University Press book agrees, stating that,

“Against what he perceived to be the common assumption of
scholarship at the time, Bauer contended that in the second
century, orthodoxy and heresy were by and large very loosely
defined, that the primitive expression of Christianity in many
regions was a form which would later be branded
heretical...” (Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, Oxford;
University Press, 2004, p. 13).
£0 * 0 3
William Frederick Arndt (1880-1957) was a Lutheran, who

with Gingrich, translated Bauer’s heresy-filled Greek Lexicon
into English (BAG 1957). Definitions and words were tweaked
and remolded like a wax nose, as they move from the pagan
Greeks, to the unbelieving Germans, and through mainline
liberal theologians using English. Add to that heaps of
references to Moulton-Milligan’s pagan Egyptian “rubbish” and
you have anything but God’s meanings.
Arndt and some other Lutheran Concordia Seminary

teachers, (including one W.E. Bauer) foreshadowed by over
fifteen years the full blown heresy trial o f Frederick W. Danker
at Concordia Seminary. Danker said that his lexical partner,
Arndt, and his colleagues began years earlier a “prophetic
Protest against the octopus-like stranglehold o f legalistic
tradition” as it relates to Bible (No Room, p. 24, see next chapter for full citation)
Arndt and fellow Bible critics issued A Statement in

which they said, among other things, that they “deplore” the
King James Bible in First Thessalonians 5:22 in its translation
“avoid every appearance o f evil” (a verse no doubt pointed at
their higher critical methods.) The Statement chided those “ ...in
suspicions o f brethren, in the impugning o f motives, and the
condemnation o f all who have expressed differing opinions...”
S U C h a s t h e m s e l v e s (No Room, p. 22).
“Howls o f protest against the action” o f Arndt and other

‘professors’ were raised by church members in their “zeal for
orthodoxy”; members consequently “demanded... an
investigation of the faculty o f Concordia Seminary” (No Room, P. 26).
F. Wilbur Gingrich
Gingrich was co-editor, with William Arndt for the

Bauer Greek-English Lexicon (BAG 1957). He was honored for
his ecumenical and pro-Catholic work by Martin Scharlemann
in the article “ Roman Catholic Biblical Interpretation,”
Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich: Lexicographer,
Scholar, Teacher...Edited by Eugene H. Barht...E.J. Brill:
Leiden, 1972, p. 211, in reference to Vatican II” (No Room, p. 365).
See chapter 42 o f New Age Bible Versions for the

chapter on convicted Nazi lexicographer, Gerhard Kittel, and
his Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, used by the
NIV translators.
The following chapter on Frederick Danker continues

the discussion and explores recent developments regarding this
lexicon.
C h ap ter 16
Frederick W. Danker
A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New
Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, Bauer (author) and Danker (editor)
66 ...import[s] his theology into the
lexical definitions...a grave trend”
Journal o f the Evangelical Society
■ Danker was an editor o f the Catholic New American

Bible.
■ His lexicon was used by the NIV, N K JV and other new

version editors.
Notice: Frederick Danker graciously gave permission to include

extended quotes from his books, even though he would likely not be an
advocate o f the thesis o f this book. It is hoped that the broad quotations
from his writings will allow the reader to fairly appraise his views and make
their own decisions about them. He is an example o f a man who stands by
what he has said and is not afraid to let his views spar in the arena of
Christian debate. Such grace is lacking in the new generation o f bloggers,
who lash and bash and chop quotes into hash. Upon a visit by Danker and
his wife to his sometime adversary, The Christian News, its editor observed
with awe the attentive manner in which Danker cared for his disabled wife.
He said it propelled him to write an article extolling the graces o f his old
adversary.
The Cat’s Out of the BAG
rederick W. Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon o f the New
F Testament was edited by Frederick W. Danker in 1979

and was a favorite o f NIV and NKJV translators. Have
you ever wondered why the NIV and NKJV match the Catholic
Bible? Danker was also an editor of the Catholic New American
Bible\
The lexicon’s acronym is BAGD for Bauer, Arndt,

Gingrich, and Danker. Danker says that “BAGD includes 20
percent more information than BAG” and “Many words have
undergone significant revision in treatm ent...” (Danker, M ultipurpose
Tools f o r Bible Study, M inneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1993, p. 119).
Danker’s touch added the corrupt Dead Sea materials

from “Qumran” and his “heretical theology.” Danker confesses
his use o f other lexicons, such as that o f Nazi, Gerhard Kittel
(See New Age Bible Versions, chapter 42), and Moulton and
Milligan. Logos Bible Software notes, “If you use BADG
(Bauer, Arndt, Danker, Gingrich) Lexicon, you have seen the
abbreviation ‘M -M ’ [Moulton and Milligan] at the end o f many
entries.” www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2599, 10/20/2006; See Frederick W. Danker, Man in Conflict, St
Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, footnotes, pp. 2, 38 et al.).
In 2000, a new 3rd edition of Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon

was released, edited solely by Danker. His solitary hand on this
edition has now brought his initial “D” to the forefront
(BDAG). It has also brought a warning from the scholarly
Journal o f the Grace Evangelical Society, which published an
article entitled “Soteriological [Salvation] Concerns with
Bauer’s Greek Lexicon” (Autumn 2004). They warn,
“In 2000 a third edition (BDAG) was

printed - self-described as “revised and edited by
Frederick William Danker based on Walter
Bauer’s” 6th German edition and the previous

English editions (BAG 1957 and BAGD 1979).
Most assume that since Danker was
involved in the second and third editions that the
latter edition has not seen significant change.
However, a recent article by Vem S. Poythress in
the Journal o f the Grace Evangelical Society
demonstrates that Danker has been greatly
affected by political factors, revealing the need
to take a focused look at this new edition in other
areas o f Study as well (Michael M akidon, “ Soteriological
C oncerns with B auer’s G reek Lexicon” Journal o f the Grace Evangelical
Society, Irving. TX: Grace Evangelical Society, Autum n, 2004, p. 12).
The article continues, “Nevertheless, a little leaven can ruin

a whole batch o f bread.” “Poythress demonstrates through
quotes by Danker in the foreword and in individual entries that
BDAG has been adversely affected by inclusiveness and
tolerance” (M akidon, P. 12). “Two significant changes between
BAGD and BDAG occur under the word “to believe””
ipisteuo), Makidon observes. The definition “faith” is now
gone; “the Divinity” is now “an entity”; as in all Danker books,
“God and Christ” are never the same (“his” vs. “their”
revelations), i.e. Christ is not God. Danker adds works to
salvation by adding the words, “with implication o f total
commitment to the one who is trusted” (M akidon, p. 13).
The article concludes, “Danker has blended the two

concepts o f belief and commitment into one.” “This is clearly a
theological bias rather than a semantic or lexical decision.”
Danker has made an interpretive decision that is lexically
unsupported. What Danker has done is to import his theology
lr*to the lexical definition o fpisteud. This is not the job o f a
lexicographer...” (M akidon, PP. 13- 14). After citing other examples,

Makidon adds,
“This reference to righteousness further

demonstrates Danker’s view that justification
cannot be separate from works. Under the word
pistis... BDAG notes: ‘faith is fidelity to
Christian teaching’...Faith under section 2d8 is
defined as faithfulness to Christian teaching,
which calls for work as well as faith...W hile
neither the concepts o f faith nor works were
clear in BAGD, righteousness has been
immersed in works in BDAG. This is a grave
trend” (M akidon. p. 16).
In Danker’s book, The Kingdom in Action, he repeats, “In the

New Testament sense a righteous person is usually one who is
doing what God approves” (Frederick W. Danker, The Kingdom in Action, St.
Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1965, p. 52). (Having read all of his
books, I must say that he equivocates on this topic and in some

places he denies that works form a part o f salvation.)
The Greek text Danker uses is eclectic, “and has no

corresponding existence in any single manuscript” (Frederick w.
Danker, Jesus and the N ew Age, St. Louis MO: Clayton Publishing House, 1972, p. xxi). H e
admits, what naive students forget, namely that, “Since

resources [words] in languages are not always parallel, a single
word used to convey a number o f ideas in the original language
may be variously rendered in a translation” (Danker, Jesus, xxi). (He
foolishly uses the term “the original language” immediately
after he ADMITS that the Greek he follows does not exist in
any single manuscript.)
NIV, NKJV and others Use Danker
New International Version (NIV) editors admit, “They have

weighed the significance o f the lexical and grammatical details
of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.” They used “Bible
dictionaries” and “lexicons...” including: A Greek-English
lexicon o f the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker (for their
admission o f the use o f lexicons see: The New International Version, Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton, 1996 ed.. Preface, p. iv;
Burton Goddard, The NIV Story, NY: Vantage Press, 1989, pp. 67, 68; Kenneth L. Barker, The
Making o f a Contemporary Translation, Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986,
pp. 110, 122, 163, 166; Kenneth L. Barker, The Accuracy o f the NIV, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1996, pp. 7, 8, 5 3 ,5 4 ,6 1 ,7 3 ,7 5 ,7 9 ,9 3 ,9 5 ,9 8 , 111, 112, 114).
The New King James Version (NKJV): The resident evil and
heresy in the New King James Version (NKJV) is caused in part
by the use o f “Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English
Literature.” Arthur L. Farstad, NKJV “New Testament editor,”
“Executive Editor,” and “Old Testament Executive Review
Committee member frequently cites it (The New King James Version in the
Great Tradition, N ashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, pp. ix, 54, 161, 162).
The New American Bible : Danker was an editor o f the Roman

Catholic New American Bible! Its prefaces reveal that
“Collaborators on the Revised Edition o f the New Testament of
the New American Bible” include lexicographer “Frederick
W. Danker,” “The New American Bible is a Roman Catholic
translation.” They looked at word meanings “in profane
G reek (The New American Bible, Iowa Falls, Iowa: Catholic W orld Press, W orld
publishing, 1987, Front prefatory m aterial and later Preface to the New Testam ent Revised
Edition).
Danker’s Lower View of Jesus Christ
Danker wrote numerous books, expressing “heresy.” He

is a liberal Lutheran. This theology is similar to Roman
Catholicism is many ways. Danker believes as follows:
Jesus Christ is not God in Danker’s mind. I have read

nine o f Danker’s books and he clearly has a lower view o f Jesus
Christ than that o f orthodox Christianity. It is no surprise
because his critical Greek text and new bible versions (He uses
the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version)
deny the deity o f Christ in so many places. God, according to
Danker, worked through Jesus, but Danker is careful never to
say that Jesus is God, although he says that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son o f God, etc.. In sentence after sentence Danker always
separates Jesus and God, as if Jesus were not God. Reading
Danker reminds me o f “another Jesus” whom I was exposed to
as a child in Catholic school. Jesus was a great ‘guy” ; he was
‘the best,’ but he certainly was not “God manifest in the flesh”
(1 Tim 3:16 is radically changed in Danker’s bibles). It was that
revelation in a King James Bible that led me to true salvation.
Note the following examples o f Danker’s beliefs:
The editor’s foreword to Danker’s book, Proclamation

Commentaries: Luke, states that “Jesus is G od’s only Son, not
because o f his preexistence...” (Frederick W. Danker, P ro c la m a tio n
Commentaries: Luke, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976, p. v). In this book
Danker refers to “christological problems” (Luke, p. 5). He

compares Christ as “Savior” to “Caesar Augustus” as “Savior”
(Luke, pp. 7-8). Danker says, Jesus is “linked with the Father’s will
and purpose” (Luke, p. 23), Jesus is “chief Benefactor, next to God”

(Luke, p. 33), “Jesus is in a class by him self’ (Luke, p. 37), “Jesus is the
Servant o f the Lord in a distinguished capacity” (Luke, p. 84), and

“Jesus is the Servant par excellence,” (Luke, p. 77). He sees “Jesus
as the active Servant o f Yahweh” (Luke, p. 73), but “Yahweh alone

is entitled to divine honors” (Luke, P. 85).
■ Danker said, “Jesus Christ, God’s unique offspring, keeps

all G od’s other offspring under guard” (Frederick w. Danker,
Invitation to the N ew Testament Epistles IV, NY: Image Book, 1980, p. 212).
■ Danker said, “Jesus Christ is superior to all beings and

persons, other than the Father and the Spirit” (Danker, im ita tio n ,
p. 19).
■ Danker denies the actions o f the pre-incamate Christ in

Hebrews 4:8 saying, “Jesus is superior to Joshua-Jesus”
(Danker, Invitation, p. 32).
■ To Danker, Jesus has a “high status” and is “superior.”

“Jesus is the uniquely good human being” (Danker, Invitation, pp.
3 5 ,3 2 , 197).
" Strangely he says, [S]he [the woman who Danker thinks wrote the book o f
Hebrews!] is not first o f all describing the historical Jesus, but
the Son who is addressed in Psalm 110:4 (cited in Heb.

7:21)” (Danker, Invitation, p. 47).
■ His Revised Standard Version and Jerusalem Bible omit
“who created all things by Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:9).
Therefore “Jahw eh...is the One who made the stars...”
according to Danker (Frederick W. Danker, Creeds in the Bible, St. Louis MO:
Concordia Publishing Co., pp. 16, 17).
■ Strangely, he says that “Jesus is the consummation o f Israel

as G od’s selected people. The word “beloved” is equivalent
to “selected” or “elected”” (Danker, Creeds, p. 37). [On the
contrary, God didn’t select Jesus; Jesus is “God manifest in
the flesh.”] Danker states, “But now God speaks o f Jesus as
He once spoke o f old Israel.” “Jesus is a replacement for
the Moses o f old.” “Jesus [is] the new Israel.” “Those who
are associated with Jesus form the new Israel.” “The new
Israel, the church, is indeed the authentic continuation of
God’s people” (Danker, The Kingdom in Action, St Louis, MO: Concordia
Publishing, 1965, pp. 23, 24, 25, 26).
■ Danker says, “ ...Jesus understands Himself to be in a

unique relationship with God” (see all o f p. 38 in Creeds', it gets stranger).
■ “Jesus, from the standpoint o f the ‘system,’ was a liberal
and a non-conform ist...” says Danker (Danker, Jesu s, p. 108). The
photos o f Danker’s long-haired hippy friends in his book,
No Room in the Brotherhood, give insight to ‘his’ meaning
for those words.
■ When the Bible refers to Jesus as ‘Lord,’ thereby equating
him with the Lord o f the Old Testament, Danker passes it
off as merely an honorary government title. Danker says,
“Caesar was accustomed to being addressed as ‘Lord.’ In
Luke’s account the centurion accords this honor to Jesus
(7:6)” (Danker, Jesus, p. 93).
■ When Jesus performs an “alleged miracle,” as Danker calls
it, Danker dismisses it lightly saying that others do this also.
He says, “A parallel to this healing is frequently cited from
the Life o f Apollonius ofTyana (IV, 45), a miracle worker of
the second century” (Danker, Jesus, pp. 96, 94).
■ Danker says, “The Pharisees were correct; only God can
forgive sins. But Jesus embodies in his person the divine
intention” (Danker, Jesus, p. 100). Danker’s word “intention”
separates Jesus from God. All o f Danker’s remarks about
Jesus use subtle wording to divorce Jesus from God.
■ Danker’s use o f a corrupt Greek text which calls “Joseph”
the father o f Jesus, leads Danker further away from the true
Jesus. Danker says, “Luke’s statement, his father and hjs
mother, is a hint o f the mystery that will confound many...
(Danker, Jesus, p. 34). The King James correctly renders it “Joseph
and his mother” and does not “hint” any heresy.
Danker Denies Inspiration
To Danker, man, not God, authored the Bible. In his book,

No Room in the Brotherhood, he cites friends who support his
denial o f Bible inspiration. Danker says, “ ...rem arks appeared

in a volume o f tribute to Dr. F. Wilbur Gingrich, collaborator
with Dr. William Arndt in the translation o f Professor Walter
Bauer’s dictionary o f Greek New Testament words. In his
article Dr. Scharlemann praised Roman Catholic scholars for
putting behind them the ‘fundamentalist notion o f inerrancy... ’”
(Frederick W. Danker, No Room In the Brotherhood, St. Louis MO: Clayton Publishing House,
1977 , p. 206 ). Danker says Amen.
■ Danker believes, “The church today is also at liberty to

modify, revise, and restate the Lord’s Prayer . . . ” (Danker, je su s,
p. 135).
■ When referring to the woman who Danker thinks is the

author o f Hebrews, Danker says, “We may not think much
of Auctor’s [Latin for author’s] line o f argument, but in her
day it would be considered impressive.. .We cannot share all
o f Auctor’s historical interpretation of the Old
Testam ent... (Danker, Invitation , pp. 46, 48).
■ Danker denies that the names James, John, Peter, Jude, and
others actually represent the men who penned those books
o f the Bible. For example, of the book o f James, Danker
states, “ ...if so illustrious a personage as James the Lord’s
brother had written it. It is more likely that a churchman
near the turn o f the century would have invoked the name of
the Lord’s brother...” (Danker, Invitation, p. 96).
■ Danker charges, “A minister fresh from the seminary has no
business shocking the congregation to attention with the
assertion, ‘You may think Paul wrote Ephesians, but he
didn’t ’...The issue o f the epistle’s authorship may be saved
for more natural development in a Bible class” (Danker, The
Kingdom, p. 91).
* O f the authorship o f the books of Peter, Danker states,

“ ...w e are unable to establish with certainty the identity of
the writer. Most scholars are agreed that a literary
connection with the Apostle Peter is at best tenuous.. .it falls
into the classification o f pseudonymous w riting...” (Danker,

Invitation, p. 129).
■ O f the three epistles of John, Danker states, “The probability
[is] that they derive from two or even three different
authors. . . ” (Danker, Invitation, p. 179).
■ O f the book o f Jude he speculates that perhaps “ ...a later
Christian leader used Jude’s name to encourage interest in
his own communication” (Danker, Invitation, p. 237).
■ Danker ascribes the views in 2 Peter as coming, in part,
from “Greek cosmological speculation” (D anker, invitation, P. 175).
■ Danker begins his book, Jesus and the New Age, asserting
that Luke did not write the gospel o f Luke (Danker, Jesus, pp. xn-
xiii). Whoever wrote the book called ‘Luke’ did not receive it
from God, but “Luke used another source also employed by

Matthew. This source is ordinarily designated ‘Q ’...” (This
is a non-existent, theoretical document.) (Danker, Jesus, p. xvii).
Danker states that, “Therefore it is impossible to recover
without argument the very words of Jesus spoken on a given
historical occasion” (Danker, Jesus, xviii). Danker remarks that
“Tertullian, an ancient church father, did not hesitate to
correct Luke.. (Danker, Jesus, p. 23).
■ He refers to the Apocryphal books and other pagan literature
as if they shed light on the scriptures:
0 O f the book o f James he states, “Our writer’s very first
counsel (1:2) breathes the spirit o f Judith 8:25” (Danker,
Invitation, p. 99).
0 He says, “Several ancient authorities vouch for Jude’s
dependence on another popular non-canonical work, the
Assumption o f Moses, for the story about Michael
■ Danker boasts, “Nor is it a superior ethic that marks the
church’s claim to a hearing. For example, the rabbis speak
the Golden Rule, which found utterance already in Homer s
O dyssey...Isocrates...Seneca...H om er to Hierocles... Whe0j
Jesus speaks the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12, Luke 6:31) He
underscores prudential wisdom stated a thousand times in

Greece, China, India, and other places” (D anker, The K ingdom , p. 36).
■ “The so-called Golden Rule is not original with Jesus.
Homer, the epic poet (Odyssey 5, 188-189); Isocrates, the
orator (Nicokles, 49, 1); and Seneca, N ero’s chaplain (On
Benefits 2, 1, 1) expressed a similar thought, and in a
positive form” (Danker, Jesus, p. 86).
■ For Danker, the Bible has no more authority than any other
document. The Bible is often wrong, according to Danker,
and he is always right. For instance, when the Bible states
that “there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7),
Danker quips, “The rendering “inn” is scarcely correct.
Luke would know that inns o f that time were the haunts o f
ill-bred people...” (Danker, Jesus, p. 25).
■ Danker seems to turn just about anything up-side-down.
For instance, the Bible says, “And Mary said ...” But
Danker denies that Mary spoke in Luke 1:46-55. He states
that, “ ...Elizabeth is the speaker.” “Elizabeth now
summarizes in prophetic utterance the meaning o f the New
Age that is dawning.” He summarizes saying, “Taken
together vss. 51-53 express the revolutionary character of
the New Age” (Danker, Jesus, p. 15).
Danker, a Dunker?
Danker’s Lutheran theology, as well as all o f his books,

teach that water baptism is a means o f salvation.
" Danker says, “Likewise the water o f baptism saves
Christians (Frederick W. Danker, Invitation to the N ew Testament Epistles IV,
n y : im age Book, 1980 p. 152). His Jerusalem Bible and Revised
Standard Version omit Acts 8:37, which require believing

in Jesus Christ before baptism. He calls the omitted verse
the CUrioUS reading (Danker, Creeds, p. 35).
■ In his book, Jesus and the New Age, Danker states of

“baptism” ...“the aim o f which is the removal of sins”
(D a n k e r, Jesus, p. 4 3 ).
■ Danker writes, “ ...[T]he new age becomes alive in us.

These powers are a reality for the Christian in his baptism.”
“This life begins at Baptism.” “At our baptism we become
recipients of the life that Jesus won for us” creeds, p. si). (D a n k e r,
“The Spirit comes to us at our baptism ...” Kingdom, p. (D a n k e r,
107).
■ Danker says, “ ...their baptism with water commits them in
mind and body to unadulterated goodness...” invitation, (D a n k e r,
p. 61).
Danker’s theology is covenant theology. He teaches that
God deals with man through outward signs, just as he did in the
Old Testament. New Testament water baptism replaces Old
Testament circumcision in his mind. He says that now “This
relationship does not come about through circumcision, but by
Baptism ...” Man in Conflict, 10).
(D a n k e r, p .
Danker, a Sacramentalist?
Danker thinks God saves at water Baptism, then he gives

a booster shot at Confirmation followed by mini-boosters at the
‘Sacrament’ O f Holy Communion The Kingdom,
(D a n k e r, p . 8 9 , e t a l.).
Like a Catholic he believes that, “the means o f grace”

are “the Sacraments.” “ ...[T]he Sacraments are the devices
chosen by God to channel His grace,” he states. He calls them
“ ...grace-conveying m edia...” Man 15- 16). Danker
(D a n k e r, , P P .
summarizes,
“Inasmuch as the Sacraments are the means

employed by the Spirit to dispense the
atonement, those who reject Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper on the ground that the Gospel
liberates from rituals and ceremonies are actually
helping to put man back under the Law, for they

take away from the sinner the very means by
which God aims to establish liberty from the
Law. The same applies to anyone who empties
the Sacraments o f Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper of their grace-conveying power by
treating them as mere symbols o f the Christian
experience in Christ” (Danker, M an, p. 16).
Danker says, “ ...Jesus is the true Bread (6:35) shared

with His disciples in the Holy Communion” (Danker, The Kingdom, P.
29). Lutherans, like Danker, believe Christ is ‘w ith’ the bread
(consubstantiation) they eat; Catholics believe the bread they

eat becomes Jesus. Small difference. Is this ‘salvation by
cannibalism’? (Luther never moved far enough away from his
Catholic priesthood. A Lutheran priest wears the exact same
black robe with a white square on the collar as a Catholic
priest.)
True Christians know that the Lord’s supper and baptism

ARE simply symbols. True Christians believe as Jesus said, that
it is done “in remembrance of me.”
Danker denies the truth of Romans 10:9, “That if thou

shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved.” Danker’s dunking religion makes him say, “It is not
something heard once, agreed to [believe in thine heart], and
confessed by the lips only [confess with thy mouth]” (Danker, M an,
p. 32). Danker speaks with disdain about words such as,
“salvation, justification, righteousness, the glory o f God, the

blessing o f redemption, yes, even sin” used by “conservatives.”
He calls these words “the dialect o f the graveyard” and not
“relevant tO the present hour” (Danker, The Kingdom, pp. 47,48).
Danker and Drinkers
In Danker’s book, Jesus and the New Age, which was

deemed “heretical” by his own church, he said,
“Nothing is said about abstinence from strong

drink (cf. vs. 15), for Jesus will in fact attend
many parties and drink wine that is offered”
(D a n k e r, Jesus, p . 1 2 ).
After Danker’s “heresy trial,” beer was brought by his

supporters, who said, “W e’ll provide the b eer...” at the next
meeting No Room, 155 Danker’s supporters also provided
(D a n k e r, p . ).
“a bottle o f Jack Daniels” for their leader No Room, 280 (D a n k e r, P . ).
Danker even compares the “Kingdom” to “beer” Kingdom, (D a n k e r, P .
37 Danker calls students “regular guys” who go to “Taverns”

).
No Room,
(D a n k e r, One must read Danker’s entire book (No
p . 5 2 ).
Room In The Brotherhood) to get a feel for the “liberalism” of

Danker and his cohorts.
Danker, Universalism, and No Heil?
He hints at Universalism in places, saying, “The covenant

He made with mankind in Jesus is in continuity with His
action o f old...” Creeds, (D a n k e r, p . 2 3 ).
■ “Salvation...may be experienced as a renewed relationship

to God or as a specifically observed benefit from one who
is kind tO the just and tO the unjust (Danker, Luke, p . 7 7 ).
■ Including all in the work o f Christ, Danker notes that

“Salvation for Luke is rescue from all that separates man
from man, or mankind from G od.. Jesus, . ” (D a n k e r, p . 1 1 0 ).
■ Is Danker an annihilationist? He says, “As often in the

Bible, the word “soul” does not refer to something
immortal...” Invitation, (D a n k e r, Hebrew p . 1 3 4 ; H e is s e c u la riz in g th e G re e k a n d
w o rd s w h ic h c a n sometimes b e tr a n s la te d ‘b r e a t h ’ o r o t h e r t e m p o r a l t h i n g s s u c h a s th e
‘m ind.’ Secular lexicons, using pagan and secular sources for definitions cannot give the
Bible reader G od’s insights, which cannot be seen by man, with his lim ited knowledge.
Such insights are the purpose o f the Bible, in which God explains w ord m eanings in each
context.)
In Invitation to the New Testament Epistles IV he asks,

“Some commentators conclude that [1 Peter] 3:18-4:6 teaches
“universalism” . . .What do you think about this?” (Danker, P. 153).
He quotes favorably one writer who said that Christians should
“rejoice over a universal redemption won for all in Jesus
C hrist...” He said, “such words made obsolete the favorite
illustration recited on mission Sundays about the number of
souls per minute going to hell” (Danker, m R oom , p. 188). He believes
that the words, “tormented in this flame” are a part o f a
“parable” and do not address “the temperature o f hell” (Luke
16:19-31; Danker, je su s, p. 176). He gives a poem that mocks those who
believe the lost will go to hell. He pretends they think:
“We are the choice selected few

And all the rest are damned.
There’s room enough in hell for you,
We can’t have heaven crammed
(Danker, Jesus, p. 169).
Danker is Pro-Catholic
Danker moved to teach in a Catholic Seminary when he

was ousted for “heresy” from his professorship at the Lutheran
Seminary. Danker states,
“With sharp insight into the responsibilities

o f his office, the Pope who succeeded Pius XII
called himself John XXIII. Breathing the spirit of
1 John, he emphasized collegiality or
partnership, with the Gospel as the moderator of
the Church’s mission to the world” (Danker, Invitation,
p. 210).
“ [M]any find it hard to believe that the Holy

Spirit could actually bring a breath o f fresh air
into the papacy.”
“[T]he sermonic approach [preaching
sermons] may be obsolete as a primary
communications device...W e need men who can
assert: “I am ready to say Luther’s Mass in St.
Peter’s at R om e...” The Kingdom, (D a n k e r, p p . 5 4 , 8 1 ).
Danker promotes the work o f Father Maria[!], a Catholic

priest. He writes o f “the great critical scholar Father Maria
Joseph Lagrange, whose interpretation o f the Old Testament
had become suspect” No Room 119 He also defended
(D a n k e r, , p . ).
membership in and fellowship with the Catholic Biblical

Association (with co-member and arch-heretic, Father
Raymond Brown) No Room (D a n k e r, , p . 1 4 2 ).
Danker believes in a special and paid professional New

Testament priesthood, in addition to the priesthood of
believers. He talks about, “ ...eligibility for the later canonical
office o f the priesthood, which requires specific gifts and
expertise that are not possessed by every Christian.” He asks,
“What are the best antidotes against anticlericalism?” (Danker,
Invitation, p p . 1 4 0 , 1 5 9 ).
In addition to being a translator for a Roman Catholic

Bible, Danker was joined by Catholic theologians in the writing
o f at least two o f his books:
1. Catholic Theological Union, Associate Professor, Robert

Karris, wrote the introduction to Danker’s book, The
Invitation to The New Testament Epistles I: A Commentary
on Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John and
Jude with Complete Text from the [Catholic] J e r u s a le m
Bible. Karris said, “Another outstanding feature o f this
commentary series is that it is based on The [Catholic]

Jerusalem Bible (Danker, Invitation, p. 11).
2. Catholic priest, Gerard S. Sloyan, and Catholic, Elisabeth
Fiorenza, professor at Notre Dame University, joined
Danker to write a book entitled, Proclamation
Commentaries: Hebrews-James-1 and 2 Peter-Jude-
Revelation (Gerald Krodel, Editor, Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press, 1977, p. v.).
The Commentary’s Foreword begins by saying that “none
o f them is a genuine letter” and only Revelation “bears the
name of its true author” ... “He is to be distinguished from
the author o f the Gospel which also bears that name” (p. v).
Therefore, according to this commentary, James, Jude and
Peter did not write the letters ascribed to them, and another
John, not John the apostle, wrote Revelation. The first
chapter begins,
“The King James Bible entitles our document,

“The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Hebrews.” Unfortunately, every one o f these
claims is questioned or refuted by modem
scholarship. Our document is not an epistle, it
is not by Paul, it is not by an apostle, nor can
it be said without qualification that it was
written to the Hebrews” (Danker, Hebrews, p. 1).
Danker’s chapter begins saying, “That the Second Letter of

Peter is a relatively late document...and certainly not from the
Pen o f Peter, the Apostle is almost universally recognized.”
‘Details on the variations within the decretal form and related
diction in 2 Peter are discussed in an article published in the
Catholic Biblical Quarterly...” (Danker, Hebrews, p. 81).
Danker squirms as Peter calls Jesus “God” in 2 Peter 1:1.

Danker says Peter didn’t mean such “high Christology” in any
“metaphysical” (supernatural) way. It was simply a metaphor,

paralleling the “obedience” shown to Christ to that given the
Roman emperor who was considered “divine” Hebrews, (D a n k e r, p . 8 5 ).
On May 18, 2006 Danker was awarded an honorary doctorate

from the Dominican Aquinas Institute o f the Roman Catholic
St. Louis University.
Danker and Delilah
Danker agrees with the feminist agenda.
■ Danker has made the 3ld edition o f the Bauer Greek-English

Lexicon (BDAG 2000) gender inclusive, even ignoring the
Greek singulars. Danker writes, “Brothers (13:1) comes off
more sexist...” Invitation,
(D a n k e r, p . 8 7 ).
■ Danker agreed with Hamack that, “Priscilla (see Acts 18:2,

18, 26) might have had a hand in the production of
Hebrews,” so Danker refers to its author as “she” and “her”
throughout his commentary invitation, 18 For example,
(D a n k e r, p. ).
he mocks those who are soul winners and he says, “How is

her understanding different from what you hear in the
evangelistic query, “Are you saved?”?” invitation, ). (D a n k e r, p . 3 3
Danker’s Kingdom Politics
Danker’s lexicon has been “greatly affected by political

factors,” observes one scholar 12 He has a liberal
(M a k id o n , p. ).
political agenda, talking about those who experience “repressive

societal structures” and “oppressive economic structures” (Danker,
invitation, 35
p p . He poses the question, “ In what ways ought the
,8 7 ) .
Church become more aggressive in dealing with problems of

injustice and inequity?” invitation,
(D a n k e r, ““Profit P P . 9 2 ; se e a ls o 8 9 ).
incentive” takes the bite out of greed...In the interest of

“responsibility to our stockholders,”” invitation, 116 “The (D a n k e r, p . ).
United States consumes the resources o f poor nations at a

devastating rate (Danker, invitation, p. 120). He talks about the validity
o f “civil disobedience” (Danker, Invitation, p. 145).
■ Only by using a Catholic Jerusalem Bible could Danker

conclude regarding 1 John, “Throughout his essay our
author has helped his readers cultivate a high level o f self
esteem,” wherein man, not God, can bring in the ‘kingdom’
■ His book, The Kingdom in Action, teaches that the kingdom

is here now. There is no future millennial reign of Christ, in
Danker’s mind. He asserts, “In contrast with the
apocalyptic hope which placed the demonstration o f the
powers o f the new age at the end o f history, the New
Testament emphasizes that the new age has begun in the
person o f Jesus” (Danker, Creeds, p. 50).
■ Like his progenitor, Bauer, Danker justifies Gnostics’
beliefs (that Irenaeus considered a “heresy”). Danker states,
“Fortunately we now possess a number o f books written by
early gnostics, and their authors in the main appear to have
been earnest seekers with higher than average moral and
ethical standards” (Danker, Invitation, p. 239).
■ He calls the “early Christian communities” “cultus” (Danker,
Creeds, p. 15). He states, “Unique in the world o f cultic
devotees were the descendants o f Abraham and their

adopted family o f proselytes” (Danker, Luke, P. 3). The Hebrew
‘cult’ or culture is not, according to Danker to be the
recipient o f the earthly kingdom promised to Abraham.
Danker’s New Age Kingdom Now
He uses the term ‘new age’ quite frequently in his books

entitling one, Jesus and the New Age. He titles one chapter
o f Invitation, “Philanthropists o f the New Age” (Danker, P. i6S).
He tells us, “The new age will be run by G od.. .This new
age is to be preceded by signs...” “ [T]he new age has been

ushered in through the death o f Jesus” Creeds, 31 (D a n k e r, P P . ,4 9 ) .
■ “Love and peace are the twin notes o f hope. They compose
the song for the New A ge...,” writes Danker invitation (D a n k e r, ,
p. 159).
■ Danker thinks, “Dancing...beating of drums is a legitimate
part o f the church’s worship” Jesus, “Joy is the
(D a n k e r, p . 1 6 9 ).
keynote of the New Age...m arked by ...exultant

shrieking.. Jesus,
(D a n k e r, p . 7 ).
■ Danker’s drawers, anyone? He offers saying, “He who has

two undergarments, let him share one with a man who has
none.” “Such, then, are the candidates for participation in
the program for the New Age” Jesus, (D a n k e r, p . 4 6 ).
■ Danker said that, “a principal theme o f Luke’s gospel, is

the Establishment o f the New A g e...” No Room, p. 57). (D a n k e r,
Danker quotes a fellow ousted “heretic,” who said, “Those

who seek to bend us into silence belong to the Old Age”
(Jesus, No Room, p. 279).
Danker’s “Heresy Trial”
Danker and his fellow “higher critic” colleagues at

Concordia Seminary were included in the book Dictionary o f
Heresy Trials in American Christianity, edited by George
Shriver. It states that Danker’s modernism and trial was “yet
another chapter in the ongoing fundamentalist-modemist
controversy.” The heresy trial emerged because o f “the false
teaching of the majority o f the faculty” at the seminary where
Danker taught. The fundamentalists knew that “false doctrine
was being taught at the seminary.” The Board o f Control
moved to “proceed with the termination o f the faculty” and
“empty the seminary o f its troublesome faculty.” They stated
that “the majority o f the faculty at St. Louis were guilty of
denying the historicity o f key events described in the Bible,
such as Adam and Eve as real persons, and that they were
therefore teachers who “cannot be tolerated in the church of

God, lT lU c h less be excused and defended (Dictionary o f H eresy Trials
in American Christianity, George H. Shriver, ed„ W estport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997 pp
419-428).
Danker wrote two books about his own heresy trial, No

Room in the Brotherhood and Under Investigation. Danker and
fellow faculty members were “under indictment,” as the church
board called it, for “the charge o f false doctrine” and “heresy
charges” (Danker, No floow, pp. 210, 216, 251). Conservatives “accused the
faculty o f having tried to “change the theology o f the church
without telling the church what we were doing”” (Danker, No Room ,
p. 289). In the “heresy trials” faculty were charged with
promoting “liberalism, historical criticism, and ecumenism” by

a church body that clung to an “emphasis on literalism” o f the
Bible and the old-time religion (Martin H. Scharlemann, “Biblical
Interpretation Today,” The Lutheran Scholar 24, no. 2, April, 1967, pp. 3-4 (35-36)).
Danker discovered that his “Historical-critical method was as

welcome in such an atmosphere as the two-party system in
Soviet Russia (Danker, No Room, p. 11).
Danker admits that “Among the top news stories in the

first part o f the Seventies was the battle between traditionalists
and progressives in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.” He
concedes that he was, “ ...one who came under fire from my
own church body for questioning it on certain issues...” (Danker,
No Room, Foreword).
Danker Denies Bible’s Inerrancy
Was he guilty, as charged, o f leaving students “robbed

of their Bibles” (Danker, No Room, p. 145)? Danker was against
“insisting that every piece o f information given in the Bible is
factually accurate...” (Danker, n o Room, p. 6). A professor had
‘directed his missile at one point - infallibility” (Danker, No Room, P.
32). Danker and some o f his fellow professors were, as he says,
“liberated from “inappropriately” using the word “inerrancy”

in reference to the Scriptures.” Danker proudly said, “O f
course it proved difficult for many Christians to understand
how the statement, “The Bible contains errors” could possibly
disturb a major church body, for most church groups had that
campaign behind them” (Danker, No Room, p. 6). The “inerrancy” of
the Bible was denied by Danker and faculty. He applauded his
friend who, “praised the Roman Catholics for dispensing with
the term” (Danker, No Room, p. 31).
The Lutheran newspaper, The Christian News, said

Danker’s school had become a hot bed o f rationalism and
higher criticism. The newspaper and the President o f the
Lutheran Synod charged faculty, including Danker, with
teaching that “Daniel did not write Daniel,” the “the story of
Jonah is a parable rather than historic fact,” and “Isaiah 7:14
should be translated with ‘young woman’ rather than ‘virgin’
as Matthew says in Matthew 1:23...” They also were accused
of teaching that:
1.) “the Bible contains errors...”

2.) “the first five books o f the Bible came from
various sources designated as J, E, P, and D by
Bible critics who do not believe Jesus was
correct when he said that Moses wrote these
books”
3. “man does not have an immortal soul”
4. “man evolved from an ape-like creature”
(Danker, No Room, p. 35).
The Seminary’s President was fired because he allowed

“criticism” of the Bible by Danker and the others. The Seminary
called for a formal investigation o f Danker and the others by a
“Fact-Finding Committee.” Danker said he did not like, “ ...the
specific investigation to which I was subjected by Dr. Preus’
committee. I did not welcome such an inquisition.” “The

investigators’ task was to determine to what extent each
professor adhered to the traditional view ...M ine took place on
January 23, 1971, from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m..” Again later, he
said, “I was asked to meet with the Board on October 15, 1972
from 7:30 to 9:00 P.M.”. He was queried about his belief in
“imaginative enlargements” “in the Old and the New
Testament.” He agreed that he “demythologized hell” and put
out any notion of “fire” being there, for one example. In
addition to the interview “they submitted my chapel address.”
From these faculty meetings the President concluded that,
“Yes” “false doctrine was being taught...” (D anker,m R o o m , PP. 4 3 , 107,
4 8 ,6 3 , 50, 103,60, 65, 102).
Danker did not like the “negative judgments” and

conclusions o f the Committee. They concluded that he would
not complete the interview and “their questions suffered the
‘fate of evasive comment.’” They said, “Danker seems to be
extending the point” that it is not important whether the Bible
states real facts or not. They felt, “Danker did not specifically
answer the question” about “imaginative elements in the
Gospels” (Danker, N o Room, pp. 65, 66).
During these trial interviews, the faculty tried to use the

“approved diction” to slither around “out o f bounds” topics,
such as Bible “criticism.” They were experts at “mentally
translating into the dialect o f Missouri” and saying what the
constituency wanted to hear. “[UJnder his breath he might have
uttered some theological equivalent,” however (Danker, No R oom , pp.
30’ 3 i). Jesuits call it equivocation. Although the professors often
denied “miracles,” they “perform semantic miracles. Words

cease to have their normal meanings and evoke whatever
definition the speaker requires...” (Danker, No R oom , P. 39). One o f the
denomination’s directors said about Danker and the faculty,
“But I cannot condone the use of half-truths. Semantics is a

large part o f the game being played” (Danker, No Room, p. 263).
Danker responded to the Committee by writing a

Response which stated, “I am distressed by the sometimes
slurring publicity and general humiliation and
harassment...because of the investigation... I all the more reject
their charge o f uncooperativeness...I was examined with a
predetermined need to find fault” (Danker, No Room, P. 69).
The board of control o f the Lutheran Synod set forth “a

document that would define heresy...” (Danker, N o Room, P. 87). It was
directed toward “the faculty members o f the St. Louis Seminary
to indicate their stance” toward the Bible and basic doctrine.
The President o f the Synod said,
“It is quite obvious to me that some things

must be changed. I am convinced that there has
been teaching which is at variance with the way
in which our Synod understands the Word of
G od...European theology is infiltrating the
American churches...the same topics that trouble
us now ...verbal or plenary infallibility...” (Danker,
No Room, p. 72).
The Statement o f Scriptural and Confessional Principles

they issued asked professors, including Danker, to teach that
“God is therefore the true Author o f every word o f Scripture...”
They must “reject” the “view” “That the Holy Spirit did not
inspire the actual w ords...” (Danker, No Room, pp. 76, 77).
Danker called the writers o f this Statement “the r a d i c a l

right wing” whose ideas only “appealed to a fundamentalist
mindset” (Danker, No Room, pp. 8 7 ,8 8 ). Danker called “indefensible” the
Statement's claim that, “We believe that Jesus Christ is the only
way to heaven and that all who die without faith in Him are
eternally damned” !!! (Danker, N o R oom , p. 8 8 ,8 9 ). His rejection o f the
Statem ent’s assertion that “faith...is the cause o f salvation”
exposes his tendency toward universalism (all will be saved)
In opposition to a sentence in the Statement, Danker said

that the “canon” o f the scriptures was “debatable.” According to
him, books which are not in the Bible are on the same level as
those which are (Danker, No Room, p. 9i). Danker believes that the
Bible contains “imaginative additions” which are not “actual
fa c ts (Danker, No Room, pp. 77, 92, 97).
Danker’s Heretical Book, Jesus and the New Age
Danker wrote in his book, Jesus and the New Age,

“Therefore, it is impossible to recover without argument the
very words o f Jesus spoken on a given historical occasion.” The
committee found this notion to be heretical and found other
“errors in my commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel” (Jesus, p. xviii;
Danker, No Room, p. 98). Danker admitted that “[T]he synodical
officialdom had axed a commentary I had written on St. Luke

(Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke)...[A]
subcommittee o f an official board responsible for doctrinal
purity of Concordia Publishing House publications
complained...[M ]y commentary o f St. Luke had proved
embarrassing to the Synod” (Danker, No Room, PP. 54, 55). Danker
admitted his “highly subjective” and “tenuous” views “proved
an obstacle to endorsement” by a church body (Danker, Jesus, xx).
‘Especially under attack were my interpretation...[and] points
° f practical application” (Danker, Jesus, p. xx). Therefore Danker had
his “New Age” book published using a typewriter.
Danker Was Under Investigation
Another o f Danker’s ‘underground’ typewritten books is

Under Investigation. “Walter Dissen, an attorney on the Board,
queried my ethics,” quips Danker, because I printed “the
proceedings o f my interview.” The attorney charged that “not
everything in his transcript was cited in the published copy” of
Under Investigation (Frederick W. Danker, Under Investigation, St. Louis, Missouri:
Concordia Seminary, 1971, 2nd edition; Danker, No R oom , p. 104). What did Danker
have to hide?
Regarding the ‘trial,’ Danker admitted, “the professors

were not passing the examinations prepared for them by
‘conservatives’” (Danker, No R oom , p. 107). “[T]here was a refusal to
answer questions...directly” of the Fact Finding Committee
(Danker, No Room, p. 139). Danker signed a “Protest” against the
Statement of the official church body, which stated that he could

not agree with their “fixed rules for the interpretation o f the
Word o f God,” including his favored “historical-critical”
methods (i.e. Jonah was not an historical character), (Danker, No
Room, pp. 142, 151, 152 ).
Referring to the beliefs o f Danker and other erring

faculty, the “official orders” o f the board o f the Lutheran church
then “resolved” that,
“ ...the disagreements which presently trouble

our Synod are indeed matters of doctrine and
conscience; and Whereas, These disagreements
especially pertaining to the inspiration,
inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures
have been correctly assessed as so
fundamental that the alternatives are mutually
exclusive... Whereas, These disagreements
pertaining to the doctrine o f the Holy Scriptures
have far reaching implications for all

theology...The faculty of the St. Louis
seminary is largely responsible for these
disagreements by promulgating doctrine at
variance with the Synod’s position.. . ” (Danker, No
Room, pp. 129, 130).
The church further resolved,

“that the Synod repudiate that attitude toward
Holy Scripture, particularly as regards its
authority...(e.g. facticity of miracle
accounts...historicity o f Adam and Eve as real
persons...the historicity of every detail in the life
o f Jesus as recorded by the evangelists...the
doctrine o f angels; the Jonah account, etc.). That
the Synod recognizes that the theological
position defended by the faculty majority o f
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, is in fact
false doctrine running counter to the Holy
S c r i p t u r e s . . . ” (Danker, No Room, pp. 136, 137).
The headlines revealed, “Fact Finding Committee Finds

False Doctrine at Concordia Seminary.” Danker and friends
were accused o f “treason” and an “all-out attack against historic
Christianity” (Herman Otten, ed. A Christian Handbook on Vital Issues: Christian News,
1963-1973), New Haven, Missouri: Leader Publishing Co., 1973, pp. 797, 774-784, 783). The
Christian News editorial said,
“ [Tjhey should immediately ask each member o f

the St. Louis faculty if he retracts his false
doctrine and if he now subscribes to A Statement
o f Scriptural and Confessional Principles. Those
who refuse to retract their false doctrine should
not be allowed to continue teaching.
Arrangements will have to be made to get loyal
teachers to take their place” (Christian News, July 23,

1973, p. 4). “If they refuse to retract their attacks
upon Scripture, then and only then should they

be asked to leave the LCMS,” reported The
Christian News (Danker, No Room, p. 111).
“We still haven’t received any answers to these

questions from the ‘great scholars’ at Concordia Seminary, St.
Louis,” the News reported (Christian News, ed. Herm an Otten, W ashington, MO,
July 23, 1973, p. 4). Because o f the Seminary President’s “failure to
take action against faculty members who hold positions

contrary to the clear words o f Scripture,” such as Danker, he
was suspended (Danker, N o Room, pp. 205, 274). The denomination’s
view on salvation and the word o f God in “Resolution 3-09
which in wholesale fashion condemned our teaching as “false
doctrine not to be tolerated in the church o f God”” was
“protest[ed]” and rejected by Danker and his friends (Danker, No
Room, pp. 276, 287).
The denomination’s President concluded the hearings

and wrote,
“Dear Brother D anker...The Synod’s judgment

that certain teachings are false stands...” (Danker,
No Room, p. 253).
Danker’s ‘Document o f Dismissal’ said that, “certain

members o f the faculty...have failed...which results also in a
term ination...” (Danker, N o Room, p. 303). Danker wrote to a friend
saying, “ ...w e shall be out of our quarters... The question is not
Jonah or Adam and Eve but...authoritative synodical fiat...’
Danker Moved by “the Roman Catholic sisters” to

the Church of ROME’s Seminary!
With this decision, Danker refused to return to the

Seminary. Instead he joined other disgruntled faculty and
students to have their classes AT A CATHOLIC SEMINARY!!
The students who joined him went to “receive a

blessing” from the ousted President, much like the pope gives
(Danker, N o R oom , p. 269). Danker said, “Now the faculty, who had
been fired, would continue educating students elsewhere” (Danker,

No Room, p. 309). Plans were “made for the students to continue their
education at Eden Seminary (of the United Church o f Christ)

and St. Louis University Divinity School (a Roman Catholic
institution)” (Danker, N o Room, p. 283). “On Wednesday morning
classes would begin at St. Louis University [R C ]...” (Danker, No
Room, p. 308). “Most classes will meet, however, at St. Louis
University [R C ]...” (Danker, N o Room, p. 313). Danker and the faculty

“received their eviction notices” and “the Roman Catholic
sisters” helped them move!!! (Danker, N o Room, pp. 310-3 1 1). “Professors
and administrators at St. Louis University doubled up in
offices... (Danker, No Room, p. 321).
Danker called it a move “across the Reed Sea,” as a

slam on the Bible which calls it the “Red Sea (Danker, n 0 R oom , P.
321).” Higher critics, like Danker, believed the sea was a shallow
sea o f reeds, which men could easily walk across, not a deep,
miracle-evoking body o f water. Danker’s co-conspirator, Dean
Damm, said, “We face East! There the new awaits us” (Danker, n 0
R°°m , p. 320). This reminds me o f the verse,
“ ...m en, with their backs toward the temple o f

the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and
they worshipped the sun toward the east.” Ezek.
8:16.
The Catholic Biblical Association’s supportive public

letters, by Father Joseph Jenson, said,
“That control o f a Christian community can be

gained by militant fundamentalists is witnessed
by recent events in the Lutheran church -
Missouri Synod; if the new leadership succeeds
in ousting from Concordia Theological Seminary
those committed to critical scientific scholarship
and remaking the institution along
fundamentalist lines, that segment o f Christianity
will be effectively diminished and ecumenical
dialogue will be hindered...”
Another letter said, “ ...Such attacks ultimately

threaten the ecumenical movement” (Danker, No
Room, p. 163).
Real Bible Believing Students Expose Danker
Although Danker and his friends seduced certain

students to follow them to the arms o f Rome, other students
balked. These conservatives wrote an open letter exposing what
had been going on behind the classroom’s closed doors.
“[Conservative students” were subject to hearing “obscene
names” from the faculty under investigation (Danker, No R oom , p. 2 9 1).
The student’s public letter said in part,
“For years we have been harassed and bullied by

those who call themselves evangelical. We have
experienced various acts of
intimidation...Students have failed classes or
have had grades lowered for theological
disagreement with professors who were
themselves engaging in doctrinal
aberrations...Students have been exposed to
such aberrations as universalism, denial o f

personal devil, the refusal to say that anyone will
go to hell...There has been an almost unceasing
ridicule o f the simple child-like faith o f the
laity.. .(D anker, No Room , pp. 290-291).
Danker Viewed with “Horror” saying, “You can’t come in

here Dr. Danker”
Danker ended his book, No Room in the Brotherhood

(about being ousted from the Lutheran church and his Seminary
position) with a “Roll o f Honor” o f his co-conspirators. Danker
boasts that,
“ ...they encourage false doctrine. Most o f them

are either themselves Bible doubters or give
comfort to those who are. Some believe that the
book o f Jonah is a parable” (Danker, No R oom , p. 325).
Some time after the ousting, Danker slipped into the

Lutheran Seminary library. “When I walked into the library, I
was greeted with a mixture o f horror and consternation by
Head Librarian Larry Bielenberg who exclaimed to me, “You
can’t come in here, Dr. Danker” (Danker, No Room, p. 330).
Yet, today, unsuspecting Bible Schools, let him slip onto

their library shelves and into their classrooms, hidden under the
cover of A Greek-English Lexicon o f the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, Revised and edited by
Frederick William Danker, based upon Walter Bauer. In the
lexicon Danker gives full throttle to his every whim o f heresy.
In that volume he is unencumbered by his church that, in his
words, “discouraged speculation on the frontiers o f knowledge
when it seemed to threaten our traditions” (Danker, No Room, P. 356).
One man, newspaper editor Herman Otten, a former

student o f the seminary, educated those in the pews through his
modest newspaper, about the heresy that was being taught
regarding the Bible. This created a huge groundswell of
informed Christians, who turned around an entire church and
their Bible training institution. Is there one man today who
will investigate today’s Bible schools and begin news-
m aking, instead o f news-watching, web surfing, arm-chair
sports viewing, video game playing, blog and forum gossiping,
and chat room childishness. The Danker “heresy trial” proves
that Bible criticism can be challenged successfully. Those in the
pews need not remain silent, unless they want to leave to their
children a nation which has no Holy Bible, but only some man’s
opinion, mulled from a mile-high pile o f lexicons written by
“heretics.” Will someone stand up and say in the churches,
bible schools, and Sunday Schools, “You can’t come in here,
Dr. Bible Destroyer!”?
Danker’s Heretical “Other Early Christian Literature”
The title o f the Bauer-Danker Lexicon is A Greek-English

Literature. Just what “Literature” does Danker use to define
Bible terms? Recall that to Bauer, “Christian” meant ‘heretic’
and “Heresy” meant “Christian.” So, to study the book o f Luke
they cite from the “Pseudepigrapha” [pseudo means false;
grapha means writings] books such as Assumption o f Moses,
Martyrdom o f Isaiah, and the Testaments o f the Twelve
Patriarchs (Danker, Jesus, p.xxiii). Danker says, “Luke, who displays
other familiarity with the apocrypha, thought o f the parallel
with Judith and assumed that his readers would do likewise
(Danker, Jesus, p. 36). Neither the Holy Ghost, nor Luke, nor any true
Bible readers will be interested in the Catholic book o f ‘Judith.

So Danker would leave his lexicon readers with Judith,

and Priscilla, whom Danker thinks wrote the book o f Hebrews.
Oh, I almost forgot — and the woman priest (black robe with
white squared collar and all), that he shows at the end o f his
book, No Room in the Brotherhood.
No thank you. I ’ll take the Holy Bible.

Part III
Greek New Testament Texts

The following chapters will document problems relating to
printed editions o f Greek texts, not covered in New Age Bible
Versions. The Greek texts covered in that book include the
Westcott and Hort text and its current offshoots, the Nestle-
Aland and United Bible Societies editions. These are so corrupt
that it took that entire book to cover their grave errors. They are
reviewed briefly in the book in hand in chapter 6 on Metzger.
Easily shattered is the myth that there exists only one Greek
text or that one can carelessly say, ‘The Greek sa y s...’
Philip S chaffs Companion to the Greek

Testament and English Version takes twenty-
six pages to list at least 666 different printed
Greek New Testament editions, edited
between 1514 and 1883 (NY: H arper and Brothers, 1885,
A ppendix I, pp. 498-524, 2nd ed. rev.; facsim ile available from A.V.
Publications, Ararat, VA; see also “Index I. Editionum ” from the

Bibliotheca N ovi Testamenti G raeci, Brunsvigae, 1872, pp. 289-301).
The errors in printed editions o f the Textus Receptus, which are

covered in the following chapters, are microscopic in
comparison to the errors in the Greek texts underlying the NIV,
TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NRSV, NASB and others.
SCRIVENER’S TEXTUAL HERESIES 579
Chapter 17
The
Textual
Heresies of
F.H.A. Scrivener
Member: Revised Version Committee

Editor: TextUS Receptus (KJB/Beza hybrid)
Publishers:
■ Trinitarian Bible Society

■ Jay P. Green
* Digital & Online Editions
Summary: F.H.A. Scrivener & His Textual Heresies
1. Scrivener was a member o f the Westcott and Hort

Revised Version Committee (RV) of 1881 and
worked in masterminding this corrupt version. He
stated that the RV was “better” than the KJB.
2. Scrivener was the author of several books

promoting textual criticism which taught
generations of students to question the Bible.
3. Few know that Scrivener moved away from his

original Textus Receptus (TR) position in his later
book, Six Lectures on the Text o f the New
Testament, written before he created his TR
Greek text. Scrivener did not recommend all of
the readings in his TR and suggested removing
numerous verses, as well as important words
supporting the Incarnation, the sinlessness of
Christ, and the Trinity (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co.,
1875). A complete list follows in this chapter.
•/ Scrivener desires to make two changes in the

scriptures which would make Jesus Christ a sinner
(Luke 2:22 and John 7:8).
S Scrivener wants to remove the Trinitarian proof
texts of 1 John 5:7-8 and Col. 2:2.
^ Scrivener rejects the proof text for the Incarnation
and the deity of Christ (1 Tim. 3:16), as well as
rejecting “God” in 1 Peter 3:15 and the Holy
Ghost in Acts 16:7.
•/ He suggests removing Acts 8:37 to support his
Anglican heresy of infant baptismal regeneration.
S He denies the portion of scripture that tells us
Jesus was “broken” for us (1 Cor. 11:24).
Further documentation to follow.
M e m b e rs o f th e Revised Version C o m m itte e o f 1881
B .F . W e stc o tt F .J.A H o rt
C .J. E llic o tt F .H .A . S c riv e n e r

( B ish o p o f G lo u c e s te r a n d B ris to l)
F.H.A. Scrivener: Bible Corrupter
any use a Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus
M variety) edited by Church o f England vicar,

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (A.D. 1813-
1891). This chapter will examine his aberrant beliefs about the
Bible and the grave omissions he recommended for his English
Revised Version (RV) of 1881. The next chapter will document
the erroneous changes he made to his own edition o f the Greek
Textus Receptus (KJB/Beza hybrid) used by conservative
Christians.
Scrivener & the Revised Version
From 1872 until its completion in 1880, Scrivener was a

member o f the Westcott and Hort committee which hatched the
corrupt Revised Version and a corrupt new Greek text. Scrivener
referred to Westcott and Hort as “two o f the best scholars o f this
age.” Scrivener worked with a motley crew o f Unitarians,
including Ezra Abbot, J. Henry Thayer, and G. Vance Smith, as
well as New Ager, Philip Schaff, and Biavatsky follower, C. D.
Ginsburg (Old Testament). Also on Scrivener’s RV committee
was C.J. Vaughan, B.F. W estcott’s pick and an old confederate
during the Harrow scandal. Headmaster Vaughan was
discharged from being W estcott’s supervisor for encouraging
homosexual behavior between adults and the children in the
dorm directed by Westcott. (Details in upcoming chapter.) For
his “thirty pieces of silver,” Scrivener betrayed whatever
conscience he had and joined this wicked band, receiving a
pension beginning in 1872. (Encyclopedia Britannica, New York: E n c y c lo p e d ia
Britannica, Inc., 1 l lh edition, 1911, Vol. 3, p. 903; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the
Criticism o f the New Testament, Eugene, Oregon: W ipf and Stock Publishers, 4 " ed., 1
reprint o f 1894 George Bell and Sons, Vol. 2, p. 242; The New S c h a ff H erzog E ncyclopedia oj
Religious Know ledge, N ew York: Funk and W agnalls Co., 1911, Vol. 10, p. 310).
In 1884, after Scrivener’s Revised Version New Testament

was published, he judged that the substitution o f the RV for the
KJB would be “on the whole, for the better.” He boasts,
“If a judgment may be formed from previous

experience in like cases, the revised [RV] and
unrevised [KJB] Versions, when the former shall
at length be completed [O.T.], are destined to run
together a race o f generous and friendly rivalry
for the space o f at least one generation, before
the elder o f the two [KJB] shall be superseded
[d u m p e d ]... (F.H.A. Scrivener, The A uthorized Edition o f the
English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and M odern
Representatives, Cambridge: University Press, 1884, p .l).
Today, Scrivener’s Revised Version is nowhere to be found

and has been abandoned for several generations. Its corrupt
editors and its omissions are exposed in my books New Age
Bible Versions and In Awe o f Thy Word, along with the R V ’s
wicked step-children, the New International Version (NIV),
Today’s New International Version (TNIV), English Standard
Version (ESV), New American Standard Version (NASB),
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), New Jerusalem
Bible (NJB), New American Bible (NAB) and others (g .a . Ripiinger,
New A ge Bible Versions, Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1993-2008 editions; G A . Ripiinger, In
Awe o f Thy Word: Understanding the K ing Jam es Bible, Its M ystery and History, Letter by
Letter, A rarat, VA: AV Publications, 2003),
Scrivener Against the King Janies Bible
Scrivener is not an admirer o f the King James Bible. In his

book A Plain Introduction to the Criticism o f the New
Testament he boasts o f an earlier group o f revisers,
“The ‘Five Clergymen’ who in or about 1858

benefited the English Church by revising its
Authorized version [K JB ]...” (S crivener,/I Plain, Vol.
2, p. 380).
Scrivener moans about pretended “faults o f the Authorized

Version” [KJB] which must “yield” to his “well-considered
Revision,” apt at “amending” the KJB’s “defects.” He mocks
the KJB wishing “its venerable translators had shewn
themselves more exempt than they were from the failings
incident to human infirmity.” He charges that, “it was surely a
mistake to divide the whole body of [KJB] Translators into six
parties.” He quips, “ [T]he Epistles, entrusted to persons sitting
at Westminster o f whom little is now known, are worse done
than any Other p art.. (Scrivener, The Authorized, pp. 15, 136, 2, 139).
He foments what he calls “that great error o f judgment

which is acknowledged to be the capital defect o f the [KJB]
Translation....” Yet his RV’s grammarian gruel was passed
over for the K JB’s sparkling “living water” and its rhythmic
flow (John 7:38, John 4:10). The KJB translators knew,
“ [T]here be some words that be not o f the same sense every
where,” therefore “we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity
o f phrasing....” Scrivener bemoans the fact that they worked
before “the first principles o f textual criticism had yet to be
gathered from a long process o f painful induction” (Scrivener, The
Authorized, pp. 141, 300-301, 60). God spared the KJB translators the pain
and it is our gain. Today, God daily vindicates the KJB s
rhythmic and easy to memorize linguistic choices in Christian
bookstores and churches around the world, while his RV decays
into dust in musty museums.
To shake the presiding confidence in the King James Bible

Scrivener wrote The Authorized Edition oj the English Bible
(1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.

This is an exhaustive collation o f inconsequential typos that
have occurred in its printings. Yet he pretends each was a
“revision” o f errors and not “misprints.” He has contributed to
the myth that the KJB has been revised by pretending that the
1629 and 1638 efforts o f KJB translators Ward and Bois, to
correct errors o f the press o f the 1611 and subsequent printings,
were true “revisions.” These two KJB translators knew the
original intention o f the 1611 translators, having participated in
the translation themselves. Hand-setting type, letter-by-letter by
candlelight had introduced a number o f misprints into the 1611.
In 1629 and 1638 these remaining KJB translators simply
corrected the type to match the original hand written 1611,
originally produced as notes in a Bishops’ Bible. Their repairs
were not, as Scrivener charges, to “amend manifest faults o f the
original Translators.” He quotes a critic for support saying, “the
text appears to have undergone a complete revision” (Scrivener, The
Authorized, Cam bridge: University Press, 1884, pp. 147, 2, 20-22 et al.). S c r i v e n e r
cannot prove that these two KJB translators did not restore
original readings in every case.
Among scholars, the most well-known o f Scrivener’s errors

is his use o f the wrong edition o f the 1611 upon which to base
his collation. Scrivener’s entire book, The Authorized Edition o f
the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern
Representatives, is based upon the wrong edition o f the 1611.
There were two 1611 printings; the second repaired typos from
the first, although it introduced a few new typos o f its own. W.
Aldis Wright revealed, “Scrivener confused the two issues of
1611. His first edition was the second and his second was the
first.” Walter Smith had exposed Scrivener’s errors as early as
1890 (W.F. Moulton, The H istory o f the English Bible, 5lh ed., London: Charles H. Kelly,
i 9 i i , p. 3oi). Noted Bible historian A.W. Pollard states, “A still
more serious error was committed by the distinguished scholar

F.H.A. Scrivener, who in 1884, in his book...argued
strenuously, but in entire ignorance.. .that copies of the (second)
edition...dated 1611...preceded the (first) edition. Pollard
concludes, “the true sequence is obvious. This is now generally
recognized, and it is only just to say that on this point Mr
Francis Fry was quite sound” (A.W . Pollard, R ecords o f the English Bible,
o x fo rd : U niversity Press, 1911. P. 72). Actually, Scrivener got the wrong
idea from none other than B.F. Westcott. Today’s careless

collators and printers move Scrivener’s massive mistakes
forward for yet another generation. Today’s ‘scholars copy |
Scrivener’s mistakes. For example, David Norton’s A Textual
History o f the King James Bible, has the incorrect “shewed,”
instead of “hewed” in Hosea 6:5, following a typo in the 1611
edition (Cam bridge U niversity Press, 2005).
Scrivener’s motive to exalt himself above all previous

editors reeks on every page o f his own writings. (If you have
not read all of his books, particularly his later, Six Lectures,
please reserve judgment.) His intent was p l a i n - to replace the
KJB with the RV, but more emphatically, to replace the Bible s
66 books with his 66 ounce brain. See In Awe o f Thy Word or
an exhaustive history o f the KJB, including Ward, and Bois.
Scrivener Spreads Virus of Textual Criticism
Who, in addition to Westcott and Hort, was responsible for

over-turning the readings in the King James Bible and the
Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus and the Majority
Text)? Where did that generation of ‘clergy’ learn of the va“ a
readings and the canons o f textual criticism, which were to bio
apart the Bible twenty years later in 1881? Decades be ore
Revised Version Committee began its work, as early as 1843,
1859, 1861, and 1864, Scrivener was writing books to provide

fuel to bum Bible readings. He was the author o f THE textbook
that prepared a generation o f Bible students to question their
Bible. His book is titled, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism
o f the New Testament fo r the Use o f Biblical Students (Cambridge:
Deighton, Bell and Co. 1st edition, 1861, 2nd edition, 1874, 3rd edition 1883, posthum ous 4th
He boasts o f teaching “the principles

edition, 1894, edited by Edward Miller).
of textual criticism which I have consistently advocated.” “ [I]t

ventures to construct a revised text” (F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction
to the Criticism o f the New Testament, London: George Bell and Sons, 1884, Vol. 1, pp. v, 5).
Even Philip Schaff, chairman o f the American branch of

Scrivener’s RV committee, lauds Scrivener’s textbook as
“Upon the whole the best separate work on the subject in the
English language.” Schaff also recommends Scrivener’s
diabolical Six Lectures and his Collation o f the Codex Sinaiticus
with the Received Text o f the New Testament (1 8 6 3 ,2nd ed., 1867) (Philip
Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English [Revised] Version, New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1885, 2nd edition, Revised, p. 83).
F.H.A. Scrivener’s book Six Lectures on the Text o f the New

Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Which Contain It,
Chiefly Addressed to Those Who Do Not Read Greek was
published in 1875, after Scrivener’s three years o f active
membership on the Westcott and Hort Committee. Observe that
he encouraged the uninitiated students, “who do not read
Greek,” to criticize the Bible. He tempts saying,
“[T]he criticism o f the New Testament is a field

which the humblest student o f Holy Writ may
cultivate with profit to himself and others”
(Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 3).
Scrivener’s collation o f corrupt manuscripts was so

damaging to the traditional Greek Textus Receptus that the arch
liberal James Hastings noted,
“The great agreement o f the newer text-critics

from Lachmann to WH [Westcott-Hort] in their
opposition to the textus receptus is shown very
clearly by the editions o f F.H.A Scrivener (1859,
revised by E. Nestle, 1906) (Jam es Hastings, Encyclopedia
o f Religion and Ethics, Vol. 2, N ew York: Charles Scrivener’s Sons,
1928, p. 594).
Eberhard Nestle carried and broadened Scrivener’s Bible

beating baton to the next generation and took over editing the
Westcott-Hort Greek text, as well.
If given free reign, Scrivener would pock-mark the King

James Bible and the Received Greek text. Once he has infected
the Bible with the virus o f textual criticism, he boasts,
“Certain passages, it may be, will no longer be

available to establish doctrines...” (Scrivener, Six
L ectu res,p . 119).
Scrivener begs us saying,
“You will not, I trust, be disposed to think

slightingly o f the science of Textual criticism, or
deem it unworthy o f attention in an age when
every one is trying to learn a little about
everything; if, while instructing us in the
processes whereby a yet purer and more
correct Bible may be attained to ...” (Scrivener, Six
Lectures, pp. 208-209).
Their goal, according to his A Plain Introduction to the

Criticism o f the New Testament is “ rem oving all spurious
additions” to the Bible, and as this chapter will demonstrate "
Scrivener wants to remove plenty of the words and verses in t
SCRIVENER’S TEXTUAL HERESIES
King James Bible. He and his friends, the textual critics,

imagine that they can “separate the pure gold o f G od’s word
from the dross which has mingled with it” and create a “new
form (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 1, p. 5; Six Lectures, p. 119). Scrivener cites Bible
critic Richard Bentley for support:
I am glad to cite the well-known and powerful

statement o f the great Bentley, at once the
profoundest and the most daring o f English
critics. The real text o f the sacred writers does
not now (since the originals have been so long
lost) lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in
them all (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7).
He believes that after nearly 2000 years God has not yet
given his pure words to man; thus he teaches that “Textual
criticism sets itself to solve” and “to restore it if possible”
(Scrivener, s ix Lectures, p. 7). He apparently sees him self as one o f the
rare few who can handle “the task o f constructing afresh the
text o f the New Testament.”
“critical discernment and acuteness, such as fall

to the lot o f few” . . .“has been bestowed to a high
degree on” ...“Bentley, Bengel, Griesbach, and
(if I may venture to refer to an elaborate edition
o f the New Testament not yet given to the
public) on the joint counsellors, Canon Westcott
and Mr. Hort” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 112, 113).
Scrivener Denies Preservation
Scrivener denies the preservation by God o f the scriptures.

“God might, beyond a doubt, have so guided the

hand or fixed the devout attention o f successive
races of copyists, that no jot or tittle should have
been changed in the Bible of all that was first
written therein. But this result could have been
brought about only in one way, so far as we can
perceive, - by nothing short o f a continuous,
unceasing miracle: by making fallible men, nay,
many such in every generation, for one purpose
absolutely infallible. That the Supreme Being
should have thus far interfered with the course of
His Providential arrangements, seems, prior to
experience, very improbable, not at all in
accordance with the analogy of His ordinary
dealings with mankind, while actual experience
amply demonstrates that He has not chosen
thus tO act” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 6 ,7 ).
He claims that those who had the ‘originals’ had his view
also:
“The early Church, which was privileged to
enjoy the oral teaching o f Apostles and
Apostolic men, attached no peculiar sanctity to
their written compositions” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 8).
Scrivener Denies Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Scrivener does not at all support the Textus Receptus Greek

New Testament printed under his name, which will be discusse
thoroughly in the next chapter. He would never asc"
inspiration or even preservation to it, nor even to every wor
the originals. He says the originals given to the “Apostles a
Evangelists” were only preserved from “error in anything
essential to the verity o f the Gospel. But this main point once
secured, the rest was left, in a great measure, to themselves.”
He was a proponent o f the ‘concept’ theory o f inspiration at
best. Scrivener believes God has “kept from harm” his word
only “so far as needful....” When he says, the “Prophets and
Evangelists” were not “mere passive instruments” he is saying
that the Bible was never verbally and completely inspired
(Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 119; Scrivener, A P lain, Vol. 1, pp. 1, 2).
From Textus Receptus to Scrivener’s Own “Truth”
Scrivener established a reputation as a moderate ‘critic’ with

his early collations and editions of ,4 Plain Introduction. Having
read his early works, many today do not realize the mindset he
later developed. Scrivener’s books became more and more
critical o f the KJB and “Received text,” wanting to “set it aside”
in certain places. This occurred between 1861 and 1875,
particularly between 1874 and 1875 as he worked with the RV
committee. Marvin R. Vincent, in his A History o f the Textual
Criticism o f the New Testament said that,
“His [Scrivener’s] experience led him gradually

to modify his views on some points and to make
some concessions. At the time o f his death he
was moving in the direction o f the substitution
of the older, uncial text for that of the Textus
Receptus. He gave up 1 John 5:7, 8 and decided
for...[who] against ...[God] in 1 Timothy 3:16
(New Testam ent H andbooks, N ew York: M acm illan, 1899, p. 140 as
cited by M aurice Robinson, Crossing Boundaries in N ew Testament
Textual Criticism: H istorical Revisionism an d the Case o f Frederick
H enry...Scrivener, http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Robinson2002.htm l
Robinson ignores many instances w hen Scrivener writes, not against the
T extus Receptus alone, but against R obinson’s von Soden-collated, so-
called Byzantine text cursives).
Casper Rene Gregory in his 1907 Canon and Text o f the New
Testament said,
“Scrivener came to see before he passed away

that the received text could not be supported
so unconditionally as he had once thought. But
he expressed himself less distinctly in public...”
(International Theological Library, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
p. 461 as cited in Robinson).
Co-committee member Philip Schaff says Scrivener -
“...is gradually and steadily approaching the

position of the modern critics in exchanging
the textus receptus for the older uncial text.”
“He frankly confesses...“his judgment has been

influenced...by the growing necessity for a
change imposed by the rapid enlargement o f the
field o f biblical knowledge within the last forty
years;” and that “his new opinion has been not a
little confirmed by the experience he has gained
while actually engaged upon the execution o f the
work [of the Revised Version]”” (Schaff, Companion,
pp. 283-284 quoting Scrivener in the “ Sunday-School Tim es” o f
Philadelphia, 1880).
“And as regards the text, he [Scrivener] says,

after enumerating the recent discoveries o f MSS:
“When these and a flood o f other

documents, including the more ancient
Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions, are
taken into account, many alterations in
the Greek text cannot but be made, unless

we please to close our eyes to the manifest
truth. O f these changes some will not
influence the English version at all, many
others very slightly; some are of
considerable, a few of great,
im portance...”” (Schaff, Companion, p. 284, quoting
Scrivener).
Scrivener sets aside many verses saying,
“ [W]e are compelled in the cause o f truth to

make one stipulation more: namely, that this rule
be henceforth applied impartially in all cases, as
well when it will tell in favour of the Received
text, as when it shall help to set it aside”
(Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 300).
In the previous two quotes Scrivener places his “truth”

above the word o f God. Strangely, he places the following quote
before the title page of Six Lectures:
“ ...m an is formed by nature with an incredible

appetite for Truth... solitary Truth
It is strange that Scrivener uses the term “Truth,” with a

capital “T.” This is a practice profusely used by esoterics.
Universally esoterics are in pursuit o f “Truth” with a capital
T.” Helena P. Blavatsky, the nineteenth century’s leading
Satanist begins or ends her books with pleas for “Truth.” She
closes Isis Unveiled claiming “unveiled Truth.” She ends her
tome on Satan worship, The Secret Doctrine, saying, “There is
n° religion higher than Truth.” Is this not what Scrivener is
saying also? He is not an occultist, but he is talking like one.
Biavatsky and Scrivener need to remember that Jesus Christ

said, “thy word is truth.” (H.P. Biavatsky, The Secret D octrine, W heaton, IL:
T heosophical Publishing Com pany, 1888, 1979 reprint, Vol. 2, page 798; Isis Unveiled,
W heaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing Com pany, 1877, 1972 reprint, Vol. 2, p. 640).
Scrivener’s A Plain Introduction to the Criticism o f the New

Testament is willing to sacrifice what many have “held dear”
for his idea of ‘truth,’
“[T]hose who in the course of these researches

have sacrificed to truth much that they have
hitherto held dear, need not suppress their
satisfaction when truth is gain (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol.
2, p. 398).
(Scrivener was not as far from Blavatsky’s influence as one might imagine. C.D. Ginsburg,
another fellow RV com m ittee member, attended her m eetings and Philip Schaff spearheaded her
Theosophical Society’s Parliament o f W ord Religions. See New A ge Bible Versions and
upcom ing chapter on Ginsburg.)
What sort o f “truth” does Scrivener promote? Schaff boasts

o f Scrivener’s abandonment o f the proof text for the Incarnation
(“God was manifest in the flesh” 1 Tim. 3:16) and the Trinity (1
John 5:7). Schaff tells us,
“He gives up the spurious interpolation of the

three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on
the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.
1 6 ...Scrivener, in his Lectures, p. 192 sq., makes
the following admission: “[T]his is one of the
controversies which the discovery of Cod. X
[Sinaiticus]...ought to have closed, since it adds
a first-rate uncial witness to a case already very
strong through the support of versions...we have
yielded up this clause as no longer tenable
against the accumulated force of external
evidence which has been brought against it”

(Schaff, Com panion, pp. 284-285 footnote, quoting Scrivener from the
“Sunday-School Tim es” and his Six Lectures).
His contemporary, Dean John Burgon, included Scrivener

among the Critics at times (Dean John Burgon, The Traditional Text o f the
Holy Gospels, Collingswood, N ew Jersey: Dean Burgon Society, 1998, p. 135). Schaff
says,
“Dean Burgon and Canon Cook claim Dr.
Scrivener on their side; but he is identified with
the cause of the Revision, and has published its
Greek text (1882). In the second edition o f his
Introduction (1874), and still more in his later
Six Lectures on the Text o f the New Testament
(1875), he already departs in some very
important cases from the textus receptus, as in
1 Tim. iii 16; 1 John v. 7, 8; Matt. xvii. 21; xix.
17; Mark iv. 20; xv. 28; Luke xi. 2, 4; John v. 4,
5; vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts xvi. 7; Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Pet.
iii. 15; Heb. iv. 2. Even the doxology of the
Lord’s Prayer (Matt. vi. 13) he now thinks “can
hardly be upheld any longer as a portion of the
sacred text” (Lectures, p. 124). Compare his
hesitating judgment in the second edition of
his Introd. p. 495, with the third edition, p.
569, where he says: “I can no longer regard this
doxology as certainly an integral part o f S.
Matthew’s Gospel; but I am not yet absolutely
convinced of its spuriousness” (Schaff, Companion, p.
423 footnote).
Spew Scrivener’s Luke Warm Textual Views
Because of Scrivener’s lukewarm stance, both sides have

tried to claim him as their own. Today, Dallas Theological
Seminary Greek Professor, Daniel Wallace, has disinterred
Scrivener and set him squarely in the lap of Westcott and Hort.
Scrivener may squirm a bit, but Wallace counts 22 instances
where Scrivener follows the corrupt Nestle-Aland26 against 11
times where he follows the majority text. W allace’s analysis
may not be statistically representative, but it is quite telling
(Daniel B. W allace, “Historical Revisionism and the Majority Text Theory: The Cases of
Kidnapping is Still
F.H.A. Scrivener and Herman C. H oskier,” N T St 41 (1995) p. 283).
illegal, even o f corpses. Wallace admits, Scrivener said, “I stand

midway between the two schools...” (Edward Meyrick Goulburn, John
William Burgon, Late Dean o f Chichester: A Biography, London: John Murray, 1892, Vol. 2, p.
229 as cited in Robinson). Wâllace charges some TR advocates with
wrongly identifying Scrivener with their camp. Maurice

Robinson, a spokesman for the sometimes unique textual
choices of the Greek un-Orthodox church, plays tug-of-war with
Wallace for Scrivener’s body. Robinson must tug at Scrivener’s
pre-1875 writings which slip out o f his hand in Scrivener’s
1875 Six Lectures and let loose with the concession that
Scrivener’s last edition was edited by Edward Miller who found
himself “going far beyond the materials placed at my disposal”
(Miller added to corrections Scrivener had placed in his copy’s
margin; A Plain, 4th ed., Preface).
Scrivener may be easily misunderstood by today’s

generation of readers, as his vacillating view continually loses
itself in a number of dependent clauses. Reading Scrivener is
like taking a boat ride on a very choppy sea. He is up and down,
in a sea-sick fashion, even within the same sentence. Small
wonder Jesus said he would vomit out those like Scrivener.
Neither camp can truly claim him as he is the epitome o f the

“lukewarm,” perhaps nominal Christian. In Rev. 3 Jesus said,
“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm,
and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out o f my mouth.”
Why did Jesus speak so strongly against the lukewarm? He

did this because the cold are not deceptive. They have no
pretended warmth and light to attract. They are not wolves in
sheep’s clothing. Westcott and Hort were cold; Bible believers
are hot; Scrivener is lukewarm. He liked those who would “hold
the balance even between opposite views o f the question”
(Scrivener, a P lain, Vol. 2 , p. 285 footnote). Scrivener was in between the hot
Christians, who held to their Holy Bible, and the cold critics
who made between 5,000 and 8,000 changes to the Received
Text. Scrivener would make fewer changes (Scrivener, a Plain, v o l. 2, p.
243). He did defend some questioned verses, such as the last
twelve verses o f Mark and the doxology in Luke 2:14. He was

the consummate ‘politician.’ To please both the believer in the
pew and the ‘scholar’ in the school, Scrivener gives up the
dividing “sword o f the spirit” for his mixing spinning ‘spoon of
the spirit,’ whereby he hopes “critics o f very opposite
sympathies are learning to agree better” (Scrivener, a Plain, v o l. 1, P. 6).
This is Hegel’s dialectic: Thesis

(Holy Bible e.g. KJB)
1
Antithesis
(RV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society Greek Text)
1
Satan’s Synthesis
(NfCJV, von Soden’s ill-researched M ajority-Text, one-man Greek-English
nterlinears, one-man TR editions translated using one-man Greek Lexicons,
su^h as Strong’s, V ine’s, or Thayer’s, which use RV words etc, etc.).
“ [E]very man did that which was right in his own eyes”
(Judges 17:6).
Or as someone so aptly expressed in the title o f his book, they

trust Anything But the King James Bible. Either way the result is
the same: The Holy Bible is not the very bread o f life, but burnt
toast, crumbling word by word. The enemy desires to move
Christians off base, to another authority, any other authority.
Scrivener proposed that the Bible be changed. True believers, of
course, rejected his RV. However, the lukewarm Scrivener
offers a slightly tainted Greek Received text, which makes the
KJB look slightly wrong (particularly if it is translated with RV
words from Vine’s Dictionary; see upcoming chapter for
documentation).
Scrivener and the Corrupt Vaticanus & Sinaiticus
The handwritten manuscripts that record the Greek New

Testament include a handful o f sometimes corrupted early
uncial manuscripts (block capital letters) and thousands upon
thousands o f generally pure later miniscule manuscripts (cursive
lower case). The KJB is supported by not only the earliest pure
witnesses, but the vast majority of miniscule manuscripts. The
new versions, such as the NIV, TNIV, ESV, NASB, and HCSB,
rest insecurely on a few corrupt old uncials.
Like the new versions, Scrivener wanted to omit numerous

words and verses based on the corrupt old uncials, Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus. The villainy o f these manuscripts was discussed
thoroughly in New Age Bible Versions. Although Scrivener did
not worship the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts,
as did Westcott and Hort, he felt that they were very important
witnesses to use when determining readings. He asserts that the
corrupt Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and manuscript D are “great
codices usually o f the highest authority” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 109).

He falsely assumes that “in all probability,” “the older the
manuscript the better it reflects the original (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p.
15). Scrivener boasts o f “our great codices (nABC).” These
include B (the Vaticanus) and X (the Sinaiticus) (Scrivener, A Plain,
vol. 2 , p. 286). He boasts o f their “special excellencies,” calling
these chief Uncials the best authorities (Scrivener. Six Lectures, p. viii;
a Plain, vol. 2 , pp. 379,3 8 1 ). Unwisely, “ Scrivener allowed more weight
to the old uncials than Burgon,” who was a strong supporter of

the Received text (Alfred Martin, “A Critical Exam ination o f the W estcott-Hort
Textual T heory,” Th.D. Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1951, p. 56 as cited by
Robinson).
He paints up the botched Vaticanus with words such as

great and “this treasure ’ (Scrivener, A P lain, Vol. 1, p. 1 11; Six Lectures, p. 70).
He insists “codex Vaticanus” belongs in “its rightful place at the
head o f all our textual authorities.” He covers up the fact that
the Vaticanus is an upside-down manuscript. In Matt. 27:28 the
true text says, “And they stripped him,” but the Vaticanus says
“And they clothed him.” Why don’t new versions tell you that
in their margins? (See In A w e o f Thy Word for additional exam ples o f the reverse nature
o f new versions which follow Vaticanus; Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 42-43).
Scrivener refers to the “grave authority” o f the Sinaiticus

(Scrivener, Vol. i, p. 97). He admits it is “probably o f Egyptian origin”
(Scrivener, a plain, Vol. i, p. 95). It contains the bizarre N.T. Apocrypha,
the Epistle o f Bamabus and the Shepherd o f Hermas. The RV

committee’s original plan did not include the O.T. Apocrypha,
but later some of the RV committee did translate it. Schaff said,
“It is well known,” says Dr. Scrivener, “to

biblical scholars that the Apocrypha received
very inadequate attention from the Revisers of
1611 and their predecessors”” (Schaff, Companion, p.
390, quoting Scrivener from Homiletic Quarterly for October, 1881, p.

512).
Scrivener’s discernment hits an all-time low as he calls

“Clement of Alexandria” and “Origen” “Great Fathers. He
says of the scripture mutilator, Origen, that in many instances,
“There is no authority to compare with his for fullness of
knowledge and discriminating care” (Scrivener. Six Lectures, p. 111).
Scrivener was not a Textus Receptus proponent and said a

number of things that might disqualify him from being called a
‘Majority text’ advocate. Like Westcott and Hort, he refers to
the mass of Greek manuscripts as “on the whole, quite inferior
copies,” although in his vacillating manner he contradicts that
statement elsewhere (Scrivener, v o l. 2, pp. 379, 3 8 i). In practice he
ascribes great weight to the corrupt uncials and less to the mass
o f Greek minuscule.
Scrivener’s Canons Blow Bible Apart
The so-called science o f textual criticism was hatched by

unbelievers, with Catholic priests at the helm. Scrivener
adopted and adapted their methodology and waged his subtle
war on the Textus Receptus with many of these “Canons” and
“rules” of textual criticism.
✓ Scrivener’s Rule 2 favors the corrupt old uncials

(Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, et al.) much as did Westcott and
Hort.
His Rule # 2 is similar to Westcott and Hort’s historically

unsound rule which alleges that the oldest manuscripts are
the best. Scrivener states, “That where there is a real
agreement between all documents containing the Gospels up
to the sixth century, and in other parts o f the New Testament
up to the ninth, the testimony o f later manuscripts and

versions, though not to be reflected unheard, must be
regarded with great suspicion, and unless upheld by
strong internal evidence, can hardly be adopted.” The
mass o f Greek manuscripts are “late,” by his definition (past
the 6th century). This mass was referred to as the Majority
text in New Age Bible Versions and comprises well over
99% o f the over 5,300 manuscripts. Only a handful o f
corrupt old uncials, with few exceptions, precede the 6th
century. This leaves Scrivener and the critics to follow the
Origen-created Egyptian-based manuscripts, referred to as
the ‘1% manuscripts’ in New Age Bible Versions.
S Scrivener’s Rule #4 says that the majority of Greek

manuscripts are not the final rule. He states, “That in
weighing conflicting evidence we must assign the highest
value not to those readings which are attested by the greatest
number o f witnesses, but to those which come to us from
several remote and independent sources, and which bear the
least likeness to each other in respect to genius and general
character” (Scrivener, a Plain, Vol. 2, p. 301). This is quite Hortian.
Scrivener follows many o f the Canons o f textual criticism

created and used by the worst o f textual critics, including
Westcott and Hort.
^ Scrivener lists “Canon II The shorter reading is more

probable than the longer” in support o f his desire to omit
huge portions out of Acts 9:5,6. Scrivener states,
“It is hard for thee to kick against the goads. And

he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what
wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto
him,” yet all this does not belong to the
passage at all, but is transferred, with some

change, from S. Paul’s own narrative of his
C o n v e r s i o n . . . ” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 115 et al.).
Following his belief that “the shorter reading is more

probable” he pretends “unto repentance” (“to repentance”
KJB) has been interpolated [falsely added] into the two J
parallel passages Matt, ix.13; Mark ii.17” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p.
115) He wants to omit “to repentance” in these verses, as do
the NIV, NASB, TNIV, ESV, HCSB and most modern
versions, taken from the corrupt texts.
scrivener allows for “Canon III” of textual criticism

which parrots the secular rule of literary criticism which
calls for following the “style” “of the author.” In so doing
he pretends that words were “erroneously brought into the
common text” [KJB] of the book of James (Scrivener, Six Lectures,
p. 116).
/ Scrivener follows “Canon IV” of textual criticism, which

aims with its blind eye to examine the general character
and “genius” of each manuscript. Scrivener uses this
canon to blow away words. He chides codex C for “adding
the clause “unto repentance” (“to repentance” KJB) m Matt.
ix.13 and Mark ii. 17” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 116).
/ Scrivener applies “Canon V” with its slippery and

subjective notion that a reading is correct if others coul
have been derived from it. He tries to apply this canon to
explain an alleged error he finds in the KJB in James, e
says here a “ ...somewhat rugged construction was gradual y
made to assume the shape in which it is seen in ou
Authorized Bible, “so can no fountain both yield salt wa
and fresh”” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 117).
Scrivener Now Out-of-Date
There are well over 5300 manuscripts o f the Greek New

Testament extant today. Scrivener on the other hand said that
there were only “eighteen hundred to two thousand.” This
shows that Scrivener was dealing with much less than half o f
what is available today. Scrivener never collated all o f those
available in his day, or even a large portion. He seems to have
collated selected verses in less than 100 manuscripts (Scrivener, Six
Lectures, p. 12). Scrivener’s books indicate that he collated dozens
and dozens o f manuscripts, in certain places, not hundreds and
hundreds, or thousands and thousands, in all places (e.g. Scrivener,
vol. 2, p. 386). He seemed to think that the same conclusions he
drew from the manuscripts he collated “would result from a

Complete collation of the w hole mass (This may be generally true, but
certainly may not be absolutely true in every questioned case; Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 15).
He questions KJB readings which have now been vindicated

by ancient papyri, some as early as A.D. 175. Examples
include John 7:8 (P66 and P75), 2 Peter 2:13 (P72), and Acts
10:30 (P50) . (See Philip C om fort’s Early M anuscripts and M odern Translations.)
While working as the rector o f a large Anglican church, he

published collations of a number o f Greek manuscripts. His
collations were very limited in scope and in number, containing
far too few readings and manuscripts to make statistically
significant conclusions about the verity o f any reading. A
modem graduate level course in Statistics would have been a
helpful starting point for him. Time has not confirmed all o f his
conclusions. His Collation o f the Codex Sinaiticus may have
been his downfall (1863; 2d rev. ed 1867; See his Collation o f
Twenty Greek Manuscripts o f the Holy Gospel (Cambridge,
' ^53) and Codex Augiensis...(and) Fifty other Manuscripts, Gk
and Latin (1859) (The New Schaff-Herzog, Vol. 10, pp. 309, 310).
Scrivener’s statements regarding ‘the’ Greek text are

gravely out of date, as his editor admits. Edward Miller, who
tried to update Scrivener’s research on the available
manuscripts said,
“Dr. Scrivener evidently prepared the Third

Edition under great disadvantage. He had a
parish o f more than 5,500 inhabitants upon his
hands...[H]is work was not wholly conducted
upon the high level o f his previous
publications...Instead o f 2,094 manuscripts, as
reckoned in the third edition under the six
classes, no less than 3,791 have been recorded in
this edition [Miller’s posthumous 4th edition]”
(Scrivener. A Plain, Vol. 1, p. vii, viii).
Miller charges,
“[M]uch alteration has been found necessary

both in the way o f correction, because some
theories have been exploded under the increased
light of wider information, and by the insertion
of additions from the results o f investigation and
O f S t u d y ” (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 5).
Scrivener and others were aware of his errors. A Preface to his

book, The Authorized Edition o f the English Bible, states that,
“[T]he discussion of the Greek texts underlying

the Authorized Bible and embodied in
Appendix E, has been virtually re-written, in the
hope of attaining a higher degree of accuracy
than he or others have reached aforetime’
(Scrivener, The Authorized, Preface, p. v).
Scrivener’s “errors corrected and defects supplied” repaired his

Appendix E (Scrivener, The Authorized, Appendix E, p. 243).
Time has a way of humbling even one o f his subsequent

editors, Edward Miller, as now there are well over 5300 Greek
manuscripts. Few o f them have been thoroughly collated. The
textual critics who collate manuscripts express no interest in
examining in detail the huge mass o f Greek manuscripts which
would disprove their critical texts. Scrivener developed a
system o f notation to identify manuscripts, not considering that
there were not enough letters to easily cover the uncials;
Scrivener’s system o f notation for the minuscules was flawed
and was supplanted by Gregory’s (e.b ., vol. 3, P. 879).
One must ask why Scrivener thinks God would give him
perfect exemplars nearly 1900 years after Christ, and not give
perfect exemplars to those who made Holy Bibles for the 1900
preceding years. Why would God wait to give them to him (a
member o f the R.V. Committee)? Why would he not give them
to the KJB translators, as well as to translators o f earlier
vernacular Bibles? God was not waiting for Westcott, Hort,
Vaughan, Scrivener, Schaff and the three blind Unitarian mice,
Smith, Abbott and Thayer, to reveal his true Bible.
Scrivener Chops Up Bible
Scrivener is retailing at second-hand the views o f Westcott

and Hort in many o f his canons and in his recommended
changes to the Holy Bible. Scrivener is not a TR man.
( onsidering his condescension to the pressures o f the Westcott-
Hort committee, one could hardly call him a ‘m an’ at all. Like
them, Scrivener detests what he wrongly calls “unwarranted
additions” to the Bible (Scrivener, a P lain, Vol. 2 , p. 297). The following
would be chopped out if Scrivener had his way. In new

versions, they are out today. Yet in the KJB
As Scrivener’s hand molds in the tomb

These words abide beyond his doom.
Scrivener’s books make many false statements. The

following (in italics; bold emphasis mine) are just a few
examples of his comments critical of the Holy Bible (KJB):
M att. 6:13: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, fo r ever. Amen. ” Scrivener deceives saying, “It
can hardly be upheld any longer as a portion o f the
sacred text” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 122, 124).
M att. 16:2, 3: Scrivener urges, “It is not hard to see why these
verses, the first clause o f ver, 2 excepted, have been
treated as doubtful by the most recent editors o f the
New Testament. ” He adds, “The exclamation “O ye
hypocrites” o f the common text [KJB], is undoubtedly
spurious [fake]” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 126).
M att. 17:21 is questioned by Scrivener who charges, “We have

here a striking exemplification o f the second rule laid
down in our last lecture (p. 115), there being reason to
think that this verse is but an accretion, taken, with some
slight variation, from the parallel place, Mark ix. 29. |
He then falters and finally concludes, “The choice is
delicate, and the difference sm all" (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp-
128, 129). He calls an issue “small,” which would omit an
entire verse, with eleven words, about defeating the
devil. We cannot remind him of Revelation 22:19 which
warns that “God shall take away his part out of the book
of life__” should he “take away from the words,” since
he believes that only the essence o f the Gospel was God-

given.
IVlatt. 19:17 "Why ccillest thou me good? There is none good

but one, that is God. ” Scrivener caves in, saying, “[W je
are no longer able to uphold the Received text with the
same confidence as before... ” (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 328).
M att. 27:35: “ ...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by

the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and
upon my vesture did they cast lots. ” “External evidence,
however, places the spuriousness o f the addition beyond
doubt, ” masquerades Scrivener (Scrivener, a Plain, v o l. 2, P. 334).
Scrivener pretends, “[I]t is mentioned chiefly to shew on
what slight grounds a gloss [error] will sometimes fin d
its way into the text and continue there. In Matt, xxvii.
35, after the Evangelist’s words “And they crucified
him, and parted his garments, casting lots: ” is added in
our common Bibles [KJB] a clause not belonging to this
Gospel, but borrowed from John xix. 24, with ju s t one
expression assimilated to S. M atthew ’s usual manner,
“That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, They parted my garments among them, and
upon my vesture did they cast lots (Ps.xxii. 18)””
(Scrivener's, Six Lectures, pp. 132, 133).
Scrivener charges that it “crept” into the Bible through

Erasmus who had it in his Greek text just like the KJB. He loads
his canons of textual criticism against the KJB and the TR and
h||lows, “A case resting on such evidence cannot stand fo r a
mom ent” (Scrivener’s, six Lectures, p. 133). It is still standing; Scrivener is
not.
M ark 6:20: Scrivener asserts, “Perhaps no one ever pondered

over this verse without feeling that the clause he did
many things” is very feeble in so clear and vigorous a
writer as S. Mark, and indeed hardly intelligible as it
stands. ” "But fo u r o f our best authorities here exhibit a
reading which, once heard, can hardly fa il o f immediate
acceptance: instinct in such cases taking the lead o f
reasoning” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 133, 134).
His 4 “authorities” here are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, C, and the

Mephitic [Egyptian] version.
M ark 7:19: Scrivener drones on, ““Because it entereth not into

his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the
draught, purging all meats? ” Here again we have a
verse which affords, in its last clause, no satisfactory
meaning. What is it that “purgeth all m eats”? ....In this
dilemma we have but to turn to the various readings
annexed to critical editions to see our way clear at
once ” (Scrivener, six Lectures, pp. 134, 135). Will anyone undertake
to say what is meant by the last clause o f the verse as it
stands in the Authorized English version, and as it must
stand, so long as KaOapiCov is read? ” ...“The
substitution o f KaOapiCojv [“Westcott and Hort”] fo r
Ko.f)apiCov...is a happy restoration o f the true sense o f
the passage long obscured by the fa lse [KJB] reading
(Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 336).
Yes, Scrivener’s question can be answered by anyone:

“purgeth all meats” means ‘digesting and eliminating all food ;
it is the belly (digestion) and the draught (colon and
elimination)! Purging is used elsewhere in the Bible, such as
“purge your conscience” (Heb. 9:14). Purge means to destroy
and eliminate. In Awe oj Thy Word and The Language o f the
King James Bible encouraged readers to look inside some words

for their meaning (e.g.: purge). God has made things
marvelously easy; we do not need the Greek KccOapiôv or
Westcott’s KaOapi^wv. His RV’s “making all meats clean” is
incorrect as the meats are eliminated, not made clean; His RV
further adds three additional words which are not in any Greek
text. If Scrivener cannot understand the simplest English
construction, why would we need him to conjure up his own
Greek text?
M ark 15:28: Scrivener insists, ““And the scripture was

fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the
transgressors. ” Just as the clause from Ps. xxii. 18 has
been wrongly transferred from its proper place in John
xix. 24 to Matt, xxvii. 35 (p. 132), so must we confess
that the present citation from Isai. liii. 12 has been
brought into S. M a rk’s text from Luke xxii. 3 7 ...The
mass o f later uncials (including Codd. LP), the most and
best cursives, and almost all the versions retain the
verse: internal considerations, however, are somewhat
adverse to it, and, that being the case, the united
testimony o f the five chief uncials is simply
irresistible ’ (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp . 1 3 6 , 1 3 7 ) .
(Notice that he chooses the readings o f Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

over the majority of Greek manuscripts.)
!Luke 2:22 Scrivener blasphemes saying, “He [Beza] exhibits a

tendency, not the less blameworthy because his extreme
theological views would tempt him thereto, towards
choosing that reading out o f several which might best
suit his own preconceived opinions. Thus in Luke ii. 22
he [Beza] adopts (and our Authorized English version
condescends to follow his judgm ent...from the

Complutensian, fo r which he could have known o f no
manuscript authority Whatever” (S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 2 , pp.
1 9 2 , 19 3 ).
Scrivener gives away his own wicked textual views here. He

mocks the KJB and Beza for what he calls “extreme theological
views,” giving as an example their use of “her purification,”
instead o f “their purification” in Luke 2:22. Scrivener’s textual
choice, that both Mary and Jesus needed to be purified from
their sins, is blasphemy. To Scrivener, was it “extreme ’ to
believe that Jesus was the spotless lamb of God?
Luke 11: 2, 4: Scrivener says that “the authority produced fo r

omitting no less that three clauses here, considerable in
itself, is entitled to our deference also on other grounds.
Instead o f “Our Father, which art in heaven, ” we fin d
simply “Father ” in Codd. xBC...For omitting “Thy will
be done, as in heaven, so in earth ” (ver. 2), as also “but
deliver us from evil ’’ (ver. 4), we fin d in substance the
same testimony... The mass o f copies and versions must
yield in a case like this ” (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 1 4 8 - 14 9 ) .
Again he yields to the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and

ignores the great majority o f Greek manuscripts. He is
definitely not a TR man or Majority text ‘man.’ (See New Age
Bible Versions, Chapter “Your Father, the Devil,” for an in-
depth discussion of these omissions.
John 5:3, 4: Scrivener says, “The last clause o f ver. 3 “waiting

fo r the moving o f the water ” and the whole o f ver. 4 are
omitted, not without considerable reason, by
Tischendorf Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. Codd.
^BC...reject the whole...[I]t is well-nigh impossible, in
the face o f hostile evidence so ancient and varied, to

regard it as a genuine portion o f S. J o h n ’s G ospel”
(S c riv e n e r , Six Lectures, pp. 1 5 7 , 15 8 ) . “The first clause ...Can hardly
stand in Dr. Scrivener’s opinion... ” (S c riv e n e r, a Plain, v o l . 2 ,

pp. 3 6 1 , 3 6 2 , ed ito r M ille r).
He draws these opinions from omissions in Sinaiticus,

Vaticanus and several other old corrupt uncials.
John 7:8: Scrivener questions the word “yet” in John 7:8. Jesus
said, “I go not up yet unto this feast...” Its omission
would make Jesus Christ a liar, as he later does go up to
the feast. Scrivener wrongly attributes the word “yet” to
the “dishonest, zeal” o f a scribe who did not want Jesus
tO look like a liar (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 159, 160). Scrivener
calls the Received text reading “yet” ovika (which
prevents Jesus Christ from being a liar) a “willful
emendation” (S c riv e n e r, a Plain, V o l. 2 , pp. 3 6 3 , 3 6 4 ) . New versions
such as the NASB omit “yet,” making Jesus a liar, when
he finally goes up to the feast.
The KJB is now vindicated by the recent discovery of the

ancient papyrus, P66 (dated A.D. 175) and P75 (dated A.D.
200), which include the word “yet” (C o m fo rt, p. 113).
John 7:53-8:11: Scrivener charges that this entire paragraph of

twelve verses “has been interposed...[and] does not
belong to the place where it is usually read...no other
verdict than this can well be pronounced... [T] he best
Greek manuscripts against it...forbid our regarding this
most interesting and beautiful section as originally, or
o f right, belonging to the place wherein it stands ”
(S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 1 6 0 - 1 6 3 ) . “ ...On all intelligent
principles o f mere criticism the passage must needs be
abandoned; and such is the conclusion arrived at by all

the critical editors ” (S c r iv e n e r , A Plain, V o l. 2 , p. 3 6 4 ).
After telling his reader that all o f these verses should be

removed from the Bible, he appeals to the pride of his hearer
and says that these are things, “an intelligent student o f the
sacred Scriptures would most desire to examine and be
instructed in” (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 16 4 , 16 5 ) .
When questioning God’s word, the devil said, “Ye shall be

as gods.” A god would be more intelligent than an ordinary
man. Scrivener tempts his reader saying, Textual criticism
gives “serious pleasure to many intelligent m inds....’ The tree
in Genesis 3 was “pleasant...and a tree to be desired to make I
one wise” (Gen. 3:6). In 1 Peter 3:15 Scrivener says it was a
“pleasure” to omit the word “God.” One book on textual
criticism he calls, “a lasting monument o f intellectual
acuteness” (S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 1, p. 5 ; V o l. 2 , p. 3 9 8 ; V o l. 1 , p. 1 5 ) . But Godl
said in Isaiah 66:2, “[B]ut to this man will I look, even to him
that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”
By “my word” did God mean words in one-man Greek
editions and lexicons, which the poor and uneducated can
neither afford nor read?
Acts 8:37: “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Scrivener blasts,
“Its authenticity cannot be maintained ' (Scrivener, six
Lectures, p. 7 3 ).
The words were given in response to the Eunuch’s question,

“What doth hinder me to be baptized?” A confession o f faith
must precede baptism. Infant baptism is not valid, as practice
by Scrivener, a rector of St. Gerrans Anglican church.
Therefore, such a verse troubles Anglicans, Greek Orthodox,

Catholic, and Lutheran churches, which deny that one must
“believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” before being baptized.
The Greek Orthodox church, whose membership is

grounded on infant baptism, expunged Acts 8:37 from the
majority o f their Greek manuscripts. (The Greek un-Orthodox
church and their 5,300 Greek manuscripts are not God’s
repository o f truth.) After all, what easier method would swell
church rolls than to:
1. induct members involuntarily (as infants) or

2. guarantee heaven with no conscious awareness o f one’s
sin and need for salvation?
Scrivener thinks it was added to the text because o f an

unwarranted “practice o f the early Church, o f requiring a
profession o f faith, whether in person or by proxy, as ordinarily
an essential preliminary tO Baptism” (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, p. 7 3 ).
Although Scrivener wants to omit it from the Bible, he admits,
"This passage affords us a curious instance o f an addition well
received in the Western church from the second century
downward and afterwards making some way among the later
Greek codices and writers. ”
Acts 8:37 remained in Greek Codex Laudian (E). It is in

Greek manuscripts E, 4, 13, 15, 18, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97, 100,
105, 106, 107, 163, 227, Apost. 5, and 13. The verse was
included in the first Greek edition by Erasmus, perhaps based
on Codex 4. The Greeks, Theophylact and Ecumenius quote it.
It was cited by Irenaeus in the 100s (both in Greek and in
Latin). Cyprian cited it in the third century and even Jerome and
Augustine in the fourth. Gutbier put it in his Peshitta edition;
the Harkleian has it. It is in the Old Latin g and m, in the
Vulgate, as well as in the Armenian, Arabic, and Slavonic

versions (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, p. 7 3 ; A Plain, V o l. 2 , pp. 3 6 9 , 3 7 0 ) . All pure Holy
Bibles have Acts 8:37 in all languages.
Acts 10:30 and 1 C or. 7:5: Scrivener deceives saying,

““fasting” has been joined on to “prayer” in the common
text, whereas it is not recognized by the best
authorities” (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, p. 1 3 6 ) . Whose best
authorities? Recently the KJB reading has been
vindicated by the discovery of the papyrus, P50 which
contains the words “and fasting” (C o m fo rt, pp. 128, 129).
Acts 11:20: Strangely Scrivener says, “The Received text has

‘Helenistae, ’ our Authorized version renders ‘Grecians’
accordingly. But it seems plain that the reading is
erroneous, and that ‘G reeks,' Hellenes, should take its
place...Translated closely this verse should run “But
there were some o f them, men o f Cyprus and Cyrene,
which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the
Greeks a lso”...The meaning being thus clear, and the
Received text mistaken, we enquire what authorities
maintain the true reading? They are good in themselves,
although fe w in number, being only Codd. AD
[Alexandrinus and MS. D]...H ere then is a case
wherein a few witnesses preserve the only reading that
can be true against a large majority which vouch fo r
the false. ” A Plain Introduction repeats, “We are here
in a manner forced by the sense to adopt, with
Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann,
Tischendorf and Tregelles, the reading...in the room o f
the Received text... ”
(S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 ; A Plain, V o l. 2 , p. 3 7 0 ).
Is his opinion superior to both the Received Text and the KJB?
(I nearly forgot — “ye shall be as gods.”)
Acts 13:18: “suffered he their manners in the wilderness.” One

letter corruption, phi or p i allows Scrivener to turn
G od’s rebuke upside-down. Scrivener says, textual
criticism “will probably incline us to prefer phi ” which
would change the reading to “bore them as a nurse
feareth or feareth her child” (S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 8 7 , 88). A
Plain Introduction even concedes that Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus and “almost all other cursives,” that is, “the
oldest and most numerous manuscripts,” thus the
majority of Greek manuscripts have it as the KJB. Yet
Scrivener disagrees. “Internal evidence certainly points
to ETpocpocpoprjoev, which on the whole may be deemed
p r e fe r a b le (S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 2 , pp. 3 7 1 , 3 7 2 ) .
Acts 15:34: Scrivener wants to omit this whole Received text

verse saying, “We have in this verse an addition to the
text o f the Acts which is condemned at once by the lack
o f sufficient external authority ...it can be regarded as
nothing else than a gloss brought in from the
margin... You know by this time what conclusion to draw
from these glaring discrepancies in our authorities... ”
(S c riv e n e r, Six Lectures, pp. 1 6 9 - 1 7 1 ) . “No doubt this Verse is an
unauthorized addition, self-condemned indeed by its

numerous variations (see p. 361). One can almost trace
its growth, and in the shape presented by the Received
text it must have been (as Mill conjectures) a marginal
. gloSS ... (S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 2 , p. 3 7 4 ) .
Acts 15:34 is in most Greek manuscripts. Once again

Scrivener is elevating a few old corrupt uncials. It was in
Erasmus’s edition, Tremellius’s Syriac, and Gutbier’s Peshitta,

as well as in the Sahidic, the Harkleian, Erpenius Arabic, and
many other versions.
After he and his critical friends omit an entire verse by the

Holy Ghost, who gave the Bible, they then omit the Holy Ghost
him self in this next verse.
Acts 16:7: Scrivener says that “the Spirit” should be “the Spirit
o f Jesus,” adding that “the evidence in favour o f this
addition being so overwhelming that it is not easy to
conjecture how it ever fe ll OUt Of the te x t’’ (S c riv e n e r, Six
Lectures, P. 171). A Plain Introduction deletes the Holy Ghost
in one foul swoop and tells its reader, “Westcott and
Hort mOSt rightly a d d ’’ [of JeSUS.]...” (S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 2,
P. 374). If he were to apply his own canons o f textual
criticism, he would have to admit that his phrase “the
Spirit o f Jesus” is not biblical usage. He feebly tries to
cross-reference R om ans 8:9 to prove his reading, but it
says “Spirit o f Christ,” not “Spirit o f Jesus.” Scrivener
even admits that “the mass o f cursives” favors the KJB
reading “Spirit,” not his and W estcott’s “Spirit o f Jesus”
(S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 2 , p. 3 7 4 ) . TheirS I S another JeSUS (2
Cor. 11:4). This is not the only time Scrivener
eliminates the Holy Ghost. It is not a wise move.
He repeatedly chooses the corrupt old uncials over the mass of

Greek manuscripts which match the Received text.
Rom ans 13:9: Scrivener says, ““Thou shalt not bear false
witness. ” The ninth commandment is omitted by Codd.
ABD (E)FG...nor does it appear in the [Catholic]
Complutensian edition. Erasmus, however, brought it
into the Received text, where it rests on the support o f
Cod. X o f the single remaining later uncial, o f the

majority, as it would seem, o f the cursives...there is a
natural tendency to enlarge a list like this (Canon II. p.
115)...We must here, as often, prefer the [Catholic]
Complutensian text to that edited by Erasmus (S c riv e n e r,
Six Lectures, pp. 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 ) .
1 C or. 11:24: “Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for

you.” Scrivener wants to omit the word ‘broken’! “[I]t
is not genuine...” “[T]he word crept in here.” “I f we
decide to retain KXcbpevov, it must be in opposition to
the fo u r chief manuscripts XABC, though NC insert it by
the third hand o f each (S c riv e n e r, A Plain, V o l. 2 , p. 3 8 1 ) .
As usual he is ignoring “all other cursives” (S c riv e n e r, a Plain, vol. 2 , P.

3 8 2 ).
1 Cor. 11:29: He would also remove “unworthily” and “o f the

Lord” in the Received text and KJB, as he feels they
"look too much like glosses to be maintained
confidently... ” He supports this by leaning on a few old
uncials and a few Ethiopic versions (S c riv e n e r, a Plain, vol. 2, p.
38 2).
Phil. 2:1: A Plain Introduction criticizes the KJB saying, ‘‘Paul

probably wrote n (the reading o f about nineteen
cursives), which would readily be corrupted into
T i g . ..See also M oulton’s Winer ” (S c r iv e n e r , A Plain, V o l. 2 , p. 3 8 7 ).
In Phil. 2:1 all the uncials and most of the cursives agree with
the KJB, as opposed to Scrivener.
Col. 2:2: Here Scrivener is quite willing to eliminate another

strong Trinitarian poof text. The KJB reads, “the
mystery o f God, and of the Father, and o f Christ.” This
speaks loudly of the deity of the Holy Ghost, calling him

“God.” Yet Scrivener and Miller lean towards the new
version-type reading, “God, namely Christ (NIV),
which is taken very loosely from manuscript D. Such a
reading not only gets rid o f the Trinity and the deity of
the Holy Ghost, it gets rid of the Father also. A Plain
Introduction says, “The reading o f B " supported by
“Westcott and H ort’’ “has every appearance o f being
the original reading...Canon II” (Scrivener, a Plain, vol. 2, pp.
387-389). Scrivener says, “The Received text “o f God the
Father and o f Christ” cannot stand as it has fo r it only

the third hand o f D... two later uncials, the great mass of
[Greek] cursives, the Philixenian Syriac... [etc., i.e.
Peshitta Syriac, Arabic, and Chrysostom and others]
(Scrivener, Six Lectures, PP. 188, 189).
He wants to trade the Trinitarian text, as seen in the KJB,

“the mystery o f God, and of the Father, and of Christ for the
reading of Vaticanus (B) which the NASB renders “God’s
mystery, that is, Christ Himself.” Notice that the NASB had to
add 3 words to the other 3 words. The KJB and the Received
Text already make perfect grammatical sense. The KJB merely
uses “and” to complete the English sentence, with one word, not
three. The NIV says, “The mystery o f God, namely Christ.” It
does not bother to put the word “namely” in italics, a word that
is not a direct translation of MS D. Vaticanus says, “the mystery
o f God Christ,” which is not even a correct grammatical
statement. Scrivener is following his Canon V, which says that
the best reading is the one which most readily accounts for the
others; his rules o f textual criticism are devoid of common
sense.
1 Tim. 3:16: Following Sinaiticus and some corrupt versions

which do not contain the word “God,” Scrivener is
against the KJB reading “God was manifest in the
flesh.” Scrivener says, “As a result o f our examination
o f 1 Tim. iii. 16 we felt compelled by the force o f truth to
withdraw, at least from controversial use, a great text
on which modern theologians, though not perhaps
ancient, have been wont to lay much stress ” (Scrivener, Six
Lectures, p. 199). He deceives saying, “[T]his is one o f the
controversies which the discovery o f Cod. N [Sinaiticus]
ought to have closed, since it adds a first rate uncial
witness to a case already very strong through the
support o f versions...we have yielded up this clause as
no longer tenable against the accumulated force o f
external evidence which has been brought against it"
(Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 189-193).
Hebrews 12:20: Scrivener deludes his reader saying,

“Whensoever a passage is cited from the Old Testament
in the New, the tendency on the part o f scribes is to
enlarge the quotation rather than to compress it (Canon
II p. 115). Thus in Heb. xii 20, “or thrust through with a
dart, ” taken from Ex. xix. 13, rests on no adequate
authority whatever” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 193).
James 4:4: The KJB says “adulterers and adulteresses.” A Plain

Introduction pretends that “adulterers” “should be
omitted” based “on the testimony o f X*AB, 13,” a paltry
handful o f corrupt manuscripts (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 397).
1 Peter 3:15: Scrivener omits “God” here saying, ““Sanctify the

Lord Christ in your hearts ” is the alternative reading,
which we shall see good reason to adopt. ” He adds,
“Now, “the Lord Christ” is found in XABC (only seven
uncials contain this epistle); eight cursives ...Against this

phalanx we have nothing to set except the three late
uncials, the cursives... ” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 199,200).
The cursives make up the bulk of the witnesses for the

Majority text. Here Scrivener is willing to ignore the huge mass
o f Greek cursive manuscripts, in favor o f a few Egyptian
manuscripts.
1 Peter 3:15: The KJB says, “But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts.” A Plain Introduction says, “It is a real
pleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial
agreement with Tregelles (and so read... Westcott and
H ort)” who would replace “God” with “Christ.”
“Against this very strong case [a few corrupt uncials
and versions] we can set up fo r the common text only the
more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials
contain this Epistle), the mass o f later cursives (ten out
of Scrivener’s twelve...the Polyglot Arabic,
Slavonic... [etc.]” (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 398).
Thus “God” is omitted in Scrivener’s pursuit of “truth.” Here

we see a prime example of Scrivener’s lack of thoroughness. He
examines only 12 Greek cursive manuscripts out o f today’s over
5,300 and expects us to genuflect to pick up the remaining
crumbs o f our Bible.
2 Peter 2:13: A Plain Introduction pretends, “[T]he R e c e iv e d

text cannot be accepted as true... ” in its use of the
Greek word underling the KJB’s word “deceivings.
(Why is it that critics squirm near verses about deceiving
and bearing false witness?) The KJB reading has been
vindicated by the ancient papyrus, P72, making
Scrivener’s views badly out-of-date once more (Comfort, p.

177).
1 John 2:23: Surprise! Even a broken clock is right two times a

day. The second part of this verse, in italics in the KJB,
is vindicated by Scrivener’s textual criticism. “[T]hough
still absent from the textus receptus [Beza, Stephanus,
Berry], is unquestionably genuine ” (Scrivener, a Plain, vol. 2, p.
400). It is however in the earlier Greek text o f Beza
(1582), as well as in “five o f the seven o f the extant

uncials (Codd KABC, being four o f them), in at least 34
cursives ...in both Syriac, in the Memphitic (perhaps too
in the Thebaic), in the best codices in the Latin
Vulgate...and its printed editions, in the Armenian,
Ethiopic, and Erpenius...Arabic versions. ” Scrivener
adds, “We note this as an instance o f the evil
consequences ensuing on the exclusive adherence to
modern Greek manuscripts upon the part o f our earliest
e d ito r s (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 201).
Evil? — the main text of the majority o f manuscripts? The

KJB translators placed it in italics out o f caution as they did
many other words which have since been found to have Greek
manuscript evidence. For example, the Greek Vaticanus
manuscript has the Greek word “given” which is in italics in
John 7: 39 (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 114). Greek evidence exists for “the
disciples” in Mark 8:14, “these” in Mark 9:42, “as though he
heard them not” in John 8:6, “them” Acts 1:4, and “o f God” in 1
John 3:16 (The Interlinear Bible, Vol. 3, xi.).
1 John 5:7-8 Scrivener says this verse, “deforms our

Authorized translation” [KJB] (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 58).
“That it has no right to hold a place in the body o f
Scripture we regard as certain. ” O f this verse’s
defenders he says, “[TJhe flame which once raged so

fiercely is well-nigh extinct. It may be doubted whether a
single person now living, who is capable o f forming an
intelligent judgment on critical subjects, believes or
professes to believe in the genuineness o f that
interpolated gloss, familiarly known as the "Text o f the
Three Heavenly Witnesses. ” [There he goes again using
the pride-filling word “intelligent.”] He charges that it
"intruded into the text, but which has no rightful place
there on any principle that is capable o f reasonable
vindication. "A Plain Introduction says it is “no longer
maintained by any one whose judgm ent ought to have
weight.” “[W]e need not hesitate to declare our
conviction that the disputed words were not written by
St. John. . . ” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 201-206 et al.; Scrivener, A Plain,
Vol. 2, pp. 401, 407).
This judgment is based on Dean’s Alford’s secretary who

looked at Only 188 m anuscripts in all (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 403). In
S chaffs defense o f his omission o f the Trinity in 1 John 5:7-8
he cites Scrivener as saying, “To maintain the genuineness of
this passage is simply impossible.” New versions omit it, yet
pretend to have it by stealing words out o f surrounding verses.
This verse is the Trinitarian proof text, despised by Unitarians,
Deists, Arians, Jehovah Witnesses and unbelievers in general.
Schaff admits that “it was once considered a sure mark of
heresy to doubt the genuineness of the passage...” (S c h a ff,
Companion, p. 193 footnote). It Still is .
Michael Maynard’s A History o f the Debate Over 1 John

5:7-8 proves that the verse does belong in the text. He notes
among other things that it is in the Syriac Bible and was q u o te d
by Tertullian in the second century (Available from A.V.
Publications in a spiral notebook). Even the first Greek New

Testament, the Complutensian Polyglot, contained 1 John 5:7-8
(S c riv e n e r, a Plain, Vol. 2, p. 180). Scrivener errs saying that Erasmus only
reluctantly put it into his Greek text. The world’s leading

authority on Erasmus, Henk de Jonge said, “The current view
that Erasmus promised to insert the Comma Johanneum if it
could be shown to him in a single Greek manuscript has no
foundation in Erasmus’ work” (See In Awe o f Thy Word; Scrivener, Six
Lectures, pp. 200-206; Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 186; Michael Maynard, A History o f the
Debate Over I John 5:7, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, pp. 264-265).
Scrivener’s Tweaked King James Bible
Scrivener is not content to mar the visage o f the word, but

must deface its form beyond recognition. He falsely charges
that the King James Bible’s —
“ ...chapters are inconveniently and capriciously

unequal in length; occasionally too they are
distributed with much lack o f judgment. Thus
Matt. xv. 39 belongs to ch. xvi and perhaps ch.
xix. 30 to ch. xx; Mark ix. 1 properly appertains
to the preceding chapter; Luke xxi. 1-4 had better
be united with ch. xx, as in Mark xii. 41-44; Acts
v might as well commence with Acts iv. 32;
Acts Viii. 1 ...’ (Scrivener,,4 Plain, Vol. 1, pp. 69, 70).
He hammers at great lengths with such suggested changes

whining that,
“It is now too late to correct the errors o f the

verse-divisions, but they can be neutralized, at
least in a great degree, by the plan adopted by
modern critics, of banishing both the verses
and the chapters into the margin, and
breaking the text into paragraphs, better

suited to the sense...M uch pains were bestowed
on their arrangement o f the paragraphs by the
Revisers of the English version o f 1881” Scrivener,
A Plain, Vol. 1, p. 71).
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), by F.H.A.

Scrivener, now published by Hendrickson, contains all of
Scrivener’s personal idiosyncratic views about paragraph
divisions and italicized words, contrary to the historic King
James Bible. Schaff calls Scrivener’s Paragraph Bible, “the
only” “critical edition o f King James’s Version.” Schaff says
that it has “modem spelling.” [Although it is not modem in the
contemporary sense.] Its full title is “the text revised by a
collation of its early and other principal editions, the use o f the
italic type made uniform, the marginal references remodeled,
and a critical introduction prefixed.” His most serious error was
undoing some o f the typographical repairs made by KJB
translators Ward and Bois in 1629 and 1638 (Schaff, Companion, p. 304;
Scrivener, The Authorized, p. 215 et al.). B e c a u s e S c riv e n e r m is ta k e n ly
confused the first and second 1611 printings, he carries forward

the typos o f the first edition, which had been corrected in the
second 1611 printing. For example, Scrivener picked up the
original typo, “he went,” instead o f the corrected “she went” in
Ruth 3:15. He changed the correct “its” to “it” in Lev. 25:5. His
most egregious errors include the change from “strain at a gnat
to “strain out a gnat” in Matt. 23:24. His change of “faith to
“hope” in Hebrews 10:23 disavows the synonymous nature of
those words. His casting 1 John 5:7 into italics exposes just one
of his textual heresies (See The History o f the Debate Over I John 5:7-8 by Michael
Maynard).
Scrivener molded his Paragraph Bible using his own ideas

about paragraph divisions. He quotes an author in support of
their mutual belief that the use o f “chapters and verses” gives “a
very erroneous impression” and is an “injurious peculiarity”
(Scrivener, The Authorized, pp. 127-128). Why then did God S a y in Acts
13:33, “as it is also written in the second psalm”? Scrivener’s

RV removed the verse divisions to hide the fact that it removed
so many verses', many new versions do likewise.
His discourse on italic type, coupled with his Six Lectures,

gives one little confidence in his judgments in making the italics
“uniform.” The KJB translators used italics for several different
purposes, not just to identify words not in the ‘originals.’ God
called them to the task, not Scrivener (or Uzza, 1 Chron. 13:7, 9,
10). Likewise, his changes to the cross references may not be
welcome either. Scrivener calls Jesus’ mother Mary, “the
Blessed Virgin.” His discernment is questionable, at best. John
Kohlenberger, a TNIV proponent supports Scrivener’s
Paragraph Bible; that should give the reader a clue about its
lack o f reliability (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 1, p. 103; See Scrivener, The Authorized,
pp. 61, et al.; Schaff, Companion, p. 304). Schaff adds,
“Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible is no

doubt the most critical edition, but his text is
eclectic, and his departures from the editions o f
1611 and 1613 are numerous. See the list in his
Appendix A, pp. lxviii.-lxxxvi” (Schaff, Companion, p.
325; Some departures from the typos in the 1611 are called for since the
KJB translators corrected them in 1629 and 1637; see In Awe o f Thy
Word for details).
Scrivener also changed the punctuation in his edition o f the

KJB, as he felt “It is a torture to read aloud from, as those who
have had to do it know (Scrivener, The Authorized, pp. 82, 88-92 et al.). Who
is he to slide punctuation and periods around like ball-bearings?
‘It is just a small thing,’ some will say, ‘The early uncials did
not have them to begin with. God can not mind.’ Yet they are
not marbles for child’s play.
Although Scrivener’s Bible was printed originally by

Cambridge, the University Press never used his text in any o f its
subsequent editions of Cambridge Bibles. That was because
there was a public rejection of Scrivener’s text, whose changes
from the correct one could be “counted by the hundreds” (j. Brown,
History o f the English Bible, Cambridge: University Press, 1911, p. 117). One should
cautiously examine any King James Bibles published by

Hendrickson, as they may contain Scrivener’s errors.
Scrivener and Revelation
Scrivener’s flirtation with corrupt manuscripts comes to full

bloom in his dealings with the book of Revelation. He foolishly
says,
“The Received text of the Book of Revelation is
far more widely removed from that o f the best
critical authorities than is the case in any other
portion o f the New Testament” (Scrivener, Six Lectures,
p. 206).
He charges Erasmus with consulting few copies or a “sole-
authority.” This lie has been thoroughly proven wrong in In
Awe o f Thy Word. It is no longer a tenable criticism of
Erasmus’s text and other Bibles which seem to follow Erasmus
in certain places, but actually are following the thrust o f pure
vernacular Holy Bibles which have always read as the KJB in
Revelation, including its last six verses, which Scrivener
questions. Neither the KJB translators nor Erasmus were “Greek
only.” The Greek Orthodox church has never been God’s sole
repository o f truth.
Scholars can only guess about the body o f evidence which

led Erasmus to frame his Greek text as he did. Erasmus had
access to different copies from those o f Scrivener. Scrivener
believes that manuscripts and witnesses closer in time to the
originals are more reliable. Scrivener reveres the uncial
Vaticanus because it is 400 years older than many o f the Greek
cursives. By his criteria the witnesses available to Erasmus’s
should be more reliable than Scrivener’s library (all other
elements being equal e.g. orthography), as Erasmus lived 400
years closer to the time o f the originals. Erasmus gave his full
time attention to combing the libraries o f Europe for Bible
manuscripts (See In Awe o f Thy Word); Scrivener was a full
time pastor who had only those manuscripts available in
conveniently located libraries. Today few have ever heard of
Frederick Scrivener; the shining scholarship o f Erasmus still
lights many desks today. Some o f Scrivener’s manipulation of
the text o f Revelation will be discussed further in the next
chapter. Scrivener’s charge that Erasmus’s was a “self-made
version” would be more correctly applied to Scrivener’s own
edition of the Textus Receptus, as the next chapter will so amply
demonstrate.
Sum m ary
Scrivener was chosen to do the “marginal” notes for the

1881 Revised Version’s New Testament. It is there that his own
personal prejudices are marked by his own signature.
“Soon after the beginning o f their work in 1870

the New Testament Company o f Revisers
considered the question o f providing marginal
references for the Revised V ersion...Leave was
granted, and in December, 1873, the Company
passed a resolution requesting Dr. Scrivener and

Professor Moulton to undertake the work of
drawing up marginal references... [Later a]
revision was undertaken by Dr. Moulton, but all
his work was submitted to Dr. Scrivener for
approval...” (The New Testament in the Revised Version o f 1881
with Fuller References, P re fa c e , O x fo rd U n iv e rs ity P re ss, 1 9 1 0 , p. v).
For example, Scrivener’s marginal note on two omitted

verses, Mark 10:44 and 46, say that they are “are omitted by the
best ancient authorities.” He is calling the most corrupt
manuscripts imaginable, the “best.” His marginal note for John
1:18 recommends “God only begotten,” which is the Jehovah
Witness reading presenting the Arian’s heresy wherein one God
begets another God. In Romans 1:16 his marginal note
recommends an unscriptural woman “deaconess” (The Parallel B M e -
Authorized Edition, Being the King James Version, Arranged in Parallel Columns with the
Revised Version, P o rtlan d, M a in e : H . H allett & C o . no date, no p a g e num b ers).
To summarize, one can observe that Scrivener would

remove two Trinitarian proof texts and one on the deity of
Christ, just as did his RV. He often approves the wording of a
few old corrupt manuscripts against the vast majority o f Greek
manuscripts. Is this a man whose judgment the church should
blindly follow for a one-man edition o f the Received text? (See
the next chapter for his actual changes to that text, sold today
and misnamed ‘the Beza text’ and ‘the text underlying the King
James Bible.’)
Chapter 18
The Trinitarian Bible Society’s

Little
Leaven
Editor: F.H.A. Scrivener (so-called Beza)
Publishers: Textus Receptus

- The Trinitarian Bible Society
H KAINH AIA&HKH
The New Testament
The Greek Underlying the English
Authorised Version o f 1611[not really!]
■ Jay P. Green:
The Interlinear Bible
Greek-English New Testament
Hendrickson Publishers, Baker Books,
Sovereign Grace, MacDonald Publishing,
Associated Publishers
■ Various Digital & Online

Editions of the Textus Receptus:
Logos Research Systems, BibleWorks,
Online Bible, Theophilos Library,
Olivetree, WORDsearch, and many
others
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
S u m m ary: S criv en er & H is G reek Textus R eceptus
1. S c riv e n e r’s o w n ed itio n o f th e N ew T estam en t

G reek Textus R ecep tu s (H k a i n h a i a q h k h The New
Testament, The Greek Underlying the English Authorised Version o f
1611 ) is generally correct and is the closest Greek
Text to the King James Bible (KJB). It can be
useful in pointing out errors in the corrupt Greek
text which underlies perverted new versions such
as the NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NAB,
NJB, NCV, Message, N e w L iv in g T ranslation, etc..
2. Scrivener created his Greek text for comparison
purposes as part of his work as a member of the
Westcott-Hort R e v ise d Version Committee. It was
his assignment to recreate the KJB s underlying
Greek text, as his original Preface states.
3. Contrary to his RV Committee assignment and
popular opinion, Scrivener’s one-man Greek text is
n o t a precise record of the Greek text underlying
the KJB, nor is it precisely the text of Beza, who
followed Latin translations of the Syriac and
Arabic text, among other sources.
4. Scrivener’s anti-KJB prejudice, out-of-date
scholarship, and limited collation of manuscripts
lead him to mistranslate some of the KJB readings.
Documented herein is Greek textual evidence
proving 20 errors in his Textus R ecep tu s and 24
readings in the KJB which he wrongly ascribes to
Latin.
5. It is neither scholarly nor even common sense to go
b a ck to Scrivener’s Greek text, since it was
translated fr o m the English KJB originally.
Additionally, those scores of places where
Scrivener’s Greek does not match the historic
“Originall Greeke” prevent it from being any sort
of final authority for study or translation work.
Docum entation to follow.
631 TBS SCRIVENER-BEZA TEXTUS RECEPTUS
Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus : The Good Side
rederick Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus New
F Testament is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society

(TBS), London England. (In the USA it is available
from AV Publications with the caveat that it not be used for
study or translation, only for comparison.) This edition is a
useful tool to show new version users where their bible is
missing important words, phrases, and verses. It is particularly
effective for showing Bible School and Seminary graduates that
certain readings are in the traditional Greek text which are
missing from their corrupt Greek editions o f Nestle-Aland
(NA-7) or the United Bible Society (UBS4). Sadly, seminaries
have become cemeteries for burying the faith o f many young
men.
The following brief sight-reading exercise, using only a few

Greek words from the TBS text, will alert even those who have
never seen Greek before to errors in their bible version or Greek
text.
S Locate the correct chapters by simply counting down or

lining up the table o f contents in the English Bible with the
table o f contents in the TBS Greek text.
'S Observe the inclusion o f 17 entire verses, missing in new

versions and their underlying Greek text. These include
Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26,
15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7,
28:29, Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7. (Count the words in the KJB
surrounding 1 John 5:7-8 to observe that the new versions do omit the verse, but slyly take
words from adjacent verses to fill in 1 John 5:7-8.)
S Observe the inclusion o f the name o f ‘Jesus’ (Tqaov)

‘Christ’ (Xpiorou), so glaringly omitted from new versions
in Eph 3:9. (See also Col. 1:2, Eph. 3:14.) Observe the
inclusion of the word “Christ” in Rom. 1:16. (See also 2
John 9b, 1 Tim. 2:7, Gal. 4:7, and 1 John 4:3.)
•S Observe the inclusion of the word “fasting (vt^trTEiai^) in 2

Cor. 6:5. (See also 2 Cor. 11:27, Mark 9:29 and Acts 10:30.)
Remind them that “This kind can come forth by nothing, but
by prayer and fasting.” So “This kind” o f devil must be
behind the new versions which omit “fasting.’
^ Observe the inclusion of the word “holy (dyiot)) in 2 Peter

1:21. (See also Matt. 25:31, 1 Thes. 5:27, Rev. 22:6, 18:20,
John 7:39, 1 Cor. 2:13, Matt. 12:31, and Acts 6:3, 8:18). Do
you have a “Holy” Bible or one that omits “holy” in these
verses?
(Word endings may change in each context, but the general appearance should be recognizable
in the select sample verses; some accents omitted for easier identification).
Scrivener’s Greek Text: The Fable
Unfortunately however, Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus

(TBS, Green, et al.) has become a holy grail in numerous
conservative Christian pastor’s libraries, college classrooms,
translation centers, and publishing houses. Few are aware of its
origin or its leaven (documented at the end of this chapter). This
is hardly their fault since Scrivener entitled it falsely,
“The New Testament in Greek According to the

Text Followed in the Authorised Version
Together with the Variations adopted in the
Revised Version” (The New Testament in Greek According to the
Text Followed in the Authorised Version Together with the Variations
Adopted in the Revised Version, F.H.A. Scrivener, ed„ Cambridge:
University Press, 1881).
Today’s copyright owner*, the Trinitarian Bible Society,

merely echoes and begins its preface affirming,
“The Textus Receptus printed in this volume is

the Greek text followed by the translators o f the
English Authorised Version of the Bible first
published in the year o f 1611” (h k a i n u a i a o h k h . The
New Testament The Greek Underlying the English Authorised Version o f
1611, L o n d o n : T h e T rin itarian B ib le S o c ie ty , 19 7 6 , P re fa c e ; em p h a sis
m in e). * “ [T ]h e w o rd o f G o d is not b o un d” (2 T im . 2 :9 ). T h e true H o ly
B ib le w ill not b e b o un d b y special c o p y rig h t restrictio n s w h ic h req u ire
p e rm issio n s and restrict free u n altered use, b e c a u se G o d is the auth or and
o w n er. T h e re fo re the S c riv e n e r text can n o t be the w o rd o f G o d .)
Without examining the veracity o f this claim in detail,

others such as David Cloud, misinform (and err in the date)
saying,
“The exact Greek text underlying the King
James Bible was reconstructed by Frederick
Scrivener under the direction o f the Cambridge
University Press and published in 1891”
(It w a s a c tu a lly printed in 1 8 8 1 , and a g ain in 1 8 8 3 , 18 8 4 , 18 8 6 , 18 9 0 ,
19 0 8 ; see v e rs o o f P re fa c e ; F .H .A . S c riv e n e r, The New, em p h a sis m ine).
Scrivener’s Textus Receptus is included in many digital

online and Bible software editions, including Logos Research
Systems, Online Bible, BibleWorks, WORDsearch, Theophilos
Library, Olivetree, and many others.
The end of this chapter will document in detail why

Scrivener’s Greek text is not the “exact” text underlying the
KJB and does not represent the “Originall Greeke”
accessed by the translators (See Title page to the KJB New
Testament 1611).
Jay P. Green’s Greek-English Interlinear Bible
Some use Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus in Jay P.

Green’s Interlinear Bible, Greek-English, with Green’s faulty
English below Scrivener’s Greek. Green states on his copyright
page that his Greek New Testament text is used by permission
o f the Trinitarian Bible Society. Green says, “The Greek text
herein is purportedly that which underlies the King James
Version, as reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener” (The Interlinear Bible
Greek-English, J a y P. G re e n , ed ., P ea b o d y, M A : H en d rickso n , 19 8 4 , V o l. 4 , p. x i). This
reconstruction was done incompletely, due to Scrivener’s

dishonest methodology. Green’s preface notes a few o f the
discrepancies; many others are explored in-depth in the word-
for-word examination of the Scrivener text presented in this
chapter. In addition, in the General Preface to Vol. 2 o f Green’s
four volume Interlinear, he says that his Interlinear Bible
Greek-English has the “Greek words as printed in the Stephens
Edition o f 1550” (The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Aramaic Old Testament, J a y P. G reen
ed ., 1993 prin tin g, V o l. 2 , P re fa ce , pp. v ii, x v ). Therefore, Green s Greek may
be a hybrid, and one should be cautious, looking for the unique

errors o f each individual text. (The next chapter will detail
Stephen’s errors). Green misrepresents his Greek text, calling it
“the original Greek” (Interlinear Bible Greek-English, V o l. 4 , p. v i). ThlS
chapter will document 20 errors in Scrivener’s Greek text,
where his text does not follow the “Originall Greeke” follow ed
by the KJB translators, ancient Greek manuscripts and pure
vernacular Holy Bibles. It will document even more places
where Greek manuscript evidence exists to support readings
where he wrongly charges the KJB with following the Latin.
Hendrickson Publishers, Baker Books, Sovereign Grace,
Associated Publishers, and MacDonald Publishing and others
are unwisely distributing Green’s Interlinear.
Some, who understand little about translation, actually think

that Green’s English on the line below his Greek is the literal
translation o f the Greek word. Those studying with the illusion
that there is one English word, which is the “literal” translation
of one Greek word, need to examine a copy of a Greek
Concordance, such as W igram’s or Smith’s. All translations
must and do translate one Greek word with any number of
different English words, based upon the context. The Greek
New Testament vocabulary was about 5000 words; the English
vocabulary is easily 500,000 words. O f his English translation
Green even admits,
“Still, it is not in a true sense an absolutely

literal representation o f the Hebrew or Greek
words” (Interlinear Bible Hebrew-English, v o l. 2, p. v iii).
Yet that is the impression that most neophytes gather. After

conceding that his verb tenses are subject to qualification, he
does admit that the grammar, in many cases is not literal,
“It is certainly not a grammar. Students must not

use it in learning Hebrew or Greek grammar” (The
Interlinear Bible Hebrew-English, V o l. 2 , p. ix )
Additionally he chooses English words based on their SIZE,

not on their accuracy of equivalency. He confesses,
“ [WJhere the Greek word is short, but the

English equivalent is long, a substitution may
have been given...” (.Interlinear Bible Greek-English, V o l. 4 , p.
x iv ).
“Placing English words under Hebrew words

was very difficult when a short Hebrew word
may be expressed properly only by a long
English word or even by several words” (The

Interlinear Bible Hebrew-Greek-English (on e v o lu m e ed itio n ). J a y P.
G re e n ed ., P e a b o d y , M A : H en d ric k so n , 19 8 6 , P re fa c e ).
“ [I]t has been necessary for us to adopt either a

different word for translation, or a shortened
form ...” (The Interlinear Bible Hebrew-English, V o l. 2 , p. x iii).
“The cost o f resetting the Hebrew to fit a fully

literal translation into English would have been
S O great.. . ” ( The Interlinear Bible Hebrew-English, V o l. 2 , p. v iii).
“In causative verb tenses a shortened

translation was frequently required...Due to
limitations of space, we were not always able to
translate the participle...” (The Interlinear Bible, P re fa ce ).
Green’s English words are corrupt, taken from corrupt

“lexicons” such as “Strong,” “Vine,” “Trench,” “Thayer,”
“BrownDriver-Briggs,” (sic) and “Gesenius” (The interlinear Bible
Greek-English, V o l. 4 , p. x v ; The Interlinear Hebrew-English, v o l. 2 , pp. x , x iv ). Such
lexicons and their authors will be thoroughly discredited in this

book. He says that, “Through the use of The Interlinear Bible,
one can utilize the lexicons, word books, and other aids... (The
Interlinear Bible, P re fa c e ). Therefore one is not reading Green, or any
sort o f literal English translation, but the nefarious lexical

definitions of these corrupt lexicons.
Green is a five-point Calvinist, carrying these heresies, like

live viruses, on to everything he touches. (This heresy was also
held by Theodore Beza, Edwin Palmer, NIV committee leader,
Spiros Zodhiates, corrupt Greek reference book editor. It is
exposed at the end o f this chapter.) Such lack o f spiritua
discernment bites at Green’s beliefs about the Bible, chomping
the Trinitarian proof text (1 John 5:7) and other verses (Acts
9:5, 6 etc.) with these words, “We have not deleted these from
the Greek text supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society, though
we do not accept them as part of the true deposit o f the Holy
Scriptures” (The Interlinear Bible Greek-English, V o lu m e 4 , p. x i.)
Bad RV Origin of Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus
Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus, magnified by some as if

it were the original, was “constructed” by and for the Revised
Version Committee of Westcott and Hort o f 1881! As an RV
committee member between 1873 and 1880, Scrivener was
given the assignment to back-translate the KJB into Greek to
ascertain the KJB’s Greek basis. Those who use Scrivener’s
TBS edition, thinking that they must go back to the Greek, have
placed themselves in the foolish position o f using a Greek text
that was created using the English King James Bible! D.A.
Waite Jr. says, “This Greek New Testament was specifically
created to reconstruct-as far as possible-a Greek text
“presumed to underlie” the English of the Authorized Version.”
“In those KJB portions with no known Greek support, Scrivener
(a man o f great textual integrity) let the readings of Beza’s 1598
Greek NT stand (p. 655). He refused to backwards translate
f r o m Latin to Greek! (D .A . W aite, Jr ., The Doctored New Testament, C o llin g s w o o d ,
N J: T h e B ib le F o r T o d a y P re ss, 2 0 0 2 , p. i, fo otn ote 5, last lin e). This chapter pTOVeS
that the KJB followed Greek, not Latin, as Waite pretends.

What Scrivener did was to create an entirely new entity, a
Greek text that matches no other Greek text on earth and which
matches no Holy Bible ever made, not even the KJB. It is not
Beza’s text, as some pretend; it certainly follows no other
edition of the Textus Receptus in the minutiae. It is Scrivener’s
own mix and therefore not authoritative at some points.
Although the text is titled, “the text followed in the Authorized
Version,” Scrivener takes an entire page admitting and

delineating Why and Where it is not (S c riv en e r, The New , p. 6 5 6 ).
Scrivener admits his Revised Version assignment,
“The text constructed by the English Revisers

[RV] in preparation for their Revised
Translation was published in two forms at
Oxford and Cambridge respectively in 1881. The
Oxford edition...incorporated in the text the
readings adopted by the Revisers... The
Cambridge edition, under the care o f Dr.
Scrivener, gave the Authorized [Greek] text with
the variations of the Revision mentioned at the
foot...The Titles in full o f these two editions
are:-
1. “The New Testament in the Original Greek,

according to the Text followed in the
Authorized Version... Edited for the
Syndics of the Cambridge University Press,
by F.H.A. Scrivener... 1881.
2. ...The [Westcott-Hort] Greek Testament,
with the Readings adopted by the
Revisers... 1881” (F .H .A . S c riv e n e r, A Plain Introduction
to the Criticism o f the New Testament, E u g e n e , O reg o n : W ip f and
S to c k P u b lish ers, 4 th ed ., E d w a rd M ille r , 1 9 9 7 reprint o f 18 9 4
G e o rg e B e ll and S o n s, V o l. 2 , p. 2 4 3 ).
Secrets of Scrivener’s Original Preface
Co-committee member Philip Schaff said o f these two

working Greek texts, “they were carefully prepared by two
members o f the New Testament Company o f the Canterbury
R evisers....” Schaff boasts that Scrivener’s Greek Text had
“value in connection with the English Revision, and supplement

each other.” Schaff states that “Scrivener puts the new readings
at the foot of the page, and prints the displaced readings o f the
text in heavier type.” Their second Greek text did the opposite
(P h ilip S c h a ff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English [R e v ise d ] Version, N ew
The telling RV notes

Y o r k : H arper and B ro th e rs, 1 8 8 5 , 2 nd ed ition . R e v is e d , p. 2 8 2 ).
and heavy type which reference RV changes have now

disappeared from today’s TBS and Green editions.
Today’s edition of Scrivener’s Greek New Testament text,

printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society does not contain
Scrivener’s revealing original preface. (For documentation
purposes both the original and the new TBS editions are now
available from AV Publications.) Scrivener’s Preface has been
replaced by ones written by the TBS and Green. Reading the
original preface will make it clear why this actual preface is not
included in modem editions which appeal to Textus Receptus
(TR) supporters who despise the Westcott and Hort Revised
Version. Scrivener begins his original preface by explaining his
RV Committee’s charge to him to create this volume for
comparison purposes for their project. In the original preface
Scrivener gives a seven page description o f the purpose o f the
work as related to his RV work. He adds an eight page appendix
at the end o f the volume listing the verses where he departs
from the readings o f Beza’s Greek text. He adds a final page
to show some of the places where he did not fo llo w the Greek
text underlying the KJB (S c riv e n e r, The New, p. 6 56 ).
Observe four points, as you read the upcoming abstract from his
original preface:
1. Scrivener admits that his Greek text was done fo r the

Revised Version Committee.
2. Scrivener admits that it is generally a back-translation

of the English KJB into Greek — a Greek text created
FROM the ENGLISH Bible.
3. Scrivener admits that his Greek text’s paragraph

divisions and punctuation are not from any Greek
editions, but are taken from the English Revised Version
(RV).
4. Scrivener created a false set o f criteria for creating his
text, perhaps due to his desire to downgrade the
scholarship of the KJB translators, when compared to
those o f his RV committee. He used only,
“Greek readings which might naturally be

known through printed editions to the revisers
of 1611 or their predecessors” (S c riv e n e r, The New, p. ,l
v iii).
He is excluding Greek manuscripts (hand written, not

printed), whose readings were widely known in 1611 and as
far back as the 1500s, by even Erasmus. Those Greek
readings are now available in printed Greek editions and
were also available to Scrivener. He pompously and
wrongly assumes that the KJB translators were not familiar
with the readings in old uncials [all block capital letters],
like Vaticanus. Although Scrivener was familiar with these
Greek readings in the texts o f Griesbach, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Alford, and even Westcott, his trumped-up
criteria would not allow him to include these Greek
readings, because these printed texts post-date the KJB
translation. The KJB translators did not work under
Scrivener’s ‘criteria,’ but lived in an era rich with
handwritten manuscripts and knowledge o f ancient Greek
readings. They had ancient Greek readings the critics had only
recently ‘discovered.’
Scrivener had to hide the astuteness o f the KJB translators.

So he pretended that they had found certain readings (over 59)
in a Latin, not a Greek Bible. Therefore he would not translate
them into Greek, although he had Greek manuscript evidence
for them, but assumed the translators did not. In other words,
when the RV committee compared their two man-made Greek
texts, they could pretend that the modem critics had made
improvements to the Greek text.
Scrivener’s original Preface admits that his Greek text was

only created because the R V ’s changes from the KJB
(Authorised Version) burst the seams o f the RV margin. His
original Preface says, in part—
“ T h e sp e c ia l d e sign o f th is v o lu m e is to p la c e c le a r ly b e fo re the
read er the va ria tio n s fro m the Greek text represented by the
Authorised Version o f the N e w T esta m en t w h ic h h a v e b een
em b o d ie d in the Revised Version. O ne o f the R u le s laid d o w n fo r the
g u id a n ce o f the Revisers b y a C o m m ittee ap p oin ted b y the C o n v o ca tio n
o f C a n terb u ry w a s to the e ffe c t “ that, w h en the T e x t adopted d iffe r s fro m
that from which the Authorised Version was made, the

alteration b e in dicated in the m a rg in .” A s it w a s fo u n d that a literal
o b se rv a n c e o f this d irectio n w o u ld often c ro w d and o b sc u re the m argin o f
the Revised Version, the Revisers ju d g e d that its p u rp o se m ight be

b etter ca rried out in an o th er m ann er. T h e y th ere fo re co m m u n icated to the
O x fo rd and C a m b rid g e U n iv e rs ity P re sse s a fu ll and c a r e fu lly co rrected
list o f the rea d in g s ado pted w h ic h are at v a ria n c e w ith the readings
“presumed to underlie the Authorised Version,” in order

that th ey m igh t be p u b lish ed in d ep en d en tly in so m e sh a p e o r other. T h e
U n iv e r s ity P re sse s h ave a c c o rd in g ly un dertaken to prin t them in
c o n n ex io n w ith co m p le te G re e k texts o f the N e w T estam en t. The
re sp o n sib ility o f the Revisers d o es not o f co u rse ex ten d b eyo n d the list
w h ic h th ey h a v e furn ished.
T h e fo rm h ere ch o se n h a s b ee n th ough t b y the S y n d ic s o f the
C a m b rid g e U n iv e rs ity P ress to be at o n ce the m ost co n v e n ie n t in itself,
and the b est fitted fo r g iv in g a true rep resen tation o f the Revisers
w o r k ,...T h e C a m b rid g e P re ss h a s th ere fo re ju d g e d it b e st to set the
Revisers at the foot of the page

rea d in g s a c tu a lly adopted b y the
|omitted in TBS & Green editions], and to k e ep the co n tin u ou s

text co n sisten t th rough ou t b y m a k in g it so fa r a s w a s p o ssib le
uniformly representative of the Authorized Version. T h e
p u b lica tio n o f an ed ition fo rm ed on this p lan a p p eared to b e all th e m ore
d e sira b le , in asm u ch as the Authorised Version was not a
translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and

no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the
original of the Authorised Version has ever been
printed, [su b je c tiv e and in co m p lete b ac k -tra n sla tio n o f the A V ( K J B )
into G re e k ]
In co n sid e rin g w h a t te x t h ad th e b e st rig h t to b e reg a rd e d a s “the
text presumed to underlie the Authorised Version, it

w a s n e c e s sa ry to take into acco u n t the composite nature of the
Authorised Version... B e z a ’ s fifth an d last te x t o f 1 5 9 8 was

more likely than any other to be in the hands of the
King Jam es’s revisers...T h e re are h o w e v e r many places in
which the Authorised Version is at variance with
Beza’s text; c h ie fly b e c a u se it retain s la n g u a g e in herited fro m T y n d a le
or h is s u c c e s so rs , w h ic h had b een founded On the text of other
Greek editions... T h e se un certain ties do not h o w e v e r a tfe c t the

presen t ed itio n , in w h ic h the different elements that actually
make up the Greek basis of the Authorised Version

have an equal right to find a place [su b je c tiv e and in co m p lete
b ack -tra n sla tio n o f A V into G re e k ].
W h e re v e r th erefo re the A u th o rise d ren d e rin g s a g ree w ith other
might naturally be known through

G re e k rea d in g s w h ic h
printed editions to the revisers of 1611 or their

predecessors, Beza’s reading has been displaced from
the text in fa v o u r o f the m ore tru ly rep resen ta tiv e rea d in g , the v a riatio n
fro m B e z a b e in g in dicated b y * [* is om itted in T B S and G re en ed itio n s].
It w a s m a n ife s tly n e c e s sa ry to acce p t o n ly G r e e k auth o rity, th ough in
som e p la c e s th e A u th o rised V e r s io n co rre sp o n d s but loosely w ith an y
fo rm o f the G re e k o rig in a l, w h ile it e x a c tly fo llo w s th e L a tin V u lg a te
variations from Beza’s text of

[T h is Will be p ro ven fa ls e ]. A ll
1598, in number about 190, are set d o w n in an A p p e n d ix at the

en d o f the v o lu m e , to g eth er w ith the au th o rities on w h ic h th ey
Revised
re s p e c tiv e ly rest. W h en e v er a G re e k rea d in g ado pted fo r the
Version d iffe rs fro m th e presumed Greek original of the

Authorised Version, the rea d in g w h ic h it is intended to d isp la c e is
prin ted in the text in a th ick e r ty p e , w ith a n u m e rica l refere n c e to the
Revisers...F o r such d e ta ils th e rea d e r w ill

rea d in g sub stituted b y th e
n atu ra lly turn to the Margin of the Revised Version it s e lf...
It w a s m o re o v e r d e sira b le to punctuate in a m an n er not in co n sisten t
w ith the punctuation of the Revised Version, w h e re v e r this

co u ld b e do n e w ith out in c o n v e n ie n c e ...
The paragraphs into w h ic h the b o d y o f the G r e e k te x t is here

d iv id e d are th o se o f the Revised Version, the n u m erals rela tin g to
ch ap ters and v e rs e s b e in g b an ish ed to the m argin . T h e m arks w h ic h
in d icate the b e g in n in g o f p a ragra p h s in the A u th o rise d V e rsio n d o not
The New
see m to h a v e b een in serted w ith m uch c a r e ...(e m p h a s is m in e;
Testament in Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised
Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version,
F .H .A . S c riv e n e r, ed ., C a m b rid g e : U n iv e rs ity P re ss, 1 8 8 1 ; S e e p re fa c e ,
p p . v -x i).
The punctuation and paragraphs o f the RV are retained in

the Greek TBS and Green editions. These are scarcely ‘original’
and are highly dubious, originating from this committee o f arch
heretics. Scrivener adds that certain elements in Beza’s Greek
(e.g. some accents) are “discarded” or changed to what
“appeared” correct to Scrivener (S c riv e n e r, The New , p. x i).
Scrivener admits his imprecise reconstruction o f the Greek

text is based in places on “presumed” words, “more likely”
texts, “uncertainties” and “precarious” ideas about what
“appears to have been” the KJB’s sources (S c riv e n e r, The New, pp. v , v ii,
v iii, 655 ,6 5 6 ) . This hardly constitutes a final authority and Scrivener
had no intention o f creating an inspired edition. Maurice

Robinson says that this edition does not even reflect
“Scrivener’s own textual preferences...” as the previous chapter
documented (M a u ric e R o b in so n , Crossing Boundaries in New Testament Textual
Criticism: Historical Revisionism and the Case o f Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener,
bttg ;//ro se tta .re lte c h .o rg /T C /v o l0 7 /R o b in so n 2 0 0 2 .h tm n .
Scrivener’s Greek text can be helpful, as demonstrated at

the beginning o f this chapter. But a one-man RV committee
intellectual exercise is hardly a letter-for-letter repository o f the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost for this generation.
Scrivener’s Big Lie vs. The Facts
Scrivener gives a list of 59 places in the KJB (a list he

admits is “quite incomplete”) which were “not countenanced by
any earlier edition of the Greek” but which ‘appear’ to follow
“the Latin Vulgate” (S c riv e n e r, The New, p. 6 5 5 ). Notice that he does not
say “any edition of the Greek.” Notice that he does not say,
“any Greek manuscript.” He artificially limits his reconstructed
text to “printed editions” “earlier” than the KJB. Everyone
misreads and misunderstands him; perhaps that was his
intent.
In these 59 plus places he follows Beza’s Greek Textus

Receptus. His text is wrong in these and the other undisclosed
places for four reasons, the details of which will be thoroughly
documented at the end o f this chapter:
Fact 1: Scrivener’s text is based on faulty criteria. He only used

“Greek readings which might naturally be known through
printed editions of the revisers o f 1611 or their
predecessors.” In other words, he assumed, as he admits,
that he knows what Greek evidence the KJB translators
had. He assumed they had only “printed editions,” not old
hand-written manuscripts (nianu means ‘hand’; scripts
means ‘written’). This is a bald assumption. The KJB
translators very obviously had Greek evidence because
the readings, which he pretends came from the Latin,
are in MANY Greek printed editions today. Scrivener
even had these Greek editions; he “assumed” that the KJB
translators did not know o f these readings, since they only

appeared in “printed editions” since the KJB translation.
Totally false is the self-limiting criteria he established to
construct his Greek text (i.e. only printed editions before
1611, not Greek manuscripts pre-dating the KJB or Greek
printed editions post-dating the KJB). The KJB translators
had a wealth o f hand-written manuscripts, compiled for
1500 years before the printing press was widely used.
Perusal o f the catalogues o f the libraries in England before
and during the KJB translation reveals many, many of
these. The royal library and British Universities were
storehouses o f Bible manuscripts.
Fact 2: Scrivener’s text is based on human fallibility. He says

his Greek choices in some places are only based on what
“appears” to him. He gives what he admits to be a very
“incomplete” list o f places where he inserts non-KJB Greek
ideas, abandoning the reader to wonder where his other
mistranslations are located. He admits that his decisions are
“precarious.” He confesses,
“In the following [59] places the Latin Vulgate

APPEARS to have been the authority adopted in
preference to Beza. The present list is probably
QUITE INCOMPLETE, and a few cases seem
PRECARIOUS (c ap italiz atio n m in e fo r em p h a sis; S c riv e n e r,
The New, pp. 6 5 5 , 6 56 ).
Fact 3: Scrivener’s own text is peppered in these 59 places (and

some others) with faulty vernacular-based texts. In the
places where Scrivener does not follow the Greek text
underlying the KJB, he follows Beza. Unknown to most TR
advocates, Beza followed among other things, a Latin
translation o f the Syriac Bible, which makes it yet another
Greek edition, in addition to Scrivener’s, which was taken

from a vernacular Bible. Complete documentation about
Beza, including a quote from his own revealing Preface, is
included at the end of this chapter. Scrivener’s use of
Beza’s edition instead of the KJB’s “Originall Greeke
does not represent the God-honored text.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”

(Rom. 1:22)
Fact 4: Scrivener is unscholarly in assuming something that

opposes everything that the KJB translators ever said in
print. On the title page o f their New Testament the KJB
translators said they used the “Originall Greeke, not any
Vulgate readings.
Their detailed notes, taken by translator John Bois, never

mention following the Latin Vulgate Bible. They list many
other sources for reference, including one reference to the
“Italian” Bible, and two to the “Old Latin,” but NEVER to
the Latin Vulgate (W ard A lle n , Translating For King James: Notes Made by a
Translator o f King Jam es’s Bible, V a n d e rb ilt U n iv e rsity P re s s, 19 6 9 , pp. 4 1 , 4 7 , 1 1 3 ) .
The Italian Diodati and the Old Latin are pure editions.
Scrivener did not have access to these recently
discovered notes of the translators. Therefore what he
“assumed” has been proven wrong and Scrivener’s text
along with it.
Even the Latin Vulgate itself carried with it a large

majority of readings from the pure Old Itala Bible. The Old
Itala’s origin goes back to the work of the “Holy Ghost in
Acts 2 , when “out of every nation under h e a v e n ” . . . “every
man heard them speak in his own language. The
superscription above the cross was in Latin, as well as in
Greek and Hebrew (Luke 23:38). Many spoke Latin,

especially those who lived in the countryside and
provinces. The gift o f tongues provided a way for the
scriptures to be immediately put into Latin, as well as other
extant languages.
The scriptural viewpoint of vernacular scriptures shows

them as “Holy Ghost” inspired and concurrent with Greek
scriptures, via Acts chapter 2. Paul, the one who penned
much of the New Testament said, “I speak with tongues
more than ye a ll...” (1 Cor. 14:18). As penman o f much of
the New Testament, the reason for his gift was obvious. His
statement would lead to the conclusion that Paul’s epistles
would have been “inspired” in numerous languages and he,
as well as others, would have had the gift to put the rest of
the New Testament into all known languages o f the day.
The Bible never shows an exclusivity to the Greek
language. This is made apparent by the kind o f gift the
Holy Ghost gave in Acts 2. Nor does it place Greek ‘above’
other languages, given the involvement of the “Holy
Ghost” in the known languages of Acts 2.
God has preserved several original readings in the Old

Itala, which were removed by unbelieving Jews from the
Hebrew Old Testament and by the apostate Greek
Orthodox church from the Greek New Testament (See
elsewhere in this book for examples).
Again, the KJB translators expressly stated that they did not
follow the Latin Vulgate. A very large percentage o f the
KJB translator’s introductory “The Translators to the
Reader” was taken up to express their utter contempt for
the Catholic church and its Latin Vulgate. In the KJB’s
preface the translators fearlessly said, “Now the Church of

Rome” forces its members to —
“ ...first get a license in writing before they may use them;

and to get that, they must approve themselves to their
Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the
dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition.
Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the eighth that
there should be any license granted to have them in the
vulgar tongue... So much are they afraid o f the light of the
Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh)
that they will not trust the people with it...Y ea, so
unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the
people’s understanding in any sort, that they are not
ashamed to confess that we forced them to translate it into
English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad
cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is
not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the
touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it
the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor,
lest his deeds should be reproved; neither is it the plain-
dealing merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or
the meteyard, brought in place, but he that useth
deceit...Yea, why did the Catholicks (meaning Popish
Romanists) always go in jeopardy for refusing to go to
hear it?...all is sound for substance in one or other o f our
worst of ours far better than
editions, and the
their authentick Vulgar ..The Romanists therefore
in refusing to hear, and daring to bum the word translated,
did no less than despite the Spirit o f grace... Whereas they
urge for their second defense o f their vilifying and abusing
o f the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they
meet with, for that Heretics forsooth were the authors of
the translations: (Heretics they call us by the same right
that they call themselves Catholicks, both being wrong) we
marvel what divinity taught them so ...F o r what varieties
have they, and what alterations have they made, not only
o f their service books, portesses, and breviaries, but also of
their Latin translation?...Neither was there this

chopping and changing in the more ancient times only,
but also o f late...let us see therefore whether they
themselves be without fault this w ay...they that are less
sound themselves ought not to object infirmities to
others...Pope Leo the tenth allowed Erasm us’s translation
o f the New Testament, so much different from the
Vulgar...so we may say, that if the old Vulgar had been
at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and
charges been undergone about framing o f a new. If they
say, it was one Pope’s private opinion, and that he
consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with
them, and to aver, that more o f their chief men o f all sorts,
even their o w n ... Inquisitors...B ishop...C ardinal...do
either make new translations themselves, or follow new
ones o f other m en’s making, or note the Vulgar
interpreter for halting, none o f them fear to dissent from
him, nor yet to except against h im .. .Nay, we will yet come
nearer the quick. Doth not their Paris edition differ from
the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all
of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus
Quintus confess, that certain Catholicks (he meaneth
certain o f his own side) were in such a humour o f
translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking
occasion by them, though they thought no such matter,
did strive what he could, out o f so uncertain and manifold
a variety of translations, so to mingle all things, that
nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them?
&c. Nay further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an
inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent o f
his Cardinals, that the Latin edition o f the Old and New
Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be
authentick, is the same without controversy which he then
set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the
printinghouse o f Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface
before his Bible. And yet Clement the eighth, his
immediate successor, published another edition o f the
Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that o f
Sixtus, and many o f them weighty and material; and yet
this must be authentick by all m eans....so all the while that

our adversaries do make so many and so various
editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth
and authority o f them, they can with no show o f equity
challenge us for changing and correcting...W e know that
Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth that any variety of
readings o f their Vulgar edition should be put in the
margin; (which though it be not altogether the same thing
to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that w ay;).. .we have
shunned the obscurity of the Papist...w hereof their late
translation is full, and that o f purpose to darken the
sense...yet by the language thereof it may be kept from
being understood... Many other things we might give
thee warning of, gentle Reader, if we had not exceeded
the measure o f a preface already” (T h e entire The Translators to
the Reader, a v a ila b le fro m A .V . P u b lica tio n s, co n tain s e v e n m o re d etails
o f th eir d istain fo r the V u lg a te , the C a th o lic C h u rch , and its n ew L a tin
d e rive d E n g lis h N e w T estam en t).
Scrivener’s Leaven Examined and Proven False
Has anyone else actually examined Scrivener s trumped-up

list of so-called KJB Latin-derived words before? (S e e s c r iv e n e r . The
New, pp. 655 , 656 .) Scrivener’s list requires knowledge of both Latin
and Greek, as well as access to various Greek and Latin

editions. I suspect God wanted to expose Scrivener, as almost
fifty years ago he gave me a private Latin tutor; for the last 50
years he has kindly surrounded me in a world o f wall-to-wall
antique and modem reference books. Shockingly, when this list
is actually examined the following is discovered:
1. Many, many of the instances cited on the Scrivener’s so-

called ‘Latin list’ are countenanced by Greek texts. In just
one book at my fingertips I found Greek support,
representing the oldest Greek manuscripts, for 24 out of
his 59 listed instances. (Individually documented at the en
o f this chapter.)
In 1996 Charles N. Tinsley, missionary to Greece, scoured

Greece for Greek New Testaments, both the ancient text and the
modem Greek. He sent five o f his discovered treasures to me.
Two o f them were parallel Bibles with “The New Testament in
Ancient and Modem Greek” in parallel columns. One was
“Printed for the Gideons International by United Bible
Societies.” The UBS can fool some o f the people most o f the
time, but they can not fool Greeks all o f the time, who have
used the Textus Receptus since the New Testament was first
given. These “Ancient” editions I received from Missionary
Tinsley have the KJB reading, which Scrivener pretends are
“Latin” only, in nearly half of those 24 instances (noted as
“Ancient” Greek on the following pages). And these were
printed by the corrupt UBS at that! The modem Greek parallel
also had the KJB reading many times. Brother Tinsley wrote the
following note inside one o f them, “This came from the Greek
Orthodox Bookshop. The lady told me that this is the most
ancient text they have” (S o m e in clu d e: The New Testament in Ancient and Modern
Greek, U n ited B ib le S o c ie tie s, U B S — E P F - 1 9 7 8 - 3 0 M - 2 6 3 D I ; The New Testament in Today’s
Greek Version (Ancient text with Today’s Greek translation), U n ited B ib le S o c ie tie s, 19 8 9 ,
G re e k D ig lo t N e w T estam en t, U B S - E P F 1 9 9 3 - 5 0 M - T G V 2 6 3 D I ) .
2. In all 24 instances Scrivener also had access to Greek

editions which match the KJB.
3. The KJB follows Tyndale or other earlier English Bibles in

all o f these 59 choices. This was done according to the rules
laid down for their translation. Therefore the question is not
entirely ‘what Greek sources did the KJB translators have?’
but ‘what Greek manuscripts, pre-English and Old English
Holy Bibles did Tyndale, the continental traveler, have
access to over 350 years before Scrivener?’ (S e e G .A . R ip lin g e r , In
Awe o f Thy Word, A ra rat, V A : A V P u b lica tio n s, 2 0 0 3 fo r d etails). That question
neither Scrivener nor anyone else can answer. Documented

elsewhere in this book is evidence proving that God has
used editions other than the Greek and Hebrew to preserve
certain readings.
4. In several cases, the KJB would have had to translate a non

sense sentence, not countenanced by the English language.
Scrivener’s RV, likewise adds words in these cases.
5. In a few cases, the reading o f the KJB is merely one of the

many English synonyms of a Greek word, which the KJB
and all new versions use in either this or other places. He
charges that in a few places the KJB “corresponds but
loosely with any form o f the Greek original...” (S c riv e n e r, The
New, ix ). Loosely or tightly, it still corresponds and he has no
right to assume they had no Greek evidence just because the

Latin Bible also says something similar. All Bibles are
similar.
If one or two questions in Scrivener’s ‘Latin list remain,

after considering all o f these explanations, it would be easier to
ascribe honesty to the KJB translators than to Scrivener. They
said that they followed “the Originall Greeke.” They said they
had Greek evidence for their choices. If Scrivener wants to
charge them with lying, he must prove that they are lying. The
KJB translators have shown that they believe the Received text
used by all pure Bible versions. Scrivener, in his book Six
Lectures, has flatly declared that he does not believe many of
the important verses and words in this Received text, but often
prefers the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS.. Who is more
believable? Obviously we must trust the men whom Go
entrusted to translate the Holy Bible (KJB) that has been used
for 400 years, not one man who was party to the production of
the corrupt Revised Version with Westcott, Hort and Vaughan.
Where is Scrivener’s RV today? God has shown what readings

he is preserving.
Conclusion: Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus does n o t

represent, as D.A. Waite alleges, the “e x a c t G r e e k t e x t u s
RECEPTUS THAT UNDERLIES THE KING JAMES BIBLE.” The Case
is c lo s e d w it h th e f o llo w in g d o c u m e n t a t io n (quote fro m Scrivener’s
Annotated Greek New Testament, N J , C o llin g s w o o d : D e an B u rg o n S o c ie ty P r e s se s, title p a g e).
Scrivener’s Leaven: The Documentation
Scrivener’s one-man Greek text (and George Ricker Berry’s

Greek-English Interlinear, discussed thoroughly in the next
chapter) prove to have bits of coal which crumble at the cut o f a
diamond-sharp vernacular Holy Bible, ancient Greek
manuscripts, and Greek Bibles. Scrivener pretends that the KJB
readings in the following verse are not ‘the’ original. Therefore
Scrivener’s is not the “exact” “Originall Greeke” text that
underlies the KJB in the following verses. The following
analysis o f 52 verses from Scrivener’s list o f 59 so-called Latin-
based KJB readings, includes 24 instances (noted with a *)
where Greek textual evidence was easily available, even in my
office, to contravene Scrivener’s list. His text is no more valid
than any other Greek edition o f the Textus Receptus which
misrepresents these 24 verses. Most are not debatable at all. The
other instances are easily explained. Any apparent lack o f Greek
basis for a few items can remain afloat only because so small a
percentage o f the over 5,300 Greek manuscripts have ever been
collated and published. The following also documents 20 errors
in his Greek Textus Receptus. His text has other errors not listed
in this book. These are samples and do not represent all of
Scrivener’s departures from the “Originall Greeke” (S c riv e n e r, n e

New, pp . 655 , 656 ). The following also includes evidence from a
collation completed for this book by Dr. Nico Verhoef of

Switzerland. It documents Scrivener’s departures from the old
Reformation Bibles o f Europe, including the Dutch
Statenvertaling (1637 ed.), German Luther (1565 ed.), Swiss
Zwingli (1531 ed.), French Martin (1855 ed.), Spanish Reina
(1569), and Italian Diodati (1661 ed.). Also examined were
various other Received Text editions, such as the Dutch 1563,
German 1522, 1534, 1545, 1760, the French Olivetan (1535
ed.), French Ostervald (1890 ed.) and the Spanish Reina-Valera
1865) (letter on file). (A ll o f the afo rem e n tio n e d R e fo rm a tio n -era B ib le s w e re not
ex a m in e d fo r a ll v e rs e s , th ere fo re the o m issio n o f a B ib le in a listin g d o es n ot in d icate that it
d o es not m atch the K J B . T h e B ib le s that w e re u sed m a y not a lw a y s b e the o rig in al first ed ition,
but m a y be a later prin tin g, a s noted.)
20 errors in Scrivener’s Textus Receptus and 24 errors

(and 53 highly questionable places) in his ‘Latin list’
Matt. 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18, 19: The first
usage o f Beelzebub in the Greek and English New
Testament is spelled ‘Beelzebub,’ ending with a ‘b.’
Even Scrivener spells it correctly in Matt. 10:25.
Ignoring the principle o f first mention, Scrivener spells
it incorrectly, as ‘Beelzebul,’ ending with an ‘1’ in the
remainder o f the New Testament. In all 7 places the KJB
reading o f Beelzebub is seen in Tyndale, who had
access to very early English Bibles, as well as Greek and
vernacular Bible manuscripts, unavailable to Scrivener
who lived nearly 400 years further from the original.
Scrivener is following the Greek (Catholic)
Complutensian which, like him, only used the spelling
“Beelzebub” in Matt. 10:25. Matching the KJB are pure
vernacular Bibles such as the German, Danish, Latin,
Italian, Galice, and Bohemice, as seen in the Nuremberg

Polyglot of 1599, as well as Zwingli’s Swiss o f 1531,
Luther’s German of 1565, and the Italian Diodoti, 1661
edition. Did God give the entire body o f Christ
worldwide, the wrong spelling or did one apostate
church (Greek Orthodox) and a few Greek editors carry
forward an error? Jesus revealed truth to “babes” who
read Bibles, not ‘brains’ who spurn revivals. Scrivener
and George Ricker Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear
(Stephanus’s Text) spell it wrong (G e o rg e R ic k e r B e r r y , Greek-
English Interlinear New Testament, B a k e r B o o k H o u se reprint o f o rig in a l ed ition
issu e d b y H a n d y B o o k C o m p a n y , R e a d in g P A , 8th p rin tin g , Se p te m b e r 19 8 5 taken
fro m the 1 8 9 7 H in ds an d N o b le ,The Interlinear Literal Translation o f the Greek
New Testament, etc. and A New Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, etc.).
Scrivener pretends the KJB took its spelling here from ‘the
Latin,’ which is just one o f many correctly spelled vernacular
Bibles (even the NIV spells it correctly!). Actually the correct
spelling is a Hebraism taken from the Old Testament where
Baal-zebub is seen in such places as 2 Kings 1:2, and 1:3 in all
Bibles. The modern version’s, Beelzebul, is seen nowhere in
the Hebrew Old Testament, but is a N.T. corruption. Bible
critics excuse it by calling it an Aramaic variant, the ‘lord of
dung,’ rather than the correct Hebrew ‘lord of flies’ (S c h a ff,
Companion, p. 29 ).
*Mark 13:37 Scrivener gives the false impression that this and
scores o f other KJB readings are “not countenanced by”
Greek. In fact the KJB reading is seen in the Greek texts
of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford, who
have never been charged with basing any readings on
the Latin Bible (See Berry’s Interlinear footnote).
*Mark 14:43 The KJB omits the word “being,” wrongly

included in both Berry’s and Scrivener’s texts. Like the
KJB, it is omitted by the Greek texts o f Westcott,

Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and is bracketed by
Alford. (E v e n corru pt texts, su ch as th ese, rep resen t the true te x t in the m a in , or
th ey co u ld not p a ss a s ‘ the B ib le .’ ) Why does Scrivener try to
misrepresent the KJB’S Greek base? (S e e B e r r y ’ s Interlinear

fo o tn o tes.) Tyndale also correctly omits it. The “Ancient”
Greek New Testament, actually from Greece, matches

the KJB (See “Scrivener’s Leaven Examined and Proven
False” for bibliographic information). The German of
1565 and the Swiss o f 1531 read like the KJB.
*Luke 1:35 The Greek text of Lachmann adds “o f thee” in

brackets. Berry’s Interlinear (Stephanus) wrongly omits
it all together. Scrivener seems to charge that it is
coming from the Latin nascetur. But even Lachmann
recognizes it as Greek, as does Tyndale (See Berry s
Interlinear footnote). Although Scrivener questions the
KJB, he includes “o f thee” in his Greek text. The KJB
matches the Dutch o f 1637, the German o f 1565, the
Swiss o f 1531, and the French o f 1855.
*Luke 1:49 The Greek texts o f Westcott, Lachmann, Tregelles,

and Tischendorf follow the reading Scrivener accuses
the KJB of following without Greek evidence (S e e B e r r y ’ s
and Scrivener’s footnotes). Tyndale matches KJB.
*Luke 23:34 Scrivener claims the KJB translators follow sortes

(Latin: lots), but both the Greek texts o f Alford and
Tischendorf have the plural ‘lots’ in Luke 23:34, as does
the KJB (See Berry’s footnote). Both Scrivener and
Berry’s Greek texts wrongly have the singular ‘lot’ in all
gospels (Matt. 27:35 Mark 15:24 and John 19:24). The
Bishops,’ Coverdale, and Tyndale editions have the
plural like the KJB. The KJB matches the Italian Diodati
o f 1661, as well as the old Spanish.
*Luke 23:46 Scrivener claims that the KJB is following the

Latin ‘commendo’ (Latin: commit, commend), but the
Greek texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford and Westcott also have the Greek “I commit” (I
commend). (See Berry’s footnote; See also Scrivener’s
footnote on Luke 23 admitting that the Westcott and
Hort text has “commend”). The “Ancient” Greek New
Testament from Greece matches the KJB.
*John 7:9 Scrivener claims the KJB follows the Latin by

omitting “and,” but the Greek texts o f Griesbach,
Tischendorf, Tregelles also omit “de” (and), as does
Tyndale. (See Berry’s Interlinear footnote.) Yet both
Berry’s and Scrivener’s wrongly keep “and.” The KJB
matches the German o f 1565, as well as the Swiss of
1531.
John 10:16 Scrivener says that the KJB translated the Latin,
unum ovile (one fold), instead of ‘one flock.’ The Greek
manuscripts followed by the Great Bible and the Geneva
Bible of 1557 match the KJB. A fold is an enclosure;
this is a word-picture about Christ’s body. It is a
parallelism in the KJB: “not of this fo ld ...one fold.” A
fold can also refer to the aggregate o f sheep; thus fold
would simply be a synonym for the Greek for ‘flock’
('Oxford English Dictionary). Scrivener’s and Berry’s
Greek destroy the parallelism saying, ‘not o f this
fo ld ...one flock.’
*John 12:26 The KJB joins the Greek texts of Griesbach,

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford in
omitting “and” before “if any man.” Berry and Scrivener

both include it in error. (See Berry’s and Scrivener’s
footnotes at John 12:26.) The “Ancient” and modern
Greek New Testaments from Greece match the KJB.
The old Spanish omits “and,” also.
* j 0hn 18:1 The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tischendorf, and

Lachmann, as well as Tyndale, have the same reading as
the KJB (See Berry’s footnote).
Acts 2:22 The KJB’s word “approved” matches Tyndale’s

Greek source. Berry’s and Scrivener’s both err. The KJB
matches the German o f 1565, the Dutch o f 1637, the
Swiss of 1531, the French Martin o f 1855, the Italian
Diodati of 1661, and the old Spanish Bible.
Acts 4:32 The KJB’s “one heart” is in Tyndale. All of the

critical Greek texts have a variant here, omitting the
definite article as the KJB does.
**Acts 6:3 The KJB reading “we may appoint,” as opposed to

“we will appoint” of Berry’s and Scrivener s, is in the
Greek text o f Westcott, in the Greek Textus Receptus
text of Elzevir, as well as in Tyndale’s Version. The
modem Greek New Testament also matches the KJB.
The KJB matches the Dutch of 1637, the German of
1565, the Swiss of 1531, and the Italian Diodati of 1661.
Acts 7:26 The KJB agrees with Tyndale saying, “would have
set them at one again.” The KJB matches the Frenc
Martin of 1855.
Acts 7:44 Berry’s adds the Greek word for “among,” (before
“our fathers”) which Scrivener’s does not include. This
is also omitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,

and Alford which read “to our.” (See Berry’s
Interlinear.) The KJB omits “he who” as does Tyndale;
however, it is in Scrivener and Berry’s Greek. The KJB
matches the old Spanish, the Swiss o f 1531, and the
German of 1565.
Acts 10:20: Scrivener notes that the KJB adds “But,” but
actually it omits it. Scrivener is a confused man. The
KJB omits the introductory “But” following Tyndale;
Berry’s and Scrivener’s wrongly include it. The KJB
matches the Italian Diodati of 1661, the French Martin
o f 1855, and the Dutch SV o f 1637.
*Acts 13:1 The KJB agrees with Scrivener and Berry with the
spelling for ‘Simeon.’ Scrivener’s inclusion o f this word
in his ‘Latin’ list appears to be his error. Both the
“Ancient” and the modem Greek New Testaments
match the KJB.
*Acts 13:15 The KJB joins the Greek texts o f Lachmann,

Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford and Westcott, as well as
Tyndale, in including the word “any.” Berry and
Scrivener wrongly omit it. (See Berry’s and Scrivener’s
footnotes). The KJB matches the Dutch o f 1637, the old
Spanish, the Italian Diodati o f 1661, and the French
Martin o f 1855.
Acts 17:30: Both Tyndale and the KJB say “this ignorance.”
Both Berry and Scrivener’s wrongly say “ignorance”
alone. The KJB matches the old Spanish.
*Acts 19:20 The KJB and Tyndale say “the word o f God,”
Berry’s and Scrivener’s say, “the word o f the Lord.”
Scrivener is thinking ‘the word o f Scrivener.’

Scrivener’s book Six Lectures makes it clear that he is
his own god, as he shows here once again. Placing this
in a supposed Latin-based list is careless o f Scrivener.
Latin manuscripts do not agree in this verse. One Latin
edition in my possession says, “Ita fortiter crescebat
sermo Domini, et invalescebat” (Jesu Christi Domini Nostri Novum
Teslamentum, Theodore Bezae, Londoni: Sumptibus Societalis Bibliophilorum, orig,
1642, m c m l i v ) . Domini means ‘Lord in Latin; Dei is

‘God.’ Scrivener uses “Lord” in his Greek text; is he
following the Latin??? Latin Vulgate editions differ
sporadically, even those which supposedly are the same
edition. The Italian Diodati o f 1661 matches the KJB.
The KJB reading the “word of God” is based on a long

history o f ancient manuscripts and vernacular editions. Extant
Greek manuscripts from as early as the 5th and 6 centuries,
representing much earlier texts, have the word God in this
verse (e.g. D, E); these are Greek manuscripts which Scrivener
follows in other verses (see Six Lectures). Codex
Cantabrigiensis uses “God” in both its Greek and Latin parallel
edition (Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, ed. F re d e ric k H . S c riv e n e r, C a m b rid g e : D eigh to n ,
B e ll, and C o ., 1864). The most ancient versions use the word “God”
(e.g. Old Itala, itd, itw [fourth century]; Syriac, syrp [fifth
century] or earlier; the Armenian Bible, written in the 300s by
Chrysostom et a l). Scrivener and Berry wrongly join the United
Bible Society’s 4th edition, edited by Catholic Cardinal Carlo
Maria Martini. It states that its editors are “almost” sure that
‘Lord’ is better than “God” here. They are following the
Vaticanus manuscript (se e u b s 4, pp. 3 , 4 8 4 ). The NKJV follows von
Soden’s error-filled collation used by the Hodges-Farstad so
called Majority Text. Not a lot o f manuscripts were collated by
von Sodden and these few were carelessly done (See When the
KJV Departs From the so-called Majority by Dr. Jack

Moorman available from AV Publications).
When manuscripts are divided, the KJB always pays

particular attention to the context and always confirms the deity
of Christ. Although there are some manuscripts which use the
word “Lord,” the word “God” is critical here in proclaiming the
deity o f Christ. The book o f Acts progressively builds a case for
the deity o f the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 4 through 18 begins
using the phrase the “word o f God” eleven times. Chapters 8
through 15 o f Acts follow, using the phrase “word o f the Lord”
six times. (This is similar to the pattern of the initial use o f the
term “God” in the Old Testament, follow ed by the introduction
of the word “LORD.”) Old Testament Jews knew about the
“word o f God” and the “word of the Lord.” Acts 19:10
introduces the deity of Christ with the phrase, “word o f the Lord
Jesus.” Through this phrase readers are being taught that the
“Lord” o f the Old Testament is “Jesus.” Acts 19:20 culminates
returning to the use o f the phrase “word o f God,” thereby
showing that Jesus is not only the “Lord,” but he is also “God.”
Study o f a verse’s context and theological focus will always
determine the correct reading when a question arises.
Acts 23:15, Acts 24:25, Romans 16:4,1 Cor. 13:1, Col. 1:4, 1
Thes. 2:16 have readings in which the KJB matches
Tyndale and his early sources.
*Acts 26:6 The KJB and Tyndale, along with the Greek texts of
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Westcott,
say “our fathers,” not “the fathers” as does Berry’s and
Scrivener’s (See Berry’s and Scrivener’s footnotes). The
KJB matches the old Spanish, the German o f 1565, the
Swiss o f 1531, and the French Martin o f 1855.
1 Cor. 16:23 The KJB and the Geneva 1557 have “our Lord,”
while Berry’s and Scrivener’s have “the Lord.” The KJB
matches the old Spanish and the French Martin o f 1855.
*Gal. 4:15 The KJB has “Where,” joining the Greek texts of
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Westcott,
(instead o f Berry’s and Scrivener’s “What”). Scrivener
pretends it comes only from the Latin ubi (wherein,
where, whereby). See Berry’s and Scrivener’s
footnotes). The KJB reading is seen preserved in the old
Spanish, the Dutch of 1637, the German o f 1565, the
Swiss o f 1531, and the French Martin o f 1855.
*Eph. 6:24 Among a number o f typos in the first printing o f the

original 1611 KJB the word ‘Amen’ was omitted
accidentally at the end o f the book o f Ephesians.
Scrivener wants to pretend they were following the
Vulgate. However, it was immediately placed back in
the text by the original translators who fixed numerous
errors o f the press. It has remained in the Bible for
nearly 400 years. Berry’s Interlinear includes it; it is in
both “Ancient” and modern Greek Bibles. Yet
Scrivener’s omits it because he thinks it came from the
Latin. Again, Scrivener is his own god. Amen.
*Phil. 2:21 The KJB and Tyndale, along with the Greek texts of
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford and Westcott,
say “Jesus Christ,” rather than the incorrect inversion
“Christ Jesus,” as does Berry’s and Scrivener’s (See
Berry’s and Scrivener’s footnotes). The KJB reading is
seen in the Swiss o f 1531 and the French o f 1855.
*Col. 1:24 The KJB starts with “Who.” Although Scrivener

charges that ‘w ho’ comes from the Latin qui, and not
from the Greek, he includes it in his Greek text. Both

Berry’s and W estcott’s remove ‘w ho’ and start with
‘now.’ Why does Scrivener list it as a word he does not
use, when in fact he does? (Nunc means ‘now ’ in Latin.)
The KJB reading is preserved also in the Dutch o f 1637
and the old Spanish.
*1 Thes. 2:12 KJB and Tyndale say “who [which] hath called.”
The margin o f W estcott’s text notes such a variant in the
Greek text (See Scrivener’s footnote).
1 Thes. 2:13 The KJB and Tyndale have “not as the word.” The
KJB clearly places the word “as” in italics. Scrivener
places this phrase in his list o f words coming from the
Latin. However, the only word which matches the Latin
is “as” (ut) and the translators place it in italics. Without
it the English sentence is not grammatically correct.
Scrivener is grasping at straws. The KJB reading is seen
in the German o f 1565, the Swiss o f 1531, and the
French of 1855, which include the word “as,” using no
italics. The Dutch o f 1637 includes “as,” placing it in
italics, like the KJB. The old Spanish and Italian Bibles
also match the KJB here.
!*1 Tim. 1:17 Scrivener is lying here. The same Greek word,
aion, that the KJB translators (and Tyndale) translated as
“eternal” here, is translated as “eternal” in Ephesians
3:11 (“the eternal purpose”). In fact, the KJB translators
translated aion as ‘eternal’ 42 other times for a total of
44 times. Members o f the church of England, especially
those on the RV committee, had serious problems with
the word ‘eternal’ and ‘everlasting.’ (See chapter on
Liddell-Scott Lexicon, e.g. Dodgson). They constantly
turn aion into ‘ages.’ Are they hoping for a parole from
hell? Both the “Ancient” and the modem Greek New
Testaments match the KJB, as well as all Greek
manuscripts and editions.
1 Tim. 3:15 Scrivener has strangely ascribed the KJB reading to

the Latin expression oporteat te, which means “it
behoves you.” The KJB is based on the Greek word dei,
which means “ought” or “behoves.” The KJB translators
needed no Latin to come up with their translation o f the
word “ought.” The KJB (and all translations) translate
that Greek word as ‘ought’ (“oughtest”) numerous
times; the KJB translated it as “behoved” in Luke 24:46.
The Greek begins by addressing “thou” (“thou mayest
know”); the subsequent use o f “thou” is demanded in
English and incomplete in any Greek text. Translation
demands that it be filled in. The concluding term
“thyself,” as opposed to “one’s self,” is the only logical
grammatical sequence, evidenced in many vernacular
Bibles including Tyndale, and evidently in the
“Originall Greeke” countenanced by the KJB translators.
The German o f 1565, the Swiss o f 1531, and the old
Spanish match the KJB.
*1 Tim. 4:15 Again, Scrivener charges the KJB with having no

Greek basis for omitting sv (e.g. ‘among’); yet the Greek
texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and
Westcott join in omitting it also and ending with the one
Greek word for “to all,” just like the KJB (See Berry’s
and Scrivener’s footnotes). The KJB matches the Dutch
of 1637, the German o f 1565, the French of 1855, and
the old Spanish.
2 Tim. 1:18 Again, Berry’s text does not match Scrivener’s.

Berry’s word for ‘ministered’ ends in ‘n,’ (v) while
Scrivener’s ends in e (s). Scrivener’s charge about Latin
should not include the word ‘m inistravif which simply
means ‘ministered,’ just as does the Greek word in all
Greek texts. His Latin ‘mihi is in Tyndale’s Bible;
Tyndale has hardly been accused o f following a Latin
exemplar. The KJB words “unto me” are in many
vernacular Holy Bibles, such as the Dutch 1637, the
German o f 1565, the Swiss o f 1531, and the French o f
1855.
James 3:14 The Greek text has the plural “ye” and “your.” To
have these plurals refer to and modify a singular noun,
“heart” would be a choice any English teacher could
question. Therefore the KJB refuses to make a
questionable grammatical choice and therefore uses the
plural “hearts,” in this context instead o f “heart,” as seen
in Berry’s and Scrivener’s. Other vernacular Bibles,
such as Tyndale, match the KJB, attesting to the original
reading. The KJB matches the French o f 1855 and the
Old Spanish.
*1 Peter 2:13 The KJB omits the word “therefore,” retained

wrongly by Scrivener’s and Berry’s Greek texts. The
KJB joins Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and
Alford’s Greek texts in omitting this word. Vernacular
editions, such as Tyndale, also omit it. Again Scrivener
charges the KJB with following the Latin, when there
was Greek evidence available. The KJB matches the
German o f 1565, the Swiss o f 1531, and the old
Spanish.
1 John 3:20 The KJB rightly omits the second use o f “for,”
which if included, like Berry’s and Scrivener’s, creates a
non-translatable nonsense sentence. The KJB is joined
by Tyndale and other vernacular versions, reflective of
the undoubtedly grammatically correct original. The
KJB matches the Swiss o f 1531, the Dutch o f 1637, the
German o f 1565, the French of 1855, the Italian Diodati
o f 1661, and the old Spanish Bibles.
1 John 5:8: In the KJB and Tyndale, the last phrase says “these
three,” instead o f “the three,” as seen in Berry’s and
Scrivener’s work. The “three” had already been
referenced in the sentence. Therefore an antecedent is
there, making “the,” seem out o f place. The KJB
matches the Dutch o f 1637, the German o f 1565, the
Swiss of 1531, the French o f 1855, the Italian Diodati of
1661, and the old Spanish.
2 John 3: The KJB and Tyndale have “be,” instead of “shall

be,” as seen in Scrivener’s and Berry’s. Scrivener is
forgetting his subjective Canons of Textual Criticism, so
strongly pronounced in his Six Lessons. The phrase
“Grace be,” is New Testament usage; “Grace shall be,”
is not. The KJB matches the Dutch o f 1637, the German
o f 1565, the Swiss of 1531, and the Italian Diodati of
1661.
*Rev. 13:10: A missing word, “into,” is supplied by the Greek

texts o f Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Alford. (See
Berry’s and Scrivener’s footnotes). Once again the
Greek original followed by the KJB translators is lost in
Scrivener’s and Berry’s one-man editions. Both the
“Ancient” and the modem Greek New Testaments
match the KJB. The KJB matches the German o f 1565

and the Swiss o f 1531.
Rev. 16:11: The KJB and Tyndale omit the grammatically

redundant second usage o f sk (because of). The KJB
also matches the French Martin o f 1855. Good Greek is
not always good English {if it was actually in the Greek
original at all). It is wrongly retained in Scrivener’s and
B e rry S. (T h e N A S B 19 9 5 U pd ate, w h ic h c a lls it s e lf a fo rm a l e q u iv a le n c y
tran slatio n , o m its the G re e k “ A n d ” c o u n tle ss tim e s and fe w seem to ca re.)
Rev. 17:9 The KJB and Tyndale begin the sentence with
“And,” which Scrivener’s and Berry’s omit. The KJB
could not have copied the Latin, as he charges, as the
Latin version begins with et hie (“And this”). The KJB
matches the German 1565 and the Swiss of 1531.
*Rev. 18:23 The KJB and the Geneva o f 1557, as well as the
Greek texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Westcott,
agree on “shall shine,” as opposed to “may shine,” seen
in Scrivener’s and Berry’s Greek editions. (See Berry’s
and Scrivener’s footnotes). The “Ancient” Greek New
Testament matches the KJB. The KJB also matches the
Italian Diodati o f 1661, the German o f 1565, the Swiss
o f 1531, the French of 1855, and the Dutch o f 1637.
Scrivener Drops Jesus
Scrivener admits that his list o f 59 places where he did not

follow the K JB’s “Originall Greeke” is “quite incomplete and in
a few cases precarious” (S c riv e n e r, The New, p. 6 5 6 ). So, tiny land mines
lurk on the lines o f his text. One live bomb he neglects to
mention is his omission o f the name o f “Jesus.” His Greek text
misrepresents Mark 2:15 where the KJB uses the name o f Jesus
twice. Scrivener wrongly omits one of these instances. Phil 2:10

says, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bo w ...” —
both knees. Pure old Holy Bibles all include the name o f Jesus
twice. These include the Spanish Reina Valera pre-1599-1602,
the French o f 1599, and the Old Latin (pre-5th century). The
name of Jesus occurs twice in today’s good foreign editions. It
is used twice in today’s only pure Spanish Bible, the Valera
1602 Purificada (M e x ic o : Se m b ra d o r D e L a S e m illa In co rru p tib le , 2 0 0 8 ; a v aila b le
fro m a .v . P u b lica tio n s). It is even used twice in the sometimes marred
Reina-Valera 1960. It is there twice in the French, Le Nouveau

Testament (T rad u it su r L e s T e x te s O r ig in a u x G r e c s V e rs io n D ’ O ste rv a ld , M issio n
B a p tiste M aran ath a, 1996). The Polish New Testament has Jesus twice,
as “Jezzus... Jezusem” (B ib lia T o Je s t C a le P ism o S w ie te S ta re g o I N o w e g o

T estam en tu Z H e b g a jsk ie g o I G r e c k ie g o J e z y k a N a P lo s k i P iln ie I W ie rn ie P rzetlo m aczo n a).
The list o f vernacular Bibles which have the word ‘Jesus’ twice
in Mark 15 is endless. The context will determine which reading
is correct. If the name o f ‘Jesus’ is replaced with the pronoun
“He,” as it is in the NASB and all new versions, it could refer to
“Levi,” seen in verse 14. God is not the author o f confusion.
This analysis has demonstrated at least 20 errors in

Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus which have Greek
textual support, 24 errors in his supposed ‘Latin only’ list
which actually do have Greek textual support, and 53 places
where his judgment can be seriously questioned. There are
other errors in his text not discussed in this book.
Translator Exposes Scrivener’s Departures
In his efforts to provide a Bible for the Gypsies of Romania,

translator and missionary Peter Heisey, o f Timisoara, Romania,
evaluated Scrivener’s Greek text and observed numerous
departures from the Received Text. He states, “[I]n the m in u tia e
he [Scrivener] has a number of places (I’ve counted between 24

and 37 depending on how much mercy and grace I wish to
exercise, and that is not a full comparison with the KJB) that are
different than the reading underlying the K JB...[H ]e ignored
the old vernacular versions/readings, as well as other Greek
texts and readings, which the KJB translators used as being the
best representatives o f the originals.” The following is an
abridgement of his collation (the v e r a c ity o f w h ic h I h a v e not co n firm e d in e v e ry
d etail, n o r d o I n e c e s sa r ily reco m m en d the cited “ m a jo rity te x t,” or D ana & M an te y ).
“Scrivener also places an asterisk * where, in his text,

he puts what he claims are the non-Beza readings which he
alleges were used by the KJB translators (p. 648). Yet in
at least nine passages he rejected the Beza readings
chosen or left by the KJB translators: M ark 9:42; John
8:6; 16:25; Acts 7:16; Acts 27:12; ICorinthians 14:10;
Revelation 9:19; 19:14, 18. Even Scrivener him self in his
Appendix shows the Beza support for the readings chosen
by the KJB translators in these passages. Nevertheless,
those readings are NOT the ones which Scrivener put in
his text. Furthermore, on page 656, Scrivener lists some 60
instances where he thinks the KJB translators followed the
Latin Vulgate in preference to Beza. Though the
translators may not have followed Beza in all these cases,
it is not necessarily true that the KJB translators followed
the Vulgate. There is Greek support for these references as
well. In fact Scrivener him self kept at least nine of these
alleged “Vulgate” readings in his text matching the
KJV (Luke 1:25; 20:35; John 7:9; Acts 10:20; 13:1;
13:15; 17:30; Colossians 1:4; Colossians 1:24).
However, it is beyond the scope o f this work to enter into a
study o f all o f the items in the foregoing paragraph.
An additional question to be dealt with in these kinds o f

situations is why Scrivener should be granted “final”
authority in distinction from or over the KJB translators. I
am in no way putting those men on an unwarranted
pedestal, but I am not convinced that Scrivener’s

capabilities would match the combined abilities o f the KJB
translators (or any one o f them individually?).
The real problem with Scrivener’s text is that in certain

instances he did not adjust his text to match the readings
underlying the King James Bible (KJB), in spite o f the fact
that it is thought that his intent and/or responsibility was to
do so. The evidence for his failure to do this will follow.
Often at issue is the fact the KJV translators evidently
believed that the evidence for the reading they followed
was better attested. They were convinced that it was the
superior reading, and in fact better represented (exactly
represented?!!) the text o f the original. NOTE: 1 repeat,
NOTE: The issue o f “what Greek text” is not really the
issue. The translators may not have followed an extant
GREEK text or manuscript. The evidence they had for the
reading they chose and followed evidently (for all we
know) came from lectionaries, quotes in the church
fathers, vernacular versions, etc. Thus the “Greek text”
which the KJB guys believed they were following was, in
fact, the original Greek text, and here I do mean THE
original Greek text reading (as represented in the
lectionaries, quotes, versions, etc., in contrast to extant
Greek texts or manuscripts). Consequently, Scrivener
should be corrected where he clearly departed from the
reading chosen by the KJV translators.
1. Mark 14:43 - The text should NOT have the word wn

(oon - “being”). Neither Tyndale nor the KJB have it.
Scrivener mistakenly has wn (oon - “being”) in the text.
2. John 16:25 - The text should indeed have all’ ercetai
(all’ erchetai; “alia” = “but”) rather than Scrivener’s mere
ercetai (“erchetai” without all’, i.e., without “but”). The
KJB followed Beza’s 2, 3, 4, 5 editions, Stephanus, and the
Complutensian Polyglot. The majority text reading has all'
ercetai as well.
The fact is that most o f the electronic Bibles are really
a mess, including here, and very inconsistent in
representing the underlying Greek text (including in
interlinear forms o f the electronic Bibles). Power Bible has

problems, that’s for sure.
3. Acts 7:26 - The text should read sunhllassen
(suneellassen - “would have set them”; imperfect - see
Dana & Mantey p. 189). Scrivener mistakenly uses
sunhlasen (suneelasen - “set them”; aorist, active,
indicative). The KJB translators followed C, D, Latin, and
Tyndale here as having the better attested reading.
Furthermore, the aorist is not ever used, as far as is known,
for the imperfect idea (cf. Dana & Mantey, p. 199).
4. Acts 19:20 - The text should read qeou (theou - “God”)
not kuriou (kuriou - “Lord”). Scrivener mistakenly has
kuriou (kuriou - “Lord”) instead o f qeou (theou - “God”
with KJB). The KJB translators followed the Old Itala, D,
E, it[d], it[w], Syriac, syr[p], Armenian Bible (300’s),
Beza’s Codex Cantabrigiensis. Theologically speaking, the
word “God” here (as distinct from Lord) could be
important regarding the Deity o f Christ and His/God’s
Word (cf. Acts 19:10, “word o f the Lord Jesus”).
5. Acts 26:6 - The text should read pateras hmwn
(pateras heemoon - “our fathers”) rather than Scrivener’s
mere pateras (pateras - “fathers”). Tyndale also reads
correctly here (“our fathers”).
6. Acts 27:17 - The text should read surthn (surteen -
“quicksands”/sandbanks; plural) rather than Scrivener’s
surtin (surtin - (“quicksand”/sandbank; singular). The KJB
translators believed that the reading surthn (surteen -
“quicksands”; plural) from Stephanus 1, Complutensian
Polyglot, Erasmus, Aldus (1518), and Colinaeus (1534)
was the better attested reading.
7 . 1 Corinthians 1 4 :1 0 - The text should read ouden autwn
(ouden autoon - “none o f them”) rather than Scrivener’s
mere ouden (ouden - “none”). The KJB translators
followed Stephanus 1550 and perhaps Beza here.
Colinaeus also has “ouden autoon” (“none o f them”). The
majority text reading also has ouden autwn.
8. Galatians 4:15 - The text should read pou (pou -
“where” [KJB]) rather than Scrivener’s mistaken tis (tis -
usually, “what”). The KJB translators evidently believed

that the better attested reading is “pou”.
9. Ephesians 6:24 - The text should read or have amhn
(ameen - “Amen”). Unfortunately, Scrivener mistakenly
omits this. The KJB translators followed Stephanus 1550
here. The majority text reading has amhn as well.
10. II Timothy 1:18 - The text should read dihkonhse moi
(dieekoneese moi - “ministered to m e”) rather than just
dihkonhse (dieekoneese - “ministered”) as Scrivener has.
11. Revelation 9:16 - The text should have the definite
article twn (toon - “o f the”) before strateumatwn
(strateumatoon - “army”). Scrivener wrongly omits the
definite article here. The KJB translators evidently
believed that the majority text reading is the better attested
reading here in contrast to Scrivener.
12. Revelation 10:8 - The text should indeed have the
definite article tou (tou - “o f the”) before aggelou (angelou
- “angel”). Unfortunately, Scrivener wrongly omits the
definite article here. The KJB translators followed the
better attested reading (from the majority text manuscripts,
the Complutensian Polyglot, and the Plantin Polyglot)
which has the definite article tou (“o f the”).
definite article tois de deilois (tois de delios - “but the
fearful”) and not just deilois de (delios de - “but fearful
[ones]”). Unfortunately, Scrivener omits it from his text.
The KJB translators followed the majority text and
Complutension Polyglot reading here as being better
attested than what Scrivener has. It is true that articulated
and anarthrous construction issues could enter in here (cf.
Dana & Mantey).
The following passages (among others possibly) are noted

due their textual import and the bearing that Matthew 4:4,
M atthew 5:17-18, and Galatians 3:16 have on the matter o f
spelling and especially where it might or could or would
make a difference in exegesis, preaching, or teaching (and
pronunciation).
14. Matthew 12:24, 12:27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18, 19

- The passages should have Beelzebub (“Beelzebub”).
However in Scrivener, all have Beelzeboul (“Beelzebul”)
instead o f the KJB Beelzebub. The KJB follows Tyndale
and, says Scrivener, the Latin Vulgate. The KJB translators
believed that the best attested reading from all sources is
Beelzebub as evidenced by Tyndale’s use o f it and so with
Tyndale used Beelzebub. Compare Matthew 10:25.
Scrivener should change/fix his text to Beelzebub (with the
KJB) unless he, as only one man, wishes to go up against
the 54+ learned men. As to finding a Greek text which
reads Beelzebub, this is not so necessary or significant as
is supposed. Once again, the issue o f “a Greek text” is not
really the issue. The best attested reading, or best reading
representative (for as much as we can tell) o f the original,
is really the issue. The weight o f evidence may be from
sources other than “a Greek text” . The evidence for the
reading chosen and followed by the KJV translators may
have come from lectionaries, quotes in the church fathers,
old vernacular versions, etc., and from the KJV translators’
point o f view, the reading they chose best represented the
reading o f the autographs.
The following item s...are in the “Scrivener should

probably be left alone for now” category. I’m not saying
that they shouldn’t be corrected, but just that I ’ve found a
way to let them alone. Personally, I think they should
probably be fixed.
1. Acts 6:3 - The text should read katasthswmen

(katasteesoomen - “we may appoint”; subjunctive) rather
than Scrivener’s mistaken katasthsomen (katasteesomen -
“we will appoint”; future, active, indicative). The KJB
translators evidently believed that the better attested
reading from examining all sources available was
“katasteesoomen” (“we may appoint”). In this they
followed Tyndale. The majority text reading also has
katasthsw m en...[however] it is remotely possible that the
future active indicative can express purpose when used
with the relative (cf. Dana & Mantey, bottom p. 284).
2. Acts 27:12 - The text should read kata liba kai cwron
(kata liba kai chooron - “toward the southwest and
northwest”) rather than Scrivener’s kata liba kai kata
cwron (kata liba kai kata chooron - “toward the southwest
and the northwest”). The KJB translators followed Beza 3,
4, 5 here in considering that reading to be the better
attested one. It is perhaps theoretically possible that the
translation o f Scrivener into English could come out as in
the KJB.
This does not have to make a difference in the English
translation. However the problem is that the difference
might indeed make a difference in a translation into a
language other than English. Thus the underlying word(s)
do become, or at the very least could become, quite
critical, i.e., if Scrivener is not “fixed”, then this could
have an effect on translation into some other language than
English. I still think Scrivener may be wrong here given
the fact that Beza 3, 4, 5 were followed by the KJB
translators as representing the best attested reading.
3. I Thessalonians 2:12 - The text should read kalesantos
(kalesantos - “hath called”; aorist active indicative, i.e.,
past tense) rather than Scrivener’s erroneous kalountos
(kalountos - “calls”; present tense).
From a translational perspective a case could be made
for the past tense “meaning” o f a present tense v erb ...
4. I Timothy 4:15 - The text should N O T have en (en -
“in”, “in all things”) as Scrivener has. The KJB translators
felt that the better attested reading was without en (en; i.e.,
“to all”).
It is possible that no translational difference would be
made if one o f the more remote meanings o f “en” (“to” as
in I Corinthians 7:15) were involved here and thus
Scrivener could possibly be left alone.
5. I Peter 2:13 - The text should NOT have oun (oun -
“then”, “therefore”) at the beginning o f the verse.
Scrivener is mistaken here and that “oun” should NOT be
in the text. The KJB translators believed that the best
attested reading did not have “oun” here. Cf. Tyndale (and
the L atin)...[I]t is possible that the KJV translators simply
left this untranslated here (into English) as it seems they’ve

done in other situations.
6. I John 3:20 - Scrivener wrongly adds a second oti (hoti
- “for”, “that”, “indeed”) at the beginning o f the second
phrase. The second “hoti” should NOT be in the text. The
KJB translators believed that the best attested reading did
not have the second “hoti”. Cf. Tyndale (and the
L atin)...[I]t is possible that the KJV translators simply left
this untranslated here (into English).
7. II John 3 - The text should read estw (estoo - “be”;
imperative) and NOT as Scrivener’s mistaken estai (estai -
“shall be”; future). The KJB translators evidently believed
that the best attested reading was estw (estoo - “be”;
imperative) as was evidenced in Tyndale (and the Latin).
This one could be put on hold as well pending further
investigation or could perhaps be kept as Scrivener has it.
The imperative use o f the future tense may be a possibility
here.
8. Revelation 6:14 — The text should have the definite
article o (o - “the”) before ouranos (ouranos - “heaven”).
Unfortunately, Scrivener omits it here. The KJB translators
followed the Complutensian Polyglot and the Plantin
Polyglot as the better attested reading.
[Scrivener him self lists Erasm us’ Complutensian
Polyglot and Plantin’s (Antwerp) Polyglot.]... [T]he
anarthrous construction could be involved here placing
emphasis on something other than identity or mere
identity, (cf. Dana & Mantey pp. 138, 149, 150, 151)
9. Revelation 9:19 - The text should read ai gar (hai gar -
“for their”; plural). Scrivener has the singular h gar (hee
gar - “for the” [power o f them ...]). The KJB translators
followed Stephanus, Beza, Erasmus, Aldus (1518),
Colinaeus (1534). It is possible that no translational
difference would be involved here.
Though this could also be put on hold or even perhaps
kept as Scrivener has it, I do have an answer to some o f the
objections raised on this. The KJB translators could have
used Stephanus here and still translated as singular. There
are numerous examples o f this in the N.T. but some that
quickly come to mind are in M atthew 14:28 and 14:29

where the plural (hudata) is translated as the singular
“water”. I believe that Robertson’s comments on p. 408 are
valid here. Additionally the word for “heaven(s)” is
usually plural in the phrase “kingdom o f heaven”
[translated singular]. Thus Scrivener may indeed be wrong
here.
10. Revelation 10:7 - Unfortunately Scrivener wrongly
has/adds kai (kai - “and”) before telesqh (telesthee -
“should be finished”). The KJB followed a reading from
the Complutensian Polyglot and the Plantin Polyglot which
did not have kai before telesqh believing that it was the
best attested reading.
Scrivener indicates in his notes that the KJB
translators followed Erasmus here (Complutensian) and
the Plantin (Antwerp) Polyglot. [As to “a Greek text which
omits the ‘kai’”, once again the issue o f best attested
reading is what needs to be dealt with - whether that best
attested reading comes from extant Greek texts or from the
weight o f evidence found in other sources. The issue o f
“what Greek text” is not really the issue. The translators
m ay not have followed an extant GREEK text or
manuscript. The evidence they had for the reading they
chose, and followed, evidently (for all we know) came
from lectionaries, quotes in the church fathers, vernacular
versions, etc., and from their point o f view best
represented the reading o f the original Greek text reading.]
However, 1 have moved this to the “probably leave
Scrivener alone for now” category because it is possible
that the KJV translators simply left this untranslated here
(into English).
definite article ths (tees - “the”) before polews (poleoos -
“city”). Unfortunately, Scrivener mistakenly omits the
definite article here. The KJB followed the majority text
reading as being the better attested.
This can probably be left as Scrivener has it, though

I’m not ready to grant that Scrivener is definitely correct
here. The fact that the translation into ENGLISH is not

affected may not mean that a translation into another
language would not be affected.
definite article tou (tou - “the” [the slain one / the one
slain]) before esfagmenou (esphagmenou - “slain”).
Unfortunately, Scrivener wrongly omits the definite article
here. The KJB followed the majority text reading, the
Complutensian Polyglot, and the Plantin Polyglot. It is
possible that the translation into English would come out
the same.
This can possibly be left as Scrivener has it, though
I’m not ready to grant that Scrivener is definitely correct
here. The fact that the translation into ENGLISH is not
affected may not mean that a translation into another
language would not be affected.
13. John 10:16b - The KJB has “one fold” (with the
Vulgate and some other versions as being better attested in
the opinion o f the 54 learned men) while Scrivener has
“one flock.” The definition fo rpoimnh does indeed include
the possibility o f “fold” so this may be translational rather
than textual although there may indeed be a textual issue
h ere...” (letter on file).
What Next?
What will Greek-only followers do after seeing that

Scrivener’s Greek New Testament does not always represent
the pure Greek text underlying the KJB, as so often stated? On
what basis can they pretend Scrivener’s Greek text is perfect?
Will they become “early printed Greek texts only”? Which one
of them? Or will they become Scrivenerites, followers o f their
god-man who was given the final key to the Textus Receptus
after nearly 2000 years without it (yet who himself did not even
believe in the verbal plenary inspiration o f even the originals)?
On what basis can they pretend Scrivener’s is the exact

Greek text underlying the KJB? Perhaps they can pretend that
Scrivener did not like many o f these readings because they
match the texts o f Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and
Westcott. That will not work because in his book, Six Lectures,
Scrivener recommends numerous non-TR readings found in the
Greek texts o f Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott.
Even the corrupt texts contain a very large percentage o f correct
KJB readings or they could not pass off as counterfeits. These
are non-doctrinal readings which were usually not tampered
with by the ancient heretics. In any case, no longer can anyone
be honest and call it the “exact” “Greek text followed by” the
Authorized Version (KJB). Those who continue to call it the
preserved, let alone the inspired, words o f God will not find
themselves among Scrivener’s or anyone’s “intelligent”
followers.
Scrivener says that the scribes who made copies o f the Bible
“were not exempt from the common failings o f humanity.” Why
should we hold to his one-man Greek text when he admits,
“Human imperfection will be sure to mar the most highly-
finished performance and to leave its mark on the most
elaborate efforts after accuracy.” Was he alone exempt from
human error? Or was Beza, leaning upon a Latin translation of
the Syriac? Were their unique Greek choices inspired like the
Holy Bible? (Scrivener, s ix Lectures pp. 5 ,6 ) . Holy Bible or unholy men,
who is safe to follow?
Greek-only advocates will be forced to admit:
■ Scrivener did not follow through on his RV assignment to

re-create the Greek text underlying the KJB in at least 20
places where he ignored the Greek manuscripts underlying

the KJB.
■ A false impression has been generated by Scrivener’s title,

to which most have fallen prey.
■ A false impression has been gathered from Scrivener’s

Appendix which lists 59 places where he asserts the KJB
reading came from the Latin, when it can easily be proven
that at least 24 o f these have Greek support.
■ Scrivener was disingenuous in limiting his edition to

“earlier” “printed editions” (before the KJB), without
including “earlier” Greek manuscripts and their readings
(before the KJB), of which even he knew.
■ Scrivener’s heretical views on the Greek text o f the Bible,

seen in the previous chapter, disqualify him as a godly and
discerning judge o f the text in those areas which distinguish
his one-man edition from the “Originall Greeke” underlying
the KJB.
■ Quibbling about any one or even a dozen o f his proven

errors or alleging some minor disagreement with this
collation, will not remove the problem; one error in
Scrivener’s disannuls the supposed infallibility o f his text.
Any disagreement about the aforementioned verses may
also arise from the wide variety o f interpretations o f both
Latin and Greek words. Translation is not a science as
evidenced by the great variety o f words in the hundreds of
corrupt English ‘translations’ which have followed the same
Greek text.
In frustration, the very timid may run back to the liberal’s

old resting grounds — the originals, pretending that they alone
were God himself speaking to his people. Is their God as vapid

as they are, and likewise so powerless and careless about
preserving his word? Does their God speak broken English?
How does he hear their prayers if he speaks only Greek and
Hebrew? Does he need a translator? Did he not create the
multitude o f languages at Babel? The following five books,
available from AV Publications, give ample evidence o f the
preservation and inspiration o f the Holy Bible, “the volume of
the book,” “which liveth and abideth forever” in “every nation
under heaven.”
1. In Awe o f Thy Word: Understanding the King James

Bible, Its History and Mystery, Letter by Letter by
G.A. Riplinger (1200 pages).
2. The Need For An Every Word Bible by Jack Hyles
3. Lively Oracles by James Sightler, M.D.
4. Further Thoughts on the Word o f God by John
Asquith
5. King James, His Bible and Its Translators by
Laurence Vance
Scrivener (1881) vs. Beza (1598 et al.)
Like Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus, the Greek T.R. of

Theodore Beza is generally pure, compared to today’s corrupt
Westcott and Hort type text published by the United Bible
Society or edited by Nestle-Aland, and underlying the NIV,
TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NJB, NRSV, NAB, NASB and The
Message. Beza published 10 editions o f the Greek New
Testament (folios: 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598; octavo: 1565, 1567,
1580, 1591, 1604, and 1611), as well as a Latin version in 1556.
His fourth edition (1588) was esteemed more highly by some
than his fifth edition (1598), as the later ones were the product
of his “extreme old age” (Scrivener, The Authorized, p. 60).
The Greek text o f Scrivener is not the Greek text of

Theodore Beza (A.D. 1519-1605), though many assume that it
is. They are perhaps misunderstanding the preface, written by
the Trinitarian Bible Society, which states in part,
“The present edition of the Textus Receptus

underlying the English Authorised Version o f
1611 follows the text o f Beza’s 1598 edition as
the primary authority...” (h k a i n h a i a q h k h , The New
Testament The Greek Underlying the English A uthorised Version o f 1611,
London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1976).
This statement has led many to wrongly assume that the

TBS text is Beza’s text or that the Greek text underlying the
KJB is that o f Beza. Such a broad brush does not paint an
accurate picture o f the text. Scrivener lists under 200 places
where his text differs from Beza (1598). Examine the following
sample verses (not all included) to see how and where they
differ. (For details see Scrivener, The New, pp. 648-655; Scrivener, The Authorized, Preface,
p. v, A ppendix E, pp. 243-262).
Matt. 1:8, 9; 1:23; 2:11; 2:17; 3:3; 9:18; 10:10; 10:25; 11:21;
12:24; 2:15
Mark 1:21; 4:18; 5:38; 6:45; 6:53; 8:22; 9:38; 9:42; 10:46;
13:9; 14:21; 15:3; 16:14; 15:20
Luke 1:26; 1:50; 3:30; 3:31; 6:37; 7:12; 7:45; 8:5; 8:31; 9:15;
12:1; 12:56; 13:19; 17:35; 20:31; 20:32; 22:42; 22:45
John 4:5; 5:5; 8:6; 8:42; 9:10; 12:17; 16:25; 18:15; 18:20;
19:31; 21:12
Acts (Title) 2:36; 3:3; 4:25; 4:27; 4:36; 7:2; 7:16; 7:44; 8:13;
8:28; 16:7; 16:17; 21:3; 21:4; 21:8; 21:11; 24:8; 24:14;
24:22; 25:6; 26:8; 26:20; 27:3; 27:12; 27:13; 27:29
Romans (Title) 1:29; 5:17; 8:20; 11:28

1 Corinthians 2:11; 3:3; 7:5; 7:29; 10:28; 11:22; 12:23; 13:3;
14:10; 15:55
2 Corinthians 1:6; 8:24; 10:6; 11:1
Galatians (Title) 4 :17
Ephesians 5:31
Philippiansl:23; 1:30; 2:24; 3:20; 4:12
Colossians 1:2
1 Thessalonians 1:4; 1:8
2 Thessalonians 3:5
1 Timothy 1:2; 6:15
2 Timothy 1:5; 2:22
Titus (Title) 2:7
Philemon (Title) 7
Hebrews 7:1; 9:28; 10:2; 10:22; 11:4; 12:24
James (Title) 2:24; 3:6; 4:15; 5:9
1 Peter (Title) 3:20, 5:10
2 Peter (Title) 1:1; 1:21; 2:9
1 John (Title) 1:5; 2:23
2 John (Title) 9
3 John (Title)
Jude 12
Revelation (Title) 1:11; 2:23; 3:10; 6:12; 7:2; 7:14; 8:6; 9:11;
9:19; 9:20; 10:7; 11:4; 15:3; 17:4; 18:1; 18:5; 19:12;
19:14; 19:16; 19:18; 20:4; 21:13
The KJB translators ignored Beza about 139 times. They
match Stephanus rather than Beza 59 times and Erasmus, the
Complutensian Polyglot or other Greek sources against both
Stephanus and Beza about 80 times.
Beza’s Greek Text: Some From Syriac to Latin to Greek?
Even good Greek text authors are not Greek-only. The

Cambridge History o f the B ible’s General Index under “Beza”
notes that Beza “calls New Testament Greek ‘barbaric’”
(Cambridge H istory o f the Bible, S.L. Greenslade ed., Cambridge: University Press, 1963, p.
560).Those who feel that they must go to the Greek and therefore
follow Scrivener’s use o f Beza instead o f the KJB’s underlying
Greek (where Scrivener pretends the translators followed the
Latin) will be shocked to find out that Beza’s Greek text was
made, according to his preface, by consulting among other
things, the vernacular Syriac Peshitta and a Latin translation of
this Peshitta. In what Beza’s calls his third edition (1582), he
lists his use of these, as well as the “Arabic New Testament
Version in a Latin translation prepared by Francis Junius” (Edward
F. Hills, The K ing Jam es Version Defended, Des M oines, Iowa: The Christian Research Press,
2000 reprint, p. 206).
The Cambridge History o f the Bible states,
“In the preparation of his text Beza...also had

before him the [Latin] version made by
Tremellilus from the [Syriac] Peshitta New
Testament.”
[It was] “Tremellius’s Latin o f the Syriac New
Testament” (Cambridge History, G reenslade, pp. 62, 167).
Contrary to Beza’s express statements, Scrivener likes to

pretend that Beza may not have made “any great use” of
“Tremellius’ Latin version of the [Syriac] Peshitta,” but
must admit Beza had it “ready at hand” (Scrivener, a Plain, v o l. 2 , pp.
192-193). In other words, Tremellius had translated the Syriac
Bible into Latin. Beza used both the original Syriac and the
Latin translation of the Syriac to help create his Greek
edition. Scrivener admits that Beza “asserted a claim to the
revision of the Greek text...it is hard to put any other

construction on the language o f his Preface to his own latest
edition, dated Calendis Augusti, 1598.” Beza’s Preface does
mention his frequent access to the Latin and Syriac scripture
readings, noting in part,
“...Graeco contextu, non modo cum novemdecim

vetustissimis quam plurimis manuscriptis et
multis passim impressis codicibus, sed etiam
cum Syra interpretatione collato, et quam
optima potui fid e ac diligentia, partim cum
veterum Graecorum ac latinorum patrum
scriptis, partim cum recentioribus, turn pietate,
turn eruditione praestantissimorum Theologorum
versionibus, et variis enarrationibus comparato
(Calendis Augusti, 1598; as cited in Scrivener, The A uthorized, p. vi;
translated in a later chapter).
Scrivener said that Beza used Stephanus’s fourth edition as

his basis, from which Beza departs in his 1565 edition —
“only twenty-five times, nine times to side with

the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus,
thrice with the two united; the other nine
readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25;
James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus.
The second edition o f 1582 withdraws one o f the
peculiar readings o f its predecessor, but adds
fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as
Reuss knows, departs from the second but five
times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only
twice, Matt. vi. 1...; Heb. X . 17... (Scrivener, A Plain,
Vol. 2, p. 193 footnote).
All his editions vary somewhat from Stephen

and from each other” (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, pp. 192-
193).
Wetstein calculates that Beza’s text differs from

Stephen’s in some fifty places (an estimate we
shall find below the mark), and that either in his
translation or his Annotations he departs from
Stephen’s Greek in 150 passages...” (Scrivener, A
Plain, Vol. 2, pp. 192-193; p. 206 o f E. H ills’s book cites Reuss as
saying that Beza departs from Stephanus’s 4th edition thirty-eight tim es ).
Beza, Calvinism and Geneva
Beza’s text, like any other one-man exercise, must be

examined with caution in the minutiae, particularly because of
his rabid Calvinism. The Cambridge H istoiy o f the Bible
mentions that, “Beza has been attacked from the early
seventeenth century onward for modifying the text to suit his
own theological presuppositions.” “Beza’s annotations to his
Greek and Latin New Testament showed great erudition” . . .“But
his theological interpretation was occasionally too particular,
notably on the doctrines of election and predestination.” “For
instance Acts ii. 4 7 ...is rendered in the note by a proposed
alteration o f the Greek to read ‘those who were to be
saved’...this alteration would accord with Beza’s view of
election” (Cambridge H istoiy, Greenslade, pp. 63, 83). Even Schaff expresses
concern about “Calvinistic bias, owing to the great influence
which Beza’s Greek Testament and Latin notes h a d ...” (Schaff,
Companion, pp. 326-327).
On the death of John Calvin, Beza took over his position as

leader of the French Reformed (Calvinistic) church o f Geneva
(1561). The Geneva New Testament of 1576 was done by
Laurence Tomson. “ [N]otes which he added, largely taken from
Beza, do indeed strengthen the Calvinist flavor, and not only in

the matter o f predestination.” (The promotion today o f the
Geneva Bible, with its Calvinistic notes, is a subtle ploy to: 1).
influence readers with Calvinism’s misinterpretations of the
scriptures and 2.) question the authority of the KJB.) Beza
translated the Apocrypha for the Geneva 1551 revision o f the
French version by Olivetan. This Apocrypha was used in certain
editions o f the English Geneva Bible (Cambridge History, Greenslade, pp.
1 5 8 ,157,1 6 9 ). His various slips in discernment could account for the
139 places where the KJB translators did not follow Beza. So
much for ‘the’ Greek.
If knowledge o f the Greek New Testament is the key to

understanding the Bible, surely Beza had a key. Yet Beza held
to one o f the most unscriptural heresies imaginable — Five
Point Calvinism. (The Greek Orthodox church is buried knee
deep in Greek manuscripts and waist deep in heresy. Evidently
Greek is not a key.)
Beza is joined in his heretical Calvinism by:
1. Edwin Palmer, the head o f the NIV Committee, who

wrote the blasphemous book, The Five Points o f
Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1972, 1980).
2. Jay P. Green, editor o f the Interlinear Bible, which uses
Scrivener’s Greek text.
3. Spiros Zodhiates, editor o f numerous corrupt Greek
reference works.
4. The Trinitarian Bible Society (although they should be
commended highly for their publication o f a pure King
James Bible and other good vernacular Bibles).
These five false points of Calvinism include:
1. Total Depravity: Calvinists completely deny that men have a free will,
believing that m en’s depravity extends to their will. However, God has
given men a free will, but many choose to reject God with their wills.
When Jesus said in John 6:44, “No man can come to me, except the
Father draw h im ...,” he explained in John 12:32 how God would draw
all men. He said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto me.” John 1:9 tells us Jesus “lighteth every man that cometh
into the world.” In Rev. 22:17 he said, “...w hosoever will, let him take
the water o f life freely.” Jesus said, “Ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life” (John 5:40). He said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt.
23:37). W hy would Jesus say in John 5:40, “Ye will not come to me,” if
they had no free will and could not come. Romans 1 and 2 shows that all
men are without excuse.
2. Unconditional Election: Calvinists follow John Calvin’s Institutes

which falsely claim that “eternal life is foreordained for some, and
eternal damnation for others” (Book III, chapter 23). Calvinists must
omit words from Bible verses to construct their heresy. God did not
choose who would be saved, but he chose the means through which
“whosoever will” could be saved (Rev. 22:17). G od’s means are seen in
John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life ...” In Ephesians Calvinists
ignore the words which qualify the means o f salvation (“in him,” “by
Jesus Christ,” “in Christ,” and “in whom”; Eph. 1: 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 et al.).
They also omit the end o f verses which state that certain people are
chosen for certain works and all Christians are chosen to be holy and
bring forth fruit. Ephesians 1:4 says, “He hath chosen us in him [the
means] before the foundation o f the world, that we should be h o ly ...”
John 15:16 says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and
ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fru it...” Romans 8:29
summarizes saying, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image o f his S o n ...” He knew who
would receive Jesus Christ as his Saviour; he predestinated them, not to
be saved, but to be conformed to the image o f his Son. They skip around
Romans 9, ignoring the words “having done any good or evil” (that is,
good works and evil works) and ignore the words, “not o f works.” They
ignore the scripture that states why God loved Jacob. Heb. 11:21 says,
“By faith Jacob.” Salvation is by faith, not by works. When God said,
“1 will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” he means he chooses
the means; he chose to have mercy on those who will believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot will another means o f salvation. The
question, “What shall we say then?” in Romans 9:14 is repeated and
answered in Romans 9:30-33 which repeats, “W hat shall we say
then?...even the righteousness which is o f faith...they sought it not by
faith...A s it is written (Rom. 9:13).” Parallel Romans 9:14 and 9:30;
Romans 9:15 and 9:31; Romans 9:16 and 9:32 and Romans 9:17-18 and
9:33. Calvinists refuse to read “comparing spiritual things with
spiritual” and to read the entire verse, the entire chapter or the entire
Bible.
3. Limited Atonement: Calvinists believe Christ died for the elect alone.
However, 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not
for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 Tim. 2:5 and
2:6 state that he “gave him self a ransom for all.” John 4:42 says he is the
“Saviour o f the world.” John 3:17 says that he died “that the world
through him might be saved.” 1 Tim. 4:10 says he “is the Saviour o f all
men, specially o f those that believe.” Isaiah 53:6 says, “the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity o f us all.” John 2:2 says, “And this is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of
the whole world.” Heb. 2:9 says that he “should taste death for every
man.” 1 Tim. 2:5, 6 says he “gave him self a ransom for all.” Romans
says God “delivered him up for us a ll...”
4. Irresistible Grace: Calvinists believe that God forces his elect to be

saved and obey him, because they have no free will. This contravenes
John 5:40 which says, “Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life”
and Acts 7:51 which states, “ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as
your fathers did, so do ye.” Why would the Holy Ghost try to get
someone saved who could not do it? Proverbs 1:24 says, “1 have called,
and ye refused.” Titus 1:11 says the knowledge o f salvation “hath
appeared to all men.”
5. Perseverance o f the Saints: God will preserve his saints; they are
eternally secure. However, their word ‘perseverance’ has a connotation
o f works. Their word is
actually only used once in the Bible in the context o f unceasing prayer,
not salvation (Eph. 6:18).
Foreign to Beza and the Calvinists is the simplest verse

which states, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). (The Hyper-
Calvinism Packet, explaining in much more detail the problem s with Calvinism , is
available from AV Publications.)
“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which
are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor.
11:19). Beza’s lack o f scriptural understanding, which would
allow him to misunderstand all of the above verses, gives me
little confidence in his choice o f Greek words in the minute
details. Though Beza’s Greek text was generally that which
came down from the first century, evidently God saw at least
139 small errors in it, to which he alerted the KJB translators.
The KJV Translators Sources
The KJB translators never listed all of their Greek sources;

they merely referred to them as “the Originall Greeke” on the
title page to their New Testament. In following what they called
“the Originall” the KJB translators seem to follow the Greek of
Beza rather that Stephanus about 113 times, Stephanus rather
than Beza 59 times, and Erasmus (the Complutensian Polyglot
or Greek manuscripts) against both Stephanus and Beza about
80 times. The KJB translators ignored Beza about 139 times.
These numbers reflect only places “wherein the differences
between the texts o f these books is sufficient to affect, however
slightly, the language o f the version” (Scrivener, The Authorized, p. 60).
There are other differences, not listed herein or in standard
collations. (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 2, p. 195 footnote). (More details about
the Greek sources matching the KJB are included in KJB Greek
Texts, available from AV Publications.)
The KJB translators said they also looked at —
“the Originall sacred tongues, together with

comparing of the labours, both of our own
[previous English Bibles] and other foreign
languages [Chaldee, Syriac, Spanish, French,
Italian, Dutch] of many worthy men who went
before us” (Dedicatory, The Translators to the Readers, Holy Bible,
London: Robert Barker, 1611).
Step 1: They began with a copy of the previous Bible, that

being the Bishops’ Bible (See In Awe o f Thy Word.)
Step 2: They examined the “Originall” languages together

with Tyndale, Mathews, Coverdale, Whitechurch (Great
Bible) and the Geneva, as well as the Chaldee, Syriac,
Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch languages.
Theirs was not a brand new translation from Greek and

Hebrew with no recourse to previous editions. In fact they were
following the logical rule given them by King James, that is,
that “the Bishops’ Bible [is] to be followed, and as little altered
as the truth o f the original will permit.” Their prime authority
was the Bishops’ Bible which carried forth the words of the
English Bible since its genesis in Acts 2. The words of the 1611
English Bible (KJB) had their origin in languages and words
which were given through the Holy Ghost’s gift of tongues in
Acts 2. The precursors o f the English languages were the then
extant languages o f Gothic, early Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and
Latin. These were included among “every nation under heaven
which “heard them speak in their own language.” (In Awe o f
Thy Word gives a comprehensive history o f the English Bible

from its Gothic origin to A.D. 1611.)
The 1611 New Testament title page said that its words came
from “the former Translations diligently compared and
revised.” Rule 14 directed them to use the words o f Tyndale,
Mathews, Coverdale, Whitechurch and the Geneva, when they
better agree with the text than the Bishops.’ Rule 4 said that
when a word has more than one meaning, the translators should
use a word which is “agreeable to the propriety o f the place
[context] and the analogy of the faith” [parallel verses, with the
built-in dictionary] (See In Awe, p. 586).
By following the already existing English Bibles the

translators were, by proxy, accessing the readings which God
had preserved since their origin. God was attentive to preserve
these readings in Holy Bibles; he has not been actively involved
in creating and preserving one-man critical Greek editions,
intellectual exercises, which popped up fo r the first time 1500
years after the originals (See the upcoming chapter which
discusses Reuchlin). Consequently, Holy Bibles, such as the
KJB, contain time-pressed diamonds, where these one-man
modem Greek editions (A.D. 1500-2000) still have coal.
“Tremble” At Scrivener or Beza?
All o f the microscopic errors and varieties in printed

editions of Greek Textus Receptus editions by Scrivener, Beza,
Stephanus and others do not disannul their usefulness as
exhibitions o f the New Testament text used in the first century.
Yet, they are merely intellectual exercises, not Holy Bibles
which speak life to anyone today, since first century Greek is a
dead language. Their only interpreter is either: 1.) a Greek-
English lexicon or 2.) a Holy Bible. The many chapters to

follow dissolve the myth that lexicons are God’s interpreter.
Jesus said, “It is the spirit that quickeneth.. .the words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). If
his words died on the paper of the original manuscripts, were
buried, and never rose again, where do Christians get these
“lively oracles” (Acts 7:38) and what of the promise o f the
“scriptures... to all nations” (Rom. 16:26) and the “word of the
truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the
world” (Col. 1:5, 6)?
Inspiration without translation is like the incarnation

without the resurrection. Mark 16:11 says, “And they, when they
had heard that he was alive, and had been seen o f her believed
not.” The Word was alive, but they doubted. The next verse
says, “After that he appeared in another form ...” What? After
16:11 the Word appeared in “another form.” Likewise his word,
“which liveth and abideth forever” is alive and we have it in
“another form” marked on the pages of the 1611 KJB. It was
not hard for Jesus to change forms. “Go tell my brethren...
(Matt. 28:10). (If all the vultures can do is light upon and chew on this m etaphor until it
is beyond recognition, they have proven them selves incapable o f serious debate.)
Scrivener’s (or Beza’s) text is not the “exact” Received text

or Textus Receptus God carried into Holy Bibles. These printed
Greek one-man editions must be abandoned as the final
authority or their followers must abandon all reason. However,
some of the “wise and prudent” would rather abandon reason
than appear as one of the “weak,” “foolish,’ “despised, and
“base” “babes” God hath chosen “to confound the wise.”
“At that time Jesus answered and said, 1 thank thee, O

Father, Lord o f heaven and earth, because thou hast hid
these things from the wise [Scrivener’s “intelligent” !
and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even,

so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” (Matt.
11:25,26).
“But God hath chosen the foolish things o f the

world to confound the wise; and God hath
chosen the weak things o f the world to confound
the things which are mighty; And base things o f
the world, and things which are despised, hath
God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to
bring to nought the things that are:” (1 Cor. 1:27-
28).
Readers who now find themselves confounded, can

contritely ask God to forgive them o f any intellectual pride. God
will hear. “Tremble” at the words written directly to man in the
Holy Bible.
“[B]ut to this man will I look, even to him that is

poor and o f a contrite spirit and trembleth at my
word” (Isa. 66:2).
Any one-man Greek text cannot be the sole repository o f the

‘truth,’ because it produces rotten fruit by bruising the weak
with doubt. The world o f Greek texts and lexicons is a world of
uncertainties and personal opinions. One might now ask, ‘If
Scrivener’s, Green’s and Berry’s Greek texts are not entirely
reliable, where is the word o f God? W ouldn’t it be nice if God
had sifted out all o f the texts and lexicons and given us what he
approved, in languages men could read? He has!
“For this commandment which I command thee

this day, it is not hidden from thee [in Greek
texts you cannot read], neither is it far off [in
Greek manuscripts you do not have]. It is not in

heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up
for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we
may hear it, and do it? [It is not just “settled in
heaven” and did not expire with the originals.]
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest
say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring
it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? [at the
Greek manuscript center in Germany]. But the
word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and
in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (Deut.
30:11-14).
Isn’t God good! Men can now stop wasting their short lives
wading through Greek texts, looking for Scrivener’s idea of
“truth.” The “babes” had it all along. Now let’s “do it.”
Chapter 19
Very
Wary
of George Ricker Berry
& Thomas Newberry
Authors: Interlinear
Greek-English
New Testament
Newberry Reference Bible &
The Englishman’s Bible
Publisher: Baker Books

Zondervan
Kregel Publications
Samuel Bagster & Sons
Hinds & Nobel
Hodder & Stoughton
Penfold Book & Bible House
Software: Logos Research Systems

Logos Bible Software
The Interlinear Literal
Translation of the Greek New
Testament by Thomas Newberry;
Maurice Robinson
[aka Berry’s Interlinear Greek-
English New Testament]
Summary: George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-

English New Testament
1. George Ricker Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English

New Testament (1897) was actually written by
Thomas Newberry (1877).
2. Its Greek text is that o f Stephanus’s third edition

o f 1550.
3. This 1550 edition differs from the Textus

Receptus and the “Originall Greeke” underlying
the KJB a number of times.
S In 80 places Berry’s Interlinear Greek-
English does not follow other editions o f the
Textus Receptus or the “Originall Greeke”
underlying the King James Bible.
S Even Beza (1589 and 1598) and Scrivener
agree with the KJB approximately 113 times
against Stephanus’s third edition of 1550.
4. Some of the errors in Berry’s Greek text include:
■S It omits an entire verse, Luke 17:36.

•S It calls Jesus a sinner in Luke 2:22.
■f It omits the “Lord” in Rom. 12:11.
•S It teaches the opposite of the Bible in James. 2:18.
■f It omits the name of “Jesus” in one of its two
occurrences in Mark 2:15.
S It says “Spirits of God” instead of “seven Spirits
of God” in Rev. 3:1.
5. Like Scrivener’s, Berry’s Greek text has few

serious errors, but its venial mistakes make
readers seriously doubt the accuracy o f their Holy
Bible. That is serious.
BERRY’S (NEWBERRY’S) INTERLINEAR 697
Summary (cont.): George Ricker Berry Interlinear

Greek-English New Testament
6. Both Berry and Newberry were proponents o f the

Revised Version of 1881 as well as the corrupt Greek
text o f Westcott and Hort.
7. They footnote the corrupt Greek text in support of

their recommended changes and omissions to the
KJB and Textus Receptus.
8. The definitions in the Lexicon and Synonyms in

the back o f the book were taken mainly from
Unitarian J. H. Thayer and Bible-critic and RV
committee member, R.C. Trench.
9. The English Interlinear claims to be literal but it is

not. For example in Eph. 1:5 Berry’s Greek text says
huiothesian (vioOeaiav). Huios means “children” or
‘sons’; thesian from theo, means “adoption of.”
Berry’s English translated only the word “adoption,”
omitting any translation of the word “children” (or
sons). The KJB is literal and says, “the adoption o f
children.”
10. A Greek Concordance shows that any one Greek

word might be translated any number o f ways in
every English translation (polysemy). Only a green
Greek student would fall for the unscholarly and
dishonest notion o f one ‘literal’ meaning for a Greek
word (See Smith’s, Wigrams, et al.). It must be God’s
contextual choice, however, as seen in the KJB.
11. Berry’s English Interlinear and Newberry’s other

editions contain liberal, watered down, and New Age
terminology.
George R. Berry: Interlinear Greek-English New Testament
lthough he did not write either the Greek or English
A texts of his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,

strangely George Ricker Berry (1865-1945) put his
name alone on them. The Greek text is that o f Stephens
(Stephanus) third edition, first published in 1550. The English
so-called literal translation below the Greek is by Thomas
Newberry. The critical footnotes are also those o f Newberry.
The Newberry family website says o f George Ricker Berry’s
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,
“This interlinear is simply an American reprint

of the Bagster edition prepared by Thomas
Newberry (1877) with a different Introduction
and with G.R. Berry’s Lexicon and Synonyms
added to the end”
(h ttp ://w w w .n ew b leh o m e.co .u k /n e w b erry /b ib le .h tm l).
The lexicon at the end contains mainly the corrupt

definitions of Unitarian J. Henry Thayer and some by R.C.
Trench. Generally speaking, Berry simply put his name on the
cover and ‘borrowed’ the work o f others. This was necessary
because he was not a New Testament scholar, but was a
professor o f Old Testament and Semitic languages at Colgate
University (1896-1928) and Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
(1928-1934)!
Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament was

actually published in its identical form (except for the Lexicon
in the back) originally as:
[Thomas Newberry] The Englishman’s Greek

New Testament giving the Greek Text o f
Stephens 1550, with the various Readings o f the

Editions o f Elzevir 1624, Griesbaeh, Laehmann,
Tischendorf Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth,
together with an interlinear literal Translation,
and the Authorized version o f 1611, London:
Samuel Bagster, 1877, 3rd ed., 1896.
Berry gives no credit whatsoever to Newberry and nowhere

identifies that his volume is an exact reprint o f another author’s
work! Berry called his edition:
[George Ricker Berry] The Interlinear literal

Translation o f the Greek New Testament with the
Authorized Version conveniently presented in the
margins fo r ready reference and with the various
readings o f the editions o f Elzevir 1624,
Griesbaeh, Laehmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, and Wordsworth, to which has been
added a new Greek-English New Testament
Lexicon, supplemented by a chapter elucidating
the synonyms o f the New Testament, with a
complete index to the synonyms, New York:
Hinds & Noble, 1897.
Baker Books reprinted it as the Interlinear Greek-English

New Testament (1985 et al.). Baker promotes it saying, “The
Greek text in this volume is essentially identical with the one
used by the translators o f the King James Version” (back
cover). Their “essentially identical” is qualified in Berry’s back-
matter as he admits o f his lexicon, “ ...no mention has been
made o f variant readings o f the Textus Receptus itse lf’ (G e o rg e
R ic k e r B e rr y , Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, G ra n d R a p id s, M I: B a k e r B o o k H o u se,
K prin tin g, Se p te m b e r, 19 8 5 , B a c k -m a tte r, “ In troduction to N e w T estam en t L e x ic o n ,” p. v .,
reprint o f the H in ds & N o b le , 18 9 7 ed ition ).
Zondervan (owned by HarperCollins, publisher o f The

Satanic Bible and the NIV) reprinted it from 1967 to 1992 as
The Interlinear K JV Parallel New Testament in Greek and
English and in 1995 as The Interlinear K JV Parallel New
Testament in Greek and English, Based on the Majoi ity Text,
with Lexicon and Synonyms.
Naive Delusion
Would a Greek edition of the Textus Receptus, like Berry’s

Interlinear Greek-English, which omits an entire verse, omits
the Lord, and calls Jesus a sinner, be a good Greek text to
hand to Bible school students? Yet, some unknowingly do so.
Would it be a help to easily molded Barbie dulls, who are too
busy ‘blogging’ to bother with the 1200 verbal forms found in
Greek? Yet these both claim to read ‘the originals’ in the Textus
Receptus’ using Berry’s English. This chapter includes ju st
some o f Berry’s errors. Most are not egregious, like those in the
Greek texts underlying the NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB and others.
Yet they unnecessarily misinform those who naively think that
Berry’s Greek text (Stephanus 1550) is the Textus Receptus or
‘the originals’ or think that his English interlinear is anything
but liberal “private interpretation.”
Some Serious Errors in Berry’s Greek
The following are a few o f the errors in Berry’s Greek text.

This list merely gives examples.
1. The entire verse, Luke 17:36, is omitted by B erry’s,

following Stephanus 1550 edition. Gone — “Two men sh all
be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
However in Stephanus’s 1551 edition Stephanus includes i ■
Woe be unto the student o f Greek who thinks that he has t e
originals’ in Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English (Stephanus

3ld edition, 1550) or even the best o f Stephanus, when one
year later Stephanus realized his error and included the
verse. The Textus Receptus editions o f Elzevir (1624), Beza,
and Scrivener (KJB) rightly include the verse, as does the
KJB.
2. Romans 12:11 omits “the Lord” in Berry’s Interlinear

Greek-English. Elzevir, Scrivener (KJB) and all other Greek
texts (even the corrupt ones) say,
■ “serving the Lord’’
Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English wrongly says:
■ “serving the time” or “serving in season”
3. In Luke 2:22 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English says that

Jesus is a sinner. It says, “their purification,” instead o f the
correct “her purification,” asserting that both Jesus and Mary
needed purification for sins. Jesus said, “Which o f you
convinceth me o f sin?” (John 8:46). Berry joins many
corrupt new versions which do.
4. In James 2:18 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English makes a

very serious error, saying the opposite o f the Textus
Receptus'.
Beza (last three editions) and Scrivener (KJB) correctly say:
■ “shew me thy faith without thy works”
Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English (Stephanus 1550) says:
■ “shew me thy faith from thy works”

(Even the corrupt texts have the correct “without” or “apart

from.”)
5. In 1 Tim. 1:4 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English errs by one

Greek letter and says:
■ “G od’s administration (or dispensation)
The Greek Textus Receptus editions of Beza, Erasmus,

Elzevir, and Scrivener (KJB) correctly say:
■ “godly edifying”
6. In Romans 8:11 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English wrongly

says:
■ “On account of (because of) his Spirit that
dwelleth in you”
The Textus Receptus editions o f Beza, Elzevir, and

Scrivener (KJB) correctly say:
■ “by his Spirit that dwelleth in you”
7. In Rev. 3:1 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English wrongly omits

the important word “seven” :
■ “Spirits o f God”
Other editions o f the Greek text, such as Elzevir’s and

Scrivener’s (KJB) say,
■ “seven Spirits o f God”
8. In John 16:33 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English wrongly

states:
■ “ye have tribulation”
The Textus Receptus editions o f Beza, Elzevir, and

Scrivener (KJB) correctly state,
■ “ye shall have tribulation”
9. The most ancient Greek manuscripts have 1 John 2:23b in

Greek and not in italics. Scrivener includes it as do most
Greek texts. Berry’s (and Stephanus) omits it completely.
“ [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
10. In Mark 2:15 Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English omits the

first o f two occurrences of the name o f “Jesus.” (This is
thoroughly discussed in the earlier chapters on Scrivener and
in In Awe o f Thy Word.)
■ “as Jesus sat.. .together with Jesus” KJB

vs.
■ “as he reclined... with Jesus (Berry’s
Interlinear)
Multiple Errors in Berry’s Greek
The following are approximately 80 places where Berry’s

Interlinear Greek-English does not follow other editions o f the
Textus Receptus (Erasmus, other editions of Stephanus,
Complutensian, Colinaeus, Aldus, et al.) or the “Originall
Greeke” underlying the King James Bible.
Matt. 2:11; 9:18; 10:10; 10:25; 11:21; 13:24

Mark 4:18; 5:38; 6:45; 8:22; 6:53; 9:42; 13:9; 15:3
Luke 3:30; 3:31; 6:37; 8:37; 12:56; 17:35; 20:31; 22:42
John 8:6; 8:42; 16:25; 18:1; 18:15; 19:31
Acts 3:3; 7:16; 7:44; 8:13; 21:4; 21:8; 26:20; 27:3; 27:29
1 Cor. 11:27; 14:10
Phil. 4:12
1 Thes. 1:9
1 Tim. 1:2
Philemon 7
Heb. 12:24; 10:23
James 2:24; 4:15; 5:9
2 Peter 1:1; 1:21; 2:9
1 John 1:5
Jude 12
Rev. 1:11; 7:2; 8:6; 9:19; 9:20; 11:4; 17:4; 18:1; 18:5; 19:14;
19:16; 19:18; 20:4; 21:13
Even Beza (1589 and 1598) and Scrivener agree with the
KJB approximately 113 times against Stephanus’s third
edition of 1550 in the following:
Matt. 9:33; 21:7; 23:13, 14

Mark 6:9; 6:29; 8:14; 8:24; 9:40; 10:25; 12:20; 13:28
Luke 1:35; 2:22; 2:25, 34; 3:23; 3:35; 7:12; 8:24; 10:6; 10:22;
15:26; 16:8; 17:35; 17:36; 20:47
John 4:37; 6:28; 8:25; 13:30, 31; 16:33, 18.24
Acts 1:4; 1:24; 7:16; 9:35; 17:25; 19:33; 22:25; 24:13; 24:18;
24:19; 25:5; 26:3; 26:18; 27:12; 27:13
Romans 7:6; 8:11; 12:11; 16:20; 16:27
1 Cor. 5:11; 14:10; 15:31
2 Cor. 3:1; 5:4; 6:15; 7:12; 7:16; 10:10; 11:10; 13:4
Eph. 1:3; 6:7
Col. 1:2; 1:24; 2:13; 4:10
1 Thes. 2:15
1 Tim 1:4
Titus 2:10
Heb. 9:1; 9:2; 10:10; 12:22, 23
James 2:18; 4:13; 4:13, 15; 5:12
1 Pet. 1:4; 1:8; 2:21; 3:21

2 Pet. 1:1; 2:18; 3:7
1 John 1:4; 2:23; 3:16; 5:14
2 John 3, 5, 13
3 John 7
Jude 19, 24
Rev. 2:14; 2:24; 3:1; 5:11; 7:3; 7:10; 8:6; 8:11; 11:1; 11:2;
11:14 13:3; 14:18;16:5; 16:14; 19:14
However Berry’s (Stephanus 1550) is correct and matches

the “Originall Greeke” underlying the KJB 59 times, while
Beza (1589 and 1598) was incorrect in the following:
Matt. 1:23; 20:15

Mark 1:21; 16:14; 16:20
Luke 7:12; 7:45; 8:5; 9:15; 12:1
John 4:5; 9:10; 12:17; 18:20; 21:12
Acts 2:36; 4:25; 4:27; 4:36; 7:2; 16:7; 16:17; 21:3; 21:11; 24:8;
24:14; 25:6; 26:8
Rom. 1:29; 5:17; 8:20; 11:28
1 Cor. 2:11; 3:3; 7:29; 11:22
2 Cor. 1:6; 2:5; 3:14; 8:24; 10:6; 11:1
Gal. 4:17
Phil. 1:23; 2:24; 3:20
Col. 1:2
1 Thes. 1:4
1 Tim. 6:15
2 Tim. 2:22
Titus 2:7
Heb. 9:28; 10:2
James 3:6
1 Peter 5:10
2 John 9
Rev. 2:23; 6:12; 22:20

( F .H .A . S c riv e n e r, The A uthorized Edition o f the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints
a nd M odern Representatives, C a m b rid g e U n iv e rs ity P re ss, 18 8 4 , A p p e n d ix E , pp. 2 4 3 - 2 6 3 ; the
d e ta ils abou t the afo rem e n tio n e d three lists are a v a ila b le fro m A V P u b lica tio n s a s KJB Greek
Texts).
More problems with Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear are

discussed in detail with textual evidence given in the chapter on
Scrivener’s Greek text, “A Little Leaven.” Some o f those
observations include:
■ In Matt. 12:24, 27, Mark 3:22, and Luke 11:15, 18, 19

Berry’s misspells “Beelzebub” as ‘Beelzebul’ (See Hebrew
O.T. for correct last letter).
■ In Mark 14:43 Berry’s wrongly includes the word “being,”

correctly omitted by the KJB.
■ In Luke 1:35 Berry’s wrongly omits “o f thee,” which even

the ancient Greek manuscripts underlying Lachmann and
Scrivener include.
■ In Luke 23:34, Matt. 27:35, Mark 15:24, and John 19:24

Berry’s wrongly has the singular ‘lot.’ Even Alford and
Tischendorf join the KJB and have the plural “lots.’
■ In John 7:9 Berry’s wrongly adds “and,” when even the

ancient manuscripts underlying Griesbach, Tischendorf and
Tregelles omit it, as does Tyndale and the KJB.
■ In John 10:16 Berry’s uses the word “flock,” while the KJB
uses “fold.” According to the OED these two words can be
synonyms. Therefore the latter is used in the KJB as a sight
rhyme. (See chapter on Scrivener for elaboration.)
■ In John 12:26 Berry adds “and” before “if any man.” The
“Ancient” and modem Greek New Testaments join the KJB,
along with the ancient Greek manuscripts underlying
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford in
omitting “and.” (See chapter on Scrivener for footnote on
Tinsley’s “Ancient” Greek.
■ In Acts 2:22 Berry does not have the Greek word for
“approved”; the KJB and Tyndale do.
■ In Acts 6:3 Berry’s errs saying “we will appoint,” as

opposed to “we may appoint” o f the KJB, Elzevir’s Textus
Receptus, the modem Greek, Tyndale, and even Westcott.
■ In Acts 7:44 Berry’s wrongly adds the Greek word for

“among,” before “our fathers,” which neither Scrivener, nor
the ancient Greek manuscripts underlying Lachmann,
Tregelles, Tischendorf, or Alford include. Berry’s also adds
“he who,” unlike Tyndale and the KJB.
■ In Acts 10:20 Berry’s wrongly includes the word “But.”
■ In Acts 13:15 Berry’s wrongly omits the word “any,”

included in the KJB, Tyndale, and all modem Greek critical
editions.
■ In Acts 17:30 Berry’s wrongly says “ignorance,” instead of

the correct “this ignorance” used in Tyndale and the KJB.
■ In Acts 19:20 Berry’s wrongly says “the word o f the Lord”

instead of the correct “the word of God.” The reading “God”
is seen in ancient Greek manuscripts.
■ In Acts 26:6 Berry’s wrongly says “the fathers,” instead of

the correct “our fathers.”
■ In 1 Cor. 16:23 Berry’s wrongly says “the Lord,” while the

KJB and historic English Bibles say “our Lord.”
■ In Phil. 2:21 Berry’s wrongly has the inverted “Christ

Jesus,” rather than the correct “Jesus Christ’s,” used by the
KJB, Tyndale, and the ancient Greek manuscripts
underlying Griesbaeh, Laehmann, Tregelles, Alford, and
Westcott.
■ In Col. 1:24 Berry’s matches Westcott and wrongly begins

with “now.” Scrivener handles this correctly.
■ In 2 Tim. 1:18 Berry’s text does not match Scrivener’s.

Berry’s word for ‘ministered’ ends in ‘n ’ while Scrivener’s
ends in ‘e ’.
■ In James 3:14 Berry’s wrongly has the singular ‘heart,’

instead o f the plural “hearts” seen in Tyndale and the KJB.
■ In 1 Peter 2:13 Berry’s wrongly adds the word “therefore.”

The KJB correctly omits it, as do the ancient Greek
manuscripts underlying Laehmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
and Alford.
■ In 1 John 3:20 the KJB and Tyndale rightly omit the second
use o f “for,” which is wrongly included in Berry’s text,
thereby creating a non-translatable nonsense sentence.
■ In 1 John 5:8 Berry’s wrongly uses “the three,” instead of

“these three.”
■ In 2 John 3 Berry’s wrongly has “shall be” instead of “be.
■ In Rev. 13:10 Berry’s omits “into,” which is in the KJB, as

well as in ancient Greek manuscripts underlying Laehmann,
Tischendorf, and Alford, as well as in the “Ancient” and the

modern Greek New Testaments.
■ In Rev. 16:11 Berry’s wrongly retains the second usage of

‘because of.’
■ In Rev. 17:9 Berry’s wrongly omits the beginning “And.”
* In Rev. 18:23 Berry’s wrongly says “may shine,” as

opposed to the KJB and Geneva o f 1557, which join the
ancient Greek manuscripts underlying Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Westcott, which also match the “Ancient”
Greek.
Like Scrivener’s, Berry’s Greek text has few serious

errors, but its venial mistakes make readers seriously
doubt the accuracy of their Holy Bible. That is serious.
Berry’s Lying English Interlinear
The English so-called literal translation o f the Stephanus

Greek text in Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English was originally
written by Thomas Newberry in 1893. The full titles o f both
Berry’s and Newberry’s original editions call their English
translation “literal.” Those who know Greek know this is a far
from accurate statement. Few take Berry’s (Newberry’s)
English translation seriously, any more than a doctor would
look in a pre-school reader for insights. It is simply a make-
believe tool for those who feel compelled to pretend they are
reading Greek words, when in fact they are simply reading
English words.
One non-literal example should give fair warning to the

Greek neophyte. In Ephesians 1:5 Berry’s Greek text says
huiothesian (vioOecriav). Huios means “children” or ‘sons’;
thespian, from theo, means “adoption of.” Berry s English

translates only the word “adoption,” omitting any translation of
the word “children” (or sons) — so much for a ‘literal’
translation. The KJB being literal says, the adoption of
children” ; Berry’s English which merely says, “adoption” is
incorrect, not literal, or even remotely idiomatic. One could
write a book about such errors. Berry himself admits elsewhere
o f the Holy Bible, the “...Authorized Version being in
proximity, which will make all p lain ...” (B e r r y , In troduction , p. iv ; see
B e r r y , p. 5 0 1 ; J .B . Sm ith , Greek Concordance to the New Testament, S c o ttd a le, P A : Herald
P re ss, 1 9 8 3 , p. 3 5 3 ; ev e n w e a kStrong's Concordance gets th is right).
Very Wary of Berry & Newberry
Unfortunately many of those who recognize the errors in

new versions, look to Berry’s English as the literal translation
o f the original Greek. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Small wonder some trip into the New King James trap, as the
English in Berry’s interlinear is likewise bursting the margins
with liberal, watered down and sometimes New Age words - as
do the NKJV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, and HCSB. In Berry’s
(Newberry’s) English Interlinear or in Newberry’s Reference
Bible observe a few of the many problems typical o f the corrupt
new versions:
■ No Everlasting Punishment?
“And shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (KJB).
vs.
“...for the ages of the ages” (Rev. 20:10) (B e r r y , p. 66 4).
The root for ‘ever’ seen in “for ever” or “everlasting life

(John 6:40) interestingly disappears when punishm ent is for
“ever.” Berry’s ‘age’ is normally thought o f as a period o^
time. What ‘age’ are you? Do you remember the Ice Age-
Those who wrongly teach against everlasting punishment of

the wicked pretend that when the ‘ages o f the ages’ are over
and there is “time no longer” (Rev. 10:6), even the devil will
be released from torment. In the 1800s Professor F.D.
Maurice brought this anti-everlasting punishment wave into
the church of England and it has carried away many who are
discussed in this book (See chapter on Liddell-Scott).
When Berry (Newberry) gets to the same Greek root in Rev.

14:6, he suddenly remembers the word “ever,” as
“everlasting gospel” (Berry, p. 650). Convenient parole. The
KJB translation o f this word as “ages” is reserved to
contexts relating to the past or the future in general. When
the already plural word is doubled, it is apparent that it
means “everlasting.” The various ways one Greek word
must be translated into English to speak to the English mind
in various contexts points out the limitations o f the small
Greek vocabulary o f the New Testament and the absolute
necessity o f an inspired Holy Bible. All Englishmen will be
judged by the same English Bible, not by a myriad of
“private interpretations” in lexicons.
■ New Age Names for God

Playing around with Greek and Hebrew in his own
Reference Bible, Newberry re-names and re-defines God,
using English words which occur no where in the English
Bible.
S His god becomes the very same one written about by

Satanist H.P. Blavatsky: “the Mighty One,” “the
Coming One,” “the One Spirit” and “the eternal One”
(T h o m a s N e w b e rry , The Newberry Reference Bible, G ra n d R a p id s, M I: K r e g e l, no
date, pp. x ix , x x , x x i; S e e New Age Bible Versions, ch ap ter “ T h e O ne v s . T h e H o ly
O n e” fo r d o cu m en tation o r see H.P. B la v a t s k y , The Secret Doctrine, In d ex).
S The Holy Ghost disappears and becomes Newberry’s

“Eternal Spirit,” “Divine Spirit” and the “One Spirit”
(N e w b e rry , pp. x iv , 9 3 8 ).
S With just a flick of Newberry’s pen God becomes the

Muslim “Ahlah” [pronounced Allah] the “Adorable
One” (N e w b e rry , p. x ix ) . Does he realize that by using the
Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon he has wandered into the
world of German unbelief which denies the uniqueness
o f the God o f the Old Testament and attempts to merge
him with the gods of the nearby pagans (See explanation
in the chapters on Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and Briggs).
S He says that “I AM THAT 1 AM,” really means “I will

be that I will be” or “I continue to be, and will be,
what I continue to be, and will be.” This good side
splitting laugh is appreciated about now. No wonder
God did not put Berry or Newberry on the KJB
committee; the KJB is more succinct (N e w b e rry , P . x x ) .
■S He perpetuates the false name “Yah” which gives voice

to the current non-sense ‘Sacred Name’ movement
(N e w b e rry , p. x x i ; s e e In Awe o f Thy Word, ch ap ter “ J E S U S & J E H O V A H ” ).
■f The ‘Lord’ becomes merely the Calvinistic “Sovereign”

(N e w b e rry , p. 6 8 4 ). The Oxford English Dictionary
(unabridged) shows that the word ‘sovereign’ is
generally used of a temporal ruler, not of God. This
matches the Calvinistic idea o f a government enforced
religion. (This is why Calvin promoted burning men at
the stake.)
•/ The word “Lord” with its religious connotations, moves

down a notch to merely “Master, O wner...m aster and
proprietor” in Newberry’s economy. Notice that his

names move God down from deity to titles which have
only temporal connotations. A mere man may be an
owner, a master, or a proprietor, but hardly ‘the Lord’
(N e w b e rry , 6 84). Like many words, it can have different
meanings in different contexts, but such words hardly

‘define’ the Lord Jesus Christ as Newberry indicates.
He calls these invented names “treasures o f precious

truth in the Titles o f God and o f Christ, which are more or
less hidden or obscured in the Authorized Version” (N e w b e rry ,
p. x ix ) . On the contrary, God said, “I have not spoken in
secret...” (Isa. 45:19). Since God said he has “hid these

things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto
babes,” the “wise” feel that they must dig deeper and
deeper, looking frantically for some kind o f wisdom which
“babes” find plainly on the pages o f a King James Bible.
“They are all plain to him that understandeth...” (Prov. 8:9).
■ Watered-Down Words
Berry’s Interlinear English is loaded with liberal

watered-down words. The very first line o f the very first
page o f Berry’s Interlinear English translation begins
diluting the unique Christian vocabulary o f the Holy Bible.
The title o f the gospel o f Matthew replaces the Christian
word “gospel” with the secular “glad tidings” (B e r r y , P. i). The
psycho-linguistic deterioration inherent in changes such as
this is discussed in detail in The Language o f the King
James Bible and In Awe o f Thy Word. Examine Berry’s
English translation in light of the verse comparison charts in
the book New Age Bible Versions. One will discover that his
vocabulary is that of the corrupt new versions; both use the
same corrupt lexicons, as the upcoming chapters will

demonstrate.
How to Use New Testament Greek Study Aids by Walter

Jerry Clark recommends Newberry saying, “masters” is
more correctly rendered as “teachers” ...“condemnation” is
really “judgment” (N e w Je r s e y : L o iz e a u x B ro th e rs, 1 9 8 3 , p. 9 5), A master
is in a ruling position and teaching may or may not be a part
o f that position; a teacher only instructs; they do not have
the same meaning or connotation in English; a teacher is
lower than a master. Condemnation is to be judged, found
guilty and sentenced; a judgment is merely a decision; it
tells nothing o f the verdict or any consequences. The
judgment may be ‘not guilty.’ In both cases the sword of the
Spirit becomes a butter knife to butter-up and lather the
liberal’s conscience; it is no longer “powerful, and
sharper.. .piercing,” which causes man to ‘tremble’ at the
“word” (Heb. 4:12; Isa. 66:2).
Very Wary of Berry’s English Verbs
Berry’s interlinear includes the actual King James Bible text

in the margin and sheepishly admits that the KJB is necessary to
“make it plain,” regarding verb tenses:
“We preserve this uniformity for the sake of

literalness, always remembering the fact of the
Authorized Version being in proximity, which
will make all plain in such instances” (B e rry ,
In tro ductio n , p. iv),
Why do we need his English translation, when this book has

shown that his English is not literal and he him self even admits
that one must look at the King James Bible to “make all plain ?
Greek verb tenses do not match English verb tenses. Fitting

a square pedant, like Newberry, into a well-rounded Holy Bible
is like matching the components of a fruit salad with the
components o f vegetable salad. There are similarities, such as
color, size and shape, but squeezing a fat fruity tomato into the
shape o f an apple always gives a little blinding squirt. The little
squirts who then blindly follow torturous Greek grammars make
an unnecessary mess with their forced “private interpretation.”
Berry follows Thayer’s Greek Grammar. Thayer was a

Unitarian who translated German grammars and lexicons into
English. Thayer denied the blood atonement, the Virgin birth,
the deity o f Christ, the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith,
the sinfulness o f man, and the infallibility o f the scriptures.
Thayer’s interest in the Bible was merely to destroy it in any
way he could. He found in the grammars and lexicons of
unbelieving critical Germans, a lightless shadow which he cast
over the English Bible through his grammars and lexicon.
In this vein Berry and Thayer refuse to translate the aorist

verb tense contextually or with deference to the English idiom.
They know that by doing so they can defuse the Holy Bible of
its very life. The translators o f the English Holy Bible (KJB)
have always known that in these cases the context sometimes
calls for a present, past, future, or perfect tense rendering. Yet to
deaden the Bible, Berry and Thayer limit it often to the
indefinite past, rarely translating it as the perfect. (The perfect
tense implies the continuance o f an act and its effects on the
present). Berry’s Interlinear often places the Bible and our life
with Christ in the dead past; it becomes lifeless, just like J.H.
Thayer wanted it to.
The fact that Greek verb tenses do not match English tenses
is well known among Greek ‘scholars.’ Berry admits of one
case in particular saying, “If the learned were agreed as to a
translation we should have kept to the sam e...” “If the learned”
do not agree among themselves, on what authority should
Berry’s particular choice be accepted? (B e rr y , in tro d u ctio n , p. iv .). With
his mishandling o f the Subjunctive mood he admits, “we have
deviated further from ordinary practice than in any other...” For
example, in James 2:11 (aorist subjunctive) instead o f the KJB’s
“Do not kill” (plain and to the point), he plays “Mother may I,”
saying, “Thou mayest not commit murder.” He shatters three
strong syllables into eight sissy syllables. As he admits the KJB
“will make all plain.”
“Let One Interpret”: Which English Interpretation?
Berry, Newberry, and many others are confusing the

original Greek and Hebrew with the ENGLISH words in the
corrupt lexicons and grammars that they use. Newberry speaks
o f the “beauties, accuracies, and perfections o f the Inspired
Original,” contrasted with what he calls the “ordinary English
Bible.” He repeatedly hammers about the “dull” English as
opposed to the “rich” original languages (N e w b e rry , P P . 6 6 7 , 9 37 ).
However, now that the bait is on the hook, it is time for the
switch. He switches the Greek and Hebrew text for an
ENGLISH lexicon written by an unsaved liberal, who translated
a German Lexicon, which originated with a Latin-Greek one
(see the chapters on Thayer). How does Newberry expect to
give a literal translation o f what he refers to as the “perfections
o f the Inspired Originals,” using the ENGLISH o f corrupt
lexicons?
The choice remains: whose English words will you trust -

the English words in lexicons written by unsaved liberals or the
English words in the Holy Bible? Both are English. The answer
is logical. No “scripture is o f any private interpretation” (2 Peter
1:19-21). The words “interpretation” and “interpreted” are used
in the New Testament to mean translation or translated, ‘going
from one language to another.’ Observe all o f the New
Testament usages:
■S Matt. 1:23 “Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God

with us.”
■S Mark 5:41 “Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted,
Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.”
Mark 15:22 “Golgatha, which is, being interpreted, The
place o f a skull.”
•S Mark 15:34 “Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabachthani? which is, being
interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
S John 1:38 “Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted,
Master)”
S John 1:41 “Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.”
S Acts 4:36 “Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son
o f consolation)”
S John 1:42 “Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone”
S John 9:7 “Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent)”
S Acts 9:36 “Tabitha, which by interpretation is called
Dorcas”
^ Acts 13:8 “Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by
interpretation)”
S 1 Cor. 12:10 “to another the interpretation o f tongues:”
S 1 Cor. 14:26 . .hath an interpretation...”
S Heb. 7:1, 2 “For this Melchisedec, king o f Salem ...first

being by interpretation King o f righteousness and after that
also King of Salem, which is, King o f peace...”
All of these uniform usages establish the New Testament

meaning of ‘interpretation.’ It will not change now in its last
usage in 2 Peter 1:19:21. It still means to go from one language
to another. (In the New Testament ‘interpretation’ does not
mean ‘what someone ‘thinks’ a verse means.’)
“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, until the day
dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
scripture is of any private interpretation. For
the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men o f God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:19-21).
The precedence was established that only one could interpret.
S 1 Cor. 12:30, 14:27 “do all interpret?...let one interpret.”
Therefore one Holy Bible for each language is THE interpreter.
The Bible’s built-in dictionary is defining “prophecy as

“word” or “scripture.” Using the New Testament’s usage of
“interpretation,” it appears that since the original “scripture
came “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” then its
interpretation (translation) cannot be “private,” or “by the will
o f man,” but also must be “by the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2). The
latter portion o f the verse is not speaking directly o f written
scripture, since it says, “men of God spake,” not wrote. But God
is making a parallel which indicates that the “interpretation”

(translation) o f “scripture” is not to be private, as seen in
lexicons. If there ever was a verse that inferred the direct
intervention o f God in the translation o f the Bible, this is it.
Acts 2 reiterates.
“Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen. 40:8).
Studying the English Bible will reveal how God uses

English words to speak to the English reader’s mind and heart.
A lengthy trip to the libraries of Greece, via Germany and
Rome is not necessary. The Holy Bible is a living book, and
like all living things, it lives in the light o f daily use, not in
dusty libraries. Newberry charges,
“In the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures there are

precisions, perfections, and beauties which
cannot be reproduced in any translation.”
Yet how is his “translation” in Berry’s Interlinear or Berry’s

lexicon, not imperfect like the “translation” in a Holy Bible. It is
an English translation also. Someone is not thinking. After
nearly 1000 years o f English Bibles, why would the only perfect
“translations” o f words still be in interlinears and lexicons and
not in a Bible? Historically the only one who claims to be the
interpreter o f the Bible is the Catholic church. Hmmmmm. That
rebellious spirit, which would usurp the authority o f G od’s one
interpreter— the Holy Bible, is not exclusive to the hierarchy of
the Catholic system, but is also driving those who write and use
lexicons and interlinears.
W estcott’s W olf in Sheep’s Clothing
Berry’s English translation is peppered with Revised

Version words in place after place. Newberry referred to the
RV committee, which contained that wicked triangle of three
Unitarians, two Platonists, and one pedophile, as “men o f tried
Biblical scholarship and various representative religious views”
(N e w b e rry , p. 9 4 4 ). He states,
“The Revised Version gives evidence o f being

the work o f men well qualified as scholars for
their task ...It is certainly much more accurate
in text and translation than the older version
[K JB )...” (N e w b e rry , pp. 9 4 4 , 9 4 5 ).
Berry admits that his Interlinear (1897) was actually a ploy

to vindicate the recent and much questioned Revised Version
(1881). He attempted to defend the RV by placing Greek textual
support for RV readings in his Interlinear’s footnotes and by
giving RV words as definitions in his Lexicon. (Thayer was a
member of the RV committee, American branch.) He chides
that without his book and,
“Without some knowledge of Hebrew and

Greek, you cannot understand the critical
commentaries on the Scriptures, and a
commentary that is not critical is of doubtful
value....you cannot satisfy yourself or those who
look to you for help as to the changes which
you will find in the Revised Old and New
Testam ents.. .you cannot appreciate the
critical discussions [Higher criticism and textual
criticism], now so frequent, relating to the
books o f the Old and New Testaments” (B e r r y , recto

o f co p y rig h t p a g e).
Berry’s textual views are shaky at best, referring to the

Received text as “the so-called Textus Receptus.” He assures
that, “All the variations o f any importance o f the text o f
Westcott and Hort have been given” (B e r r y , “ In trod uction to N e w
T estam en t L e x ic o n ,” p. v ). At the bottom o f each page o f the Interlinear
is listed the critical Greek text readings o f Griesbach (1805),

Lachmann (1842-1850), Tischendorf (1865-1872), Tregelles
(1857-1872), Alford (1862-1871) and Wordsworth (1870).
They are usually cited when they are highly critical o f the
Textus Receptus and the KJB. (O f course, as we saw in the last
chapters, in non-doctrinal areas these texts often reproduce the
true text; they must do this so that they will read like the Bible).
In 1897 when Berry’s American edition came out, one could
scarcely sell a ‘new ’ Critical Greek Text or a Revised Version
to the average pastor. So Berry published a Greek Textus
Receptus variety, with the KJB along side, then slid critical
Greek text readings in the footnotes and stowed many RV
words in the English Interlinear and Lexicon.
Some editions o f Newberry’s Reference Bible contain even

more information critical o f the KJB than his Portable (or
Pocket) edition or his Interlinear printed by George Ricker
Berry.
“In the Portable Edition a selection o f the

critical various Greek readings o f the New
Testament was given, with the names o f the chief
editors adopting them; the Large Type Edition
contains a fuller list of such readings, with a
statement o f uncial manuscripts supporting them,
but the names o f editors are omitted. In the
present Edition critical readings are not

inserted, and those who wish to consult them are
referred to the former Editions” (Thomas Newberry, The
Newberry Reference Bible, P o ck e t E d itio n , K ilm a rn o c k , S c o tla n d : Jo h n
R itc h ie L td ., n o date, N e w T esta m en t In tro ductio n , p. x i).
Newberry begins his Reference Bible stating that the KJB is

“imperfectly translated.” He thinks important facts are
“obliterated, indeed, almost entirely and inevitably, in
innumerable instances.” He apparently thinks that he and the
RV translators “corrected” the KJB (N e w b e rry , pp. v , x i v ; N e w b e rry , P o ck e t
ed ., N e w T esta m en t In troduction , p. iii).
“This is the result of repeated expressions of

dissatisfaction with the Authorised Version,
repeated attempts to amend it, and repeated calls
for its revision, on account of the faulty state of
the original text it proceeded upon, the
comparatively defective knowledge of the
original languages on the part of the
translators, and the proved presence o f many
inaccuracies, errors, and obscurities in the
renderings” (N e w b e rry , p. 944 ).
Why does the KJB render Eph. 1:5 correctly, as demonstrated

previously? Why is his Old Testament exactly 666 pages long?
Berry & Newberry’s Favorite Corrupt Greek Manuscripts
The lower margin of Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English

New Testament (Newberry’s) is filled with references to the
most corrupt readings imaginable. For the most part the textual
references criticize the text of the King James Bible and the
Textus Receptus. It takes these readings from Tregelles’s
Collation o f Critical Texts and cites the readings o f the first
critical Greek text, that o f Griesbach. To find fault with the

KJB, Newberry’s Reference Bible also uses these critical
editions, along with a long list o f corrupt manuscripts. In his
footnotes he constantly suggests that one should “Omit” words
in the KJB. He refers the reader to the Bible-doubting book,
““Textual Criticism for English Students,” by C.E. Stuart”
(N e w b e rry , p. 6 76 ).
Dean John W. Burgon referred to the Sinaiticus MS as “very

nearest the foulest in existence.” Yet Newberry spent “twenty-
five years” pouring over it. He believed this and other old
corrupt uncials were “the entire Scriptures in the original”
h ttp ://w w w .n ew b leh o m e.co .u k /n e w b erry /b io grap h y /h tm l). This Study prompted his
distain for the KJB and his taste for the corrupt Westcott-Hort
Greek text, which copies so many o f its omissions from the
Sinaiticus.
“ ...Codex Sinaiticus, presented to him by friends

in London in 1863, which is annotated
throughout in his neat handwriting. It was after
twenty-five years devoted to such study that he
conceived the plan o f putting its fruits at the
disposal o f his fellow-Christians in the Newberry
Study Bible”
(h ttp ://w w w .n ew b leh o m e.co .u k /n e w b erry /b ib le .h tm l).
In Newberry’s Reference Bible he uses the abbreviation

“Alex.,” meaning “Alexandrine.” Was his next step to print a
Westcott-Hort type text? He says, “ ...if he brought out another
edition, most o f the readings marked Alexandrine would be
incorporated into the text.” He says, “Critical Various Readings
o f the Greek text are given at the foot of the page, with the
authorities for and against, in cases of importance only” (N e w b e rry ,
. 6 7 8 ,6 7 6 ) . His use of the three letter abbreviation, “Byz,” to
p p
represent the over 5000 Majority text manuscripts implies that it

represents one manuscript rather than representing thousands
upon thousands.
Newberry’s Originals Not “Literally” Inspired
Just how inspired are Newberry’s originals? They are not

inspired ‘word-for-word,’ he says,
“This view has led to the Rabbinical notion of

literal inspiration, according to which the human
writer or speaker was a merely passive subject
under the influence o f the Divine Spirit, like a
pipe through which the wind is blown, to use an
old illustration. If this view had been correct the
Biblical historians would have had no need to
quote from previous authorities as they often
obviously do. But it is contrasted by the manifest
human elements in the Bible, such as the
different styles o f the different writers, &c [and
errors].. ..it acknowledges that they were limited
in other respects. This belief stands clear of
difficulties on small verbal points which often
needlessly perplex anxious minds. The frame is
not the picture” (Newberry, p. 939).
Evidently, his ‘originals’ [Sinaiticus] are the frame and his own
ideas take center stage as the picture.
Newberry, Not Very Discerning
Are strange doctrines adopted by men, like Berry and

Newberry, who use lexicons and grammars written by men
whose lives are riveted on disproving the deity o f Christ (i.e.
Thayer)? British author, Dusty Peterson, applies his ‘doctrinal

detective’ skills to Newberry, as he did to the heretical Alpha
Course in his book, Alpha, The Unofficial Guide. He questions
Newberry and observes,
“Newberry claims that,
“The absence o f the article, whether in

Greek or Hebrew (especially where
required by the idiom o f the English
language), expresses either
INDEFINITENESS, or that the word is to
be understood CHARACTERISTICALLY,
as expressing the CHARACTER o f the
person or thing” [p. 942 caps his],
“I have real doubts about this claim generally,

but it is particularly worrying when combined
with the following example o f his,
“ ...the word following is to be understood

as CHARACTERISTIC. As Mat. 1.1, “The
book o f the generation,” &c. John 1.1,
“ ...A nd the word was God.” [p. 699 (caps
his)].
“The clear implication is that the Word (Jesus

Christ] was only God in the sense o f having the
character o f God. (Note that Newberry does
not capitalize the first letter of “word” here,
despite its Biblical usage as Word referring to
our glorious Saviour, yet he seems happy to
capitalize the first letter of “virgin” when he
refers to “Mat. 1. 23, ‘Behold a Virgin”’

[Ibid.]).
“Still on the same page, Newberry chose, as his

only example o f “the Greek article in the
GENITIVE,” a reference to “John 1. 45, ‘The
son of Joseph’” [Ibid.]!!!”
“Line after line, and even word after word, he

subtly promotes doubt about the quality o f the
KJV translation...He floods the text with various
symbols which can each serve to make the reader
think they are missing out if they just read the
plain text. The margins do not merely offer his
interpretations (or even alternative renderings)
but actually contain thousands upon thousands o f
emendations to the text, encouraging the reader
to suppose that the translation is full o f errors.”
“The fact that Newberry and Berry used a

translation (KJB) they did not believe is a
testimony to their lack of integrity” (Letter on file
citing New berry, p. 669 et al.).
Why does Newberry warn o f “the dangerous tendency

towards Protestantism”? He was a member o f the Brethren, yet
used the snobbish term “laity,” a term which would seem
foreign to a group which believed “ye are all brethren” (Newberry,
pp. 943, 942).
To support his views Newberry references such untoward

characters as S.A. Driver, whose Old Testament Lexicon is so
vile it merits two entire chapters in this book (Newberry, p. xi; see
chapters on Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and Briggs). He references, o f all people,
the bizarre John Ruskin, a rabid Bible-hater who is discussed

elsewhere in this book (Newberry, p. 942; See chapter on Liddell-Scott Greek-

Newberry shows no textual discernment
English Lexicon, i.e. Dodgson).
when boasting o f Jerome’s corrupt Vulgate. He dreams, “its

fidelity and honesty were amply recognized, and in two
centuries it was universally adopted in the Western Church as
authoritative for both faith and practice...It was well worthy of
the esteem in which it was at length held” (Newberry, p. 942).
To end on a positive note, observe that Newberry and Berry

did get a few things right. Newberry said, “In 1388 W ycliffe’s
Bible was revised by John Purvey, and the revised text then
superseded the original version...” Yet many today fault a so-
called ‘W ycliffe’ Bible for having Vulgate readings, when the
edition they are quoting is not W ycliffe’s but that o f his
posthumous Catholic editor, the recanting John Purvey (Newberry,
p. 942; see In Awe o f Thy Word for details).
Also, in Eph. 6:24 Berry’s Interlinear Greek text correctly

has “Amen,” which Scrivener wrongly omits. ‘Am en’ for
something right.
Berry’s Greek-English Lexicon From Unitarian J.H. Thayer

and R.C. Trench
In the back of Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New

Testament (i.e. Baker Book House edition) is covertly hidden a
dangerous “Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament,”
Berry’s only attempt at originality. His contribution was
selecting which words to plagiarize from a few corrupt lexicons.
He hoped “to put into a brief and compact form as much as
possible o f the material found in the larger New Testament
Lexicons” (p. iii). In his “Introduction to New Testament
Lexicon” he identifies the real sources for his definitions. He
confesses he used the Greek-English Lexicon by the Christ

denying Unitarian J. H. Thayer.
“The material for this has been drawn chiefly

from Thayer” (Berry, “Introduction to New Testam ent Lexicon,”
v.).
Berry also plagiarized Thayer’s Greek Grammars,
“G.B. W iner’s A Grammar o f the Idiom o f the

New Testament, seventh edition, Translated by
J.H. Thayer; and Alexander Buttman, A
Grammar of the new Testament Greek,
Translated by J.H. Thayer (Berry, “Introduction to New
Testam ent Lexicon,” p. v).
Thayer’s Lexicon and Grammars are so unacceptable that

this book devotes an entire chapter to his Christless beliefs and
pagan resources. Because o f Berry’s pagan sources, hidden
here and there are “classical forms not occurring in the New
Testament” (p. v). Jump to the chapter on J.H. Thayer or better
yet, hop first to the chapter on Liddell-Scott’s Greek English
Lexicon, from which Thayer says he took most o f his
definitions. All o f the plagiarizing leads back to the Liddell-
Scott Greek-English Lexicon, a compendium o f paganism.
In Berry’s Lexicon, do not look for the orthography of the

Greek cursives or pure old vernacular Bibles, as Berry’s names
“followed the usage o f modern editors; putting in the
G reek...a small letter for Christ, and a small letter for Lord and
for God.” Also he has not always followed the historic verse
divisions, but “followed Bruder’s “Greek Concordance,
though that work does not in all cases agree with itself’ (Berry,
p. iii.).
R.C. Trench, the Heretic
In addition to Thayer, Berry’s Lexicon admits, “much

material has been drawn from R.C. Trench, Synonyms o f the
New Testament, and from the New Testament Lexicons of
Thayer and C rem er...” (p. v.). Like Thayer, Trench’s
wrenching o f the scriptures merits an entire chapter in this book.
Summary
Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament has been

proven to be a rubber crutch which collapses with the weight of
its shaky sinning Saviour and the curse o f a missing verse (Rev.
22:9).
Chapter 20
The Wobbly
Unorthodox Greek Orthodox
Crutch:
Un-Orthodox Greek Manuscripts

From the
Un-Orthodox Greek Church
■ Versions Slightly Correct Extant Greek

Says Dean Burgon and Dr. Moorman
■ Relics: Sculls & Scrolls
■ Greek Manuscript Errors
■ Greek Orthodox Heresy

“the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23)
■ Greek’s Deception of ‘Divine Intimacy’
■ Koine Greek Gone:

“I will come unto thee quickly, and will
remove thy candlestick out of his place, except
thou repent” (Rev. 2:5).
“I will spew thee out of my mouth” Rev. 3:16.

UNORTHODOX GREEK MANUSCRIPT CRUTCH 731
Versions Provide “slight corrections” to Greek
he manuscript store o f over 5000 Greek manuscripts
T produced by the Greek Orthodox church and its

predecessors does, in the main, match the King James
Bible exactly. These Greek manuscripts are a powerful witness
to the veracity o f the Received Text seen in the King James
Bible and in most historical vernacular Bibles worldwide.
Church History professor, Bruce Musselman, reminds us that
there was a perfectly pure Greek Received Text, used by many,
such as the Greek Bogamiles or Paulicians, years after Christ.
Their Greek Bibles were burned, along with their owners, by
Emperor Diocletian, Empress Theodora and others. (For information
on the Bogamiles and Paulicians see John T. Christian, A History o f the Baptists, Bogard Press:
Texarkana, A rkansas, 1922).
Today, we are generally left with the product, not

necessarily o f these true Greek Christians, but o f the Greek
Orthodox monasteries. The veneration of these Greek
manuscripts has become inflated beyond anything directed
in the scriptures. The w orld’s leading authorities on the Greek
Received Text, Dean John Burgon and Dr. Jack Moorman,
remind us that the extant Greek texts are not the final authority.
Dean John Burgon, the nineteenth century’s most avid

promoter o f the Greek Received Text, recognized the
sometimes tampered state o f the extant products o f the Greek
Orthodox church and the currently printed editions o f the Textus
Receptus (emphasis in original):
“Once for all, we request it may be clearly

understood that we do not, by any means, claim
perfection for the Received Text. We entertain
no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and
again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at

page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs
correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an
incomparably better product: infinitely
preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ o f the
Revisionists” (John Burgon, Revision Revised, Collingswood, NJ:
Dean Burgon Society Press, p. 21, f. 2).
“ ...I have not by any means assumed the Textual

purity of that common standard. In other words, I
have not made it ‘''the fin a l standard o f A ppeal:’’
All critics,— wherever found,— at all times,
have collated with the commonly received Text:
but only as the most convenient standard o f
Comparison; not, surely, as the absolute
Standard o f Excellence” (Revision Revised, pp. xviii-xix).
“Obtained from a variety o f sources this Text

proves to be essentially the same in all. That it
requires Revision in respect o f many o f its lesser
d e t a i l s , is u n d e n i a b l e . . . ” (Revision Revised, p. 269).
“But pray— , who in his senses,— what sane

man in Great Britain,— ever dreamed o f
regarding the “Received,” - aye, or any other
known “Text,— ” as a “standard from which
there shall be no appeal"! Have I ever done so?
Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me
where. (Revision Revised, p. 385).
“A final standard” ! . . . Nay but, why do you
suddenly introduce this unheard-of
characteristic? Who, pray, since the invention of
Printing was ever known to put forward any
existing Text as “a final standard” ? (ellipses in original;

Revision Revised, p. 392).
“And yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it,

that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the
threefold witness o f copies, versions, Fathers
whenever I find its testimony challenged (Revision
Revised, p. 392).
Dr. Gary LaMore o f Canada cites these quotes from Burgon

and concludes, “[A]nd yet his recognition that in “lesser
details,” the copies, versions, and Fathers might yield slight
corrections if properly and soundly used” (La M ore, P. 39).
Therefore Burgon, with all o f his hands-on experience with
Greek manuscripts, has concluded that versions, other than
Greek, hold the original reading in some cases. This is certainly
true of today’s very slightly marred Greek printed editions by
Frederick Scrivener and George Ricker Berry, as was
demonstrated in the chapters devoted to their texts, and will be
further demonstrated in this chapter. It is overwhelmingly true
o f the grossly corrupt Greek editions o f Westcott, Hort, Nestle,
Aland, and the United Bible Society.
Author Dr. Jack Moorman o f Great Britain, one o f today’s

most prolific collators and researchers, agrees with Burgon
saying,
“Our extant MSS [manuscripts] reflect but do

not determine the text o f Scripture. The text was
determined by God in the beginning (Psa.
119:89, Jude 3). After the advent o f printing
(A.D. 1450), the necessity o f God preserving the
MS witness to the text was diminished.
Therefore, in some instances the majority of
MSS extant today may not reflect at every point

what the true, commonly accepted, and majority
reading was ...”
“When a version has been the standard as long as

the Authorized Version and when that version
has demonstrated its power in the conversion of
sinners, building up of believers, sending forth of
preachers and missionaries on a scale not
achieved by all other versions and foreign
languages combined, the hand o f God is at work.
Such a version must not be tampered with. And
in those comparatively few places where it seems
to depart from the majority reading, it would be
far more honoring towards G od’s promises of
preservation to believe that the Greek and not
the English had strayed from the original!”
(underline in the original; Jack M oorm an, When the KJV Departs From
the Majority , A rarat, VA: AV Publications, pp. 27, 28).
Even Scrivener admits that versions make “known to us the

contents o f manuscripts o f the original older than any at present
existing” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 106). The KJB translators WOuld
agree. The recently discovered notes o f the King James
translation committee by KJB translator John Bois notes in two
places (Romans 12:10 and James 2:22) where the KJB
translators said the Greek should be interpreted “as if it had
been written” in Greek another way. There were originally
Greek codices that were correct in James 2:22, for example, but
many Greek codices are not (W ard Allen, Translating For King James,
Vanderbilt University Press, 1969, pp. 43, 89; In Awe o f Thy Word, p. 538; Berry’s Interlinear
The Encyclopedia
Greek-English, Baker Books, 1985, p. 588 footnote for James 2:22).
Britannica affirms, “The English o f the New Testament actually

turned out to be superior to its Greek original” because they
accessed and confirmed the Received Text in Holy Bibles in

other languages. The EB is o f course referring to the edition of
the Textus Receptus in hand, not the originals (“Biblical literature: The
King James and subsequent versions” ; this citation is from the contem porary EB; all other
citations in this book are to the 1910-11 edition.)
Two hundred years later, in 1838, the Jews’ Society

followed the KJB translator’s method o f accessing a pure
vernacular Bible, when creating an edition o f the Hebrew New
Testament. They made changes to the Greek, “following in
most dubious cases the reading o f the authorized English
V e r s i o n ” (See the chapter, “The Scriptures to All N ations,” for many more such examples;
John M cClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia o f Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical
Literature , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, vol. 12, p. 535.)
The Word to All the World & The Scriptures to All Nations
Evangelist Stephen Shutt reminds us, “Let it be clear, these

languages were used by God at one time [ancient Hebrew and
ancient Koine Greek]. Yet, interestingly enough, God did away
with their authoritative solidarity at Pentecost” (letter on file).
There are no verses in the Bible that indicate that the Greek
Bible was to be the only Holy Ghost-built stepping stone to all
other Bibles. “Search the scriptures,” as Jesus said, such a
directive is not found in the Bible. Surely if the Greek Bible
were to have pre-eminence and be continually used as the tool
to open up the scriptures there would be at least one verse
stating this. There is such a verse identifying the Hebrews as the
guardians o f the Old Testament (Rom. 3:2); surely there would
be another such verse about the New Testament being given to
the Greeks, if that were the case, but there is no such verse. On
the contrary, the book of Acts recounts the multiplication o f the
word:
■ 1st: The Bible’s explanation o f the birth o f “the scriptures”

“to all nations” begins in Acts 2 with the “Holy Ghost”
giving the gift of tongues so that “every man heard them
speak in his own language” from “every nation under
heaven” (Acts 2:4-12). The Holy Ghost could have given
any gift imaginable, from flying for quick travel to walking
through walls to escape prison. But he gave vernacular
tongues because the Bible, not flying supermen, would be
his vehicle to carry his words. The world was not strictly
Greek-speaking, as we are sometimes told. The inscription
on the cross was in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The word of
God would have been needed immediately in Latin and
Hebrew (Aramaic), as well as Gothic, Celtic, Arabic, and
numerous other languages, some o f which are listed in Acts
2:9-11.
■ 2nd: In Acts 4 “they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and
they spake the word of God with boldness (v. 31).
■ 3rd: Throughout Acts “the word o f God increased; and the

number of the disciples multiplied” (Acts 6:7). Notice that
the word o f God came first and only then did the numbers
multiply. A pure Bible is a part o f the foundation.
■ 4th: “[T]hey that were scattered abroad went every where

preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of
Samaria... Samaria had received the word o f G o d ...” (Acts
8:4, 5). “ [T]he word o f God” which the Samaritan villagers
needed was not Greek.
“The colloquial language o f the Samaritans from the last

century B.C. till the first centuries o f the Mohammedan
hegemony was a dialect o f the West Aramaic, usually
designated Samaritan; it presented few differences, apart
from loan words from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as

compared with the ordinary Palestinian Aramaic found
in the Targums and in certain parts o f the Talmud.”
“The Samaritan language properly so called is a dialect

o f Palestinian Aramaic, of which the best examples are
found in the literature o f the 4th century A.D. An archaic
alphabet, derived from the old Hebrew, was retained,
and is still used by them for writing A ram aic..
“The Targum, or Samaritan-Aramaic version o f the

Pentateuch was most probably written down about that
time (“not much earlier than the fourth century A.D.”).
Hellenistic works, after Alexander were rare and were
limited to minor literary works, not to the language of
the populace in general. The Arabic language gradually
replaced Samaritan <e.b. 1 9 11 , vol. 24, PP. 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 ; The Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge, Vol. 10, Funk and W agnalls, 1 9 1 1 ,P. 189).
When “Samaria had received the word o f God,” it was not

in Greek, but the Holy Ghost given Samaritan “word of
God,” from men who had received the gift o f tongues.
■ 5th: The Lord said to Peter, “What God hath cleansed, that
call not thou common” (Acts 11:9). Vernacular means
common. In Acts 2 the Holy Ghost cleansed, for his use,
what vernacular use had marred.
■ 6th: Soon the “Gentiles” “glorified the word o f the

Lord.. .And the word o f the Lord was published throughout
all the region” (Acts 13:48-49).
■ 7th: The word spread so far that Jason said, “These that have
turned the world upside down are come hither also” (Acts
17:6). Col. 1:5, 6 tells of “The word o f the truth o f the

gospel; Which is come into you, as it is in all the world.”
■ Paul “said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee?
Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?” He would not have
asked if he had been speaking in Greek. When preaching to
the people, “He spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue...”
(Acts 21:37-40).
Paul said, “I thank my God, 1 speak with tongues more than

ye all” (1 Cor. 14:18). Why did Paul use tongues “more” than
any other man? He perhaps wrote most o f the books o f the New
Testament, using Greek, as well as penning editions in other
languages as needed. No doubt many o f those in Rome needed
the book of Romans in Latin, particularly those in the villages.
Why would God give the ability to preach and teach in various
languages and not allow Paul and the disciples to write down
the very words of God in the needed languages? The Bible says,
“Preach the w ord...” (2 Tim. 4:2). The words “preach” and
“word” are directly connected throughout the New Testament.
H. C. Hoskier, the renowned manuscript collator and Bible

scholar, wrote Concerning the Genesis o f the Versions o f the
N.T. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1910) proving that the New
Testament was circulating immediately in multiple languages.
(This will be discussed in detail in another chapter.) This is not
a new idea, but one which is derived from the Bible’s own
description in Acts. In Awe oj Thy Word proved that the English
Bible came directly from the gift o f tongues which provided
“Holy Ghost” inspired words and Bibles for those who spoke
Gothic, Celtic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and the other languages.
These words moved directly forward into the English Bible
through the seven purifications described in Psa. 12:6, 7, just as
Latin words moved forward into Romaunt, Provincial, Spanish,

French, and Italian. The book o f Romans ends saying, “But
now is made manifest, and by the scriptures o f the prophets,
according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made
known to all nations...” (Donald M. Ayers, English Words From Latin and Greek
Elements, Tucson: The U niversity o f Arizona Press, 1986, 2nd ed., pp. 1-14 et al.).
God knew that any one nation group could not be trusted
with the charge of preserving the New Testament scriptures.
Unto the Jews were committed the oracles o f God, that is, the
Hebrew Old Testament. This was the only nation that was
chosen as such. However, the Hebrews changed verses with
Messianic prophecies — after Christ came (See chapters on the
Hebrew text). So God would no longer work with individual
nations, but with any man in any nation who would believe in
him. The charge o f keeping the scriptures was given to this new
priesthood of believers as a whole, in “every nation under
heaven” (Acts 2). (See chapter, “The Scriptures to All Nations”
for a continuation o f this topic.)
Greek-Orthodox Only?
The Greek Orthodox church is responsible for most o f the

Greek manuscripts which are used today to verify readings in
the Bible. Like the Christ-rejecting Jews, the unregenerate
Greek Orthodox hierarchy and monks, who transcribed these
manuscripts during the years between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D.,
made some minor alterations which affect the purity o f their
Greek manuscripts. They omitted several verses, a number of
words, and many o f their manuscripts do not even contain the
book o f Revelation. Given these facts we see that it is unsafe to
lean completely upon the manuscripts of this church as the final
authority.
Unscriptural beliefs abound about the transmission of the

New Testament text. For example, Jay P. Green states in the
Preface to his Greek New Testament text that God preserved the
scriptures, “using the Greek Orthodox church” (See chapters “The
Textual Heresies o f F.H.A. Scrivener,” "Very W ary o f George Ricker Berry” for details about
Jay P. G reen’s The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Peabody MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1988, Vol. IV, p. ix).
Green’s unscriptural view is shared by seminary trained

men in spite of the fact that no Bible verse indicates that a
national Greek church and the documents its unregenerate
monks produced would have a stranglehold o f authority over
Holy Bibles preserved by true Christians over the ages. No
scripture indicates that the Greeks would be the only ones to
have a pure text. Not only is there no verse which states this, but
the book o f Revelation states dogmatically that God said he
would “remove the candlestick out o f his place” from the
Greek-speaking church if it did not repent of its unscriptural
practices (Rev. 2:5). The candlestick, which is the church, holds
the candle, which is the word o f God and is a light unto our path
(Rev. 1:20). The Greek-speaking churches did not repent.
Today there are no thriving Christian bodies where the Greek
speaking churches o f Laodicia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos and
Thyatira, Sardis, and Philadelphia were (Rev. 1:11) — only the
skeletal remains in the form o f the Greek Orthodox church.
Ancient Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language; it died
with the removal o f their candlestick; its remains merely haunt
Modem Greek. The charges Christ made against the Greek
churches stand today: The Greek Orthodox church began and
continues with the doctrine o f the Nicolaitans, “which thing I
hate” (Rev. 2:15). They remove “which thing I hate” from their
Greek manuscripts. Nicolaitans comes from nico (to rule over)
and laitans (the laity, that is, the people). They continue to
follow in the steps o f “that woman” and worship ‘the Virgin.’
They eat things sacrificed to idols in their communion service.

(See Rev. 2 and 3, as well as the last half o f this chapter, for
other similarities between the current Greek church and the
rebukes in Revelation.)
Relics: Skulls & Scrolls Preserved By Unsaved Monks
The Greek Orthodox church is also called the Byzantine

church. The Greek text is also called the Byzantine text because
most of the extant Greek manuscripts were produced in the
regions o f the Byzantine Empire and during that period. The
thousands o f Greek manuscripts that are used to validate
readings in the New Testament were the product of, or were
corrected and stored by, men in Greek monasteries. Frederick
Scrivener, editor of an edition o f the Textus Receptus, says that,
“ ...all or nearly all that we know, not o f the Bible only, but of
those precious remains o f profane literature,” we owe to the
“scribes” who were “members o f religious orders, priests or
monks” living in “convents.” “More must still linger unknown
in monastic libraries of the East.” Even the Syriac Manuscript
came from “the convent o f S Mary the Mother of God” (Scrivener,
Six Lectures, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1874, pp. 4, 93, 91 et al.; F.H.A. Scrivener,
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism o f the New Testament, London: George Bell and Sons,
1984, vol. i, p. Greek manuscripts are invariably described as
4).
being “found in some eastern monastery.” Would you go to a

convent today to find the best version of the Bible? Would God
give treasures to unsaved monks who have perennially had a
distorted interpretation o f the scriptures?
Scrivener says that the Sinaiticus manuscript, which

underlies most new versions, was discovered in the Greek
Orthodox compound, “the Convent o f St Catherine” (Scrivener, six
Lectures, p. 32). It contains the apocryphal Epistle o f Barnabas and
the Shepherd of Hermas. It is one of the most treasured and

most corrupt of all Greek manuscripts. It was under the care and
periodic corruption o f the monks who live in the walled
complex of St. Catherine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt.
Sinai. These unsaved monks have made alterations to the text
many times over the course o f centuries. Such alterations appear
today in modem versions which say in their margins, “The
oldest MSS say ...”
This monastery today is the home of the second largest

library o f Greek and other language Bible manuscripts in the
world, housing some 6000 manuscripts, 3000 being from the
ancient period. It also houses 2000 idolatrous icons
(http://www.sinai4you.com/santa/). When someone says, ‘The
Greek say s...’ he is likely referring to the Greek manuscripts
which have been housed in this monastery. These manuscripts
are not kept at St. Catherine’s (or any other Greek monastery)
because the Greek church and their monks love the word of
God; they are kept because they are considered ‘relics’ and as
such are superstitiously believed to have supernatural powers.
As this chapter will explain later in detail, the focus of the
Greek Orthodox church is and has always been the veneration
o f the dead and their relics.
The Skull House
The Greek manuscript library at St. Catherine’s Monastery

is surrounded by the other relics housed there. These reflect the
bizarre character and history o f the monks who made and
maintained the thousands o f manuscripts which are still housed
there. Sharing space at St. Catherine’s monastery with the
manuscripts are room after room stacked almost to the
ceiling with thousands upon thousands of SKULLS of every
monk who has died there for the past 1500 years. This part
of St. Catherine’s Monastery is called The Skull House (The

Chapel of St. Triphone). Their dead monks are first buried,
and then disinterred when the flesh has dissolved. Digging
up ghoulish corpse skulls and digging words out of Greek
scrolls is all in a days work for these monks.
More macabre yet are the walls with the fu ll skeletons of

the bodies of Abbots and Bishops hanging in gruesome
niches. More chilling are the skull and hand bones of St.
Catherine which are carried in a parade yearly to be
‘venerated’ The manuscript-writing monks believe in the
‘powers’ of these gruesome skeletons and scrolls. The
veneration of the ancient Greek scrolls is no different from
the veneration of ancient Greek skulls.
(http://w w w .sinai4you.com /santa/; http://interoz.com /egypt/Sc09.htm )
http://w ww .sacred-destinations.com /egypt/sinai-st-catherines-m onastery.htm
Living daily among these disinterred remains, as if it were a

normal thing, speaks o f the spiritual deadness and bondage of
these Greek manuscript-makers. Obsession with things dead is

devilish. The skulls and skeletons o f Halloween celebrate the
devil’s day. The man possessed with an unclean spirit lived
among the tombs until he was freed by an encounter with
Christ, who is life.
■ Mark 5:2-9 says, “there met him out o f the tombs a man
with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among
the tombs.”
■ Luke 8:27-30 says, those “which had devils long
time...neither abode in any house, but in the
tombs. . .many devils were entered into him.”
Let us not join the monks, reverencing the empty skulls of

scholars and their scrolls, when we have the word o f God which
“liveth and abideth forever.” Jesus said “the words that I speak
unto you, they are.. .life” (John 6:63).
Greek ‘Father’ Harakas still directs his readers to the

Halloween party decor at “St. Catherine’s Monastery, an
Orthodox shrine on Mount Sinai.”
The anti-Bible perspective o f the Greek church is evidenced

by the Islamic mosque, minarets and all, that they voluntarily
built within the walled complex of St. Catherine’s Greek
Orthodox Monastery, where the Sinaiticus manuscript was
discovered! You can visit it today; search the internet for tours.
Another source o f manuscripts is the Greek Orthodox

monastery Mt. Athos. ‘Father’ Harakas says,
“ ...going back at least to 962 A.D., is the Holy

Mountain Athos, which consists of twenty
m onasteries.. “Another interesting note is that
despite modem advances, women are still not

allowed on Mt. Athos, known for its
monasticism, and thought to be a Holy Mountain
(Stanley Harakas, The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers,
M inneapolis, M N, Life and Light Publishing Com pany, 1987-88, pp. 226,
349, 253).
“[FJorbidding to marry” is a doctrine o f devils (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

This is a devilish church system. In centuries past Mr. Curzon
found a Bible manuscript “on the library floor at the monastery
of Caracalla, on Mount Athos, and begged it o f the Abbot, who
suggested that the vellum leaves would be o f use to cover
pickle-jars” (Scrivener, Six Lectures, pp. 79, 83).
The bulk of Greek manuscripts extant today are the

product of some monastery. Scrivener’s book on textual
criticism even begins its history and analysis of Greek
manuscripts with the monk “Bernard de Montfaucon [1655-
1741], the most illustrious member o f the learned Society o f the
Benedictines o f St. Maur,” “a high authority on all points
relating to Greek manuscripts, even after the more recent
discoveries, especially among the papyri . . . ” (Scrivener, a Plain, v o l. 1,
P. 2i). Are books and collations by monks now our final
authority? Scrivener observes that codex Alexandrinus contains
“the Epistle o f Clement.” Some conclude it was written by “St.
Thecla.” “ [T]he scribe might belong to a monastery dedicated
to that holy martyr” (Scrivener, A Plain, Vol. 1, pp. 101, 102, 104).
Greek’s Manuscripts Omit Whole Verses
“the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23)
The preservation o f the ancient Koine Greek Bible is not

mandated for the preservation of the Holy Bible, since no one
speaks Koine Greek today. 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 have been
violently expunged by the Greek Orthodox church from most of
their Greek manuscripts. Is God’s hand bound by the heresies
and frailties o f one apostate nation or one sect?
Acts 8:37 Omission Causes Child Abuse
Acts 8:37 expresses the Christian truth that belief in Jesus

Christ is a pre-requisite to baptism, which is only an outward
sign of an inward reality.
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine

heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” Acts
8:37.
The Greeks omitted the entire verse 37 from most o f their

manuscripts. This omission was obviously quite deliberate as
this verse contradicts the Greek church’s very foundation of
securing members through infant (non-believers) baptism. Acts
8:36 ends with the question from the Eunuch, “See, here is
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Without the next
verse, there is no answer to that question. Verse 38 says,
“ ...they went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch; and he baptized him.” Verse 37 is the eunuch’s
admission ticket to baptism; without verse 37, no confession of
faith is required and the infant baptism practiced by the Greek
church is acceptable. The Greek Catechism says, “From
thenceforth all who desired to be saved” must “receive Divine
Grace through the Sacraments and conform to His teachings”
(Constas H. Demetry (D octor o f the Ecumenical Throne), The Catechism o f The Eastern
Orthodox Church, Fort Lauderdale, FL: The Saint Demetrios Greek O rthodox Church, p. ii)-
They teach that baptism and communion “are necessary” for
salvation, not belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Because they do not think that unbelief alone can damn

a man to hell, many Greek manuscripts change “and
unbelieving” to “and unbelieving and sinners” in Rev. 21:8.
A church which would tell people that they were “bom

again” when baptized as infants is damning millions o f souls to
hell with their false promise. Today alone, the Greek Orthodox
church has well over 200 million members; six million o f these
are in the United States. If the Greeks do not care about what
God said was a pre-requisite to baptism, should we care about,
“What the Greek said...”? Did God entrust his precious word to
such scoundrels?
The Greek Orthodox church has the most peculiar o f all

beliefs about Baptism. They baptize babies between the age o f 4
months and 7 months. The child is fully immersed three times.
How in the world do they drown these little ones three times
without the child gulping water into his little lungs. It must be
quite traumatic for the child. Given the ensuing choking,
gasping, and gurgling, Harakas says, “No parent should wait too
long, when there is a danger o f the child becoming
unmanageable at the service.” “[T]he ritual cutting o f the hair at
baptism” is added (Harakas, pp. 17, 18). Bizarre. If he lives through the
ceremony he will receive charismation, that is, an anointing
with oil to receive the Holy Ghost. All their outward ceremonies
are devoid o f a personal belief on the Lord Jesus Christ and the
real spiritual new birth.
The Greeks are taught how to respond to true Christians

who may ask, ‘Are you bom again?’ They are taught the
following:
“All Orthodox Christians are “bom again” by

virtue o f their baptism and chrismation” (Harakas, p.
46).
“The Orthodox view is that baptism and

chrismation not only free the person from the
bondage of sin and evil, but grant the Holy Spirit
to the new Christian and confer upon him or her
lay status. This means that the Christian is fully a
member of the Body o f Christ and therefore a
full communicant in the sacramental life o f the
Church. Thus, infants who are baptized and
chrismated are also expected to participate in the
sacrament o f Holy Communion and usually do
so from the very day of their baptism” (Harakas, P.
115).
After they half-drown the uncooperative infant, they choke

these bottle-fed babes with a piece o f cracker. I hope they know
the Heimlich maneuver. Greek Orthodox adults who have
survived this ordeal are warned against attending Christian
“meetings” where they might be asked ‘Are you bom again?’
“Therefore, you see, being “bom again” in the

Orthodox understanding is accomplished at our
baptism...Thus, if you have been baptized,
chrismated and are living a Christian life,
sacramentally, spiritually and morally, you not
only have been “bom again” but even more
importantly, you are growing in God’s image
toward the fulfillment o f your Christian life.
When Protestants use the term “bom again” to
mean repentance, they in effect make baptism
of no significance. This is an abuse o f the
Biblical phrase.. .Thus, there is no reason for

you to go to meetings or to feel put upon by
people of other religions who challenge you
with “Are you born again? The answer is
“ y e s ” (Harakas, pp. 46, 47 et al.).
There is a large market for the new bible versions which

omit Acts 8:37 and even change Greek verbs to accommodate
the popular belief in baby-baptism. Harakas does likewise,
“To be baptized means to be bom again.. .It is an

ongoing, life-long process. Salvation is past
tense in that...w e have been saved [i.e. at
baptism]. It is present tense, for we are “being
saved” by our active participation [by good
works and through the Sacraments o f the
church],. .Baptism is the way in which a person
is actually united to Christ. The Orthodox
Church practices baptism by full
immersion.. .Justification is not a once-for-all,
instantaneous pronouncement guaranteeing
eternal salvation...”
(http://w w w .bible.ca/cr-O rthodox.htm #creed).
The teaching that baptism brings regeneration is held by

many groups. The Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, and
Lutheran systems practice infant baptism and deny that one
must “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” before he is baptized
[See chapter on Scrivener], Therefore the omission o f Acts 8:37
from most new versions is widely accepted. The Greek
Orthodox church, so grounded on infant baptism to bolster its
membership, expunged Acts 8:37 from their Greek manuscripts,
yet the fires o f hell will not be extinguished with their ‘holy’
water, which cannot match the tide which carried this verse to
Bibles around the world.
Greek Manuscripts’ Omission of 1 John 5:7 Chops Trinity
The Greek manuscripts remove the Trinity and unity o f God

in two places. In Mark 12:32 they omit “God,” replacing “for
there is one God” with “for he is one.” They also completely

remove the clearest Trinitarian proof text, 1 John 5:7:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven,

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one” 1 John 5:7
How ‘Orthodox’ can a church be that removes THE

Trinitarian proof text from the Bible? Removing a verse is bad
enough, but removing a verse that speaks o f the Godhead of the
Holy Ghost is enough leaven to leaven the whole lump.
Controversies about the nature o f the Godhead have

abounded throughout history. The Greeks who worshipped the
gods o f mythology and the “UNKNOWN” God, recoiled at a
verse which describes the Godhead, then concludes, “This is the
true G o d ...” (Acts 17:23; 1 John 5:20). The weak Greek monks
and priests caved in and simply omitted the verse which stirred
the antagonism o f unbelievers.
The precise nature o f the Trinity was debated among the

Sabellians, Monophysites, Monarchists, Modalists, Noetists,
and Patripassians, some leaning in the direction o f the
Unitarian, which sees God as only one person. Church History
professor, Bruce Musselman, says that the Arianism and semi-
Arianism o f Constantine and Eusebius were a faltering
foundation from which the Greek church arose. Additionally,

the Council of Chalcedon in 451 dealt with disagreements about
the divine and human natures o f Jesus. The Greeks say that the
Monophysites “emphasized the divine nature of Jesus at the
expense o f His human nature” (Harakas, p. 157). Edward Hills in The
King James Version Defended suggests that 1 John 5:7 was
removed by the Greek church because o f the Sabellians. He
says,
“In the Greek-speaking East especially the

comma [1 John 5:7] would be unanimously
rejected, for there the struggle against
Sabellianism was particularly severe. Thus it is
not impossible that during the 3ld century, amid
the stress and strain o f the Sabellian controversy,
the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek
text but was preserved in the Latin texts of
Africa and Spain, where the influence o f
Sabellianism was probably not so great...[I]t is
possible that the text of the Latin Vulgate, which
really represents the long-established usage o f
the Latin Church, preserves a few genuine
readings not found in the Greek
manuscripts...The fate of this passage in the
Greek East does indeed parallel the many times
Satan in OT days sought to destroy the line
through which Christ the Living Word would
come. We are reminded o f Athaliah cutting off
all o f the seed royal - except Joash! (M oorman, pp.
122-123).
An entire book, The History o f the Debate Over 1 John 5 :7,

by Michael Maynard demonstrates that 1 John 5:7 is original.
He traces the verse from the earliest times through many ancient
citations and Holy Bibles. (See M ichael M aynard, The History o f the Debate Over
1 John 5:7 and G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, Chapter 28 “The G odhead’s Gone,”
both available from A.V. Publications.
With 1 John 5:7 omitted in most o f their Greek manuscripts,

the man-made views of the Greek church regarding the Trinity
naturally seem to go beyond that given in the Bible. Any
statements on the Trinity, outside o f direct quotes from the
Bible are presumptuous at best and dangerous to say the least.
The Greek Orthodox Creed moves into dangerous

conjecture saying, “God the Father is the fountainhead o f the
Holy Trinity.” Harakas says presumptuously that the Trinity is
composed o f the —
“Father (who is the “source” of divinity), the

Son (who is forever “born” o f the Father), and
the Holy Spirit (who forever “proceeds from the
Father) (Harakas, p. 152).
“When we say that the second person o f the Holy

Trinity, the Son, is born (or “is begotten”) o f the
Father, we are describing in poor and inadequate
human words that the Son in some way,
appropriate to God alone, comes forth from the
first person o f the Holy Trinity. In this case, the
first person of the Holy Trinity is understood
as the “source,” or “beginning,” of the second
person of the Holy T rinity...” (Harakas, P. 23).
Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are eternal. The Greek’s
extra-biblical surmising would be better left undone. Just leave
1 John 5:7 in the Bible and leave the rest to God. The Bible uses
the term “begotten” in three ways: 1) It refers to Christ’s
“flesh,” when Christ was “begotten into the world” (John 1:14;
Heb. 1:5-6; Heb. 5:5-7; Heb. 11:17; 1 John 4:9), 2) It refers to
the new birth (1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 10; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 5:1;
1 John 5:18), and 3.) It most specifically refers to the time in
which God “raised up Jesus again” as “the first begotten o f the
dead” (Rev. 1:5; Acts 13:33-34 et al.). The Greek and creedal
phrases, “begotten before all worlds” and “forever bom ” are not
scriptural.
The Greeks likewise move outside o f the scriptures,

pretending that “the world was created by the Father,” not
Created 'by Jesus Christ5 (Dem etry, p. 21; also see the chapter herein, “Mortal
Sins: Living Verbs W ounded in Gram m ars” for a discussion o f the prepositions ‘b y ’ and
This contradicts John 1 : 1 - 3 and Col. 1 : 1 6 . Such views
•through.’).
come from reading Greek church ‘fathers’ and creeds, not from
the scriptures.
Revelation, a Censored Book
To whom were the rebukes in the book o f Revelation

addressed? They were sent to Greek-speaking churches!!! So,
what did the Greek church do? Because the book o f Revelation
contains God’s rebukes to the Greek-speaking churches o f the
Byzantine Empire, they seldom include the book o f Revelation
in their Greek manuscripts or lectionaries. Only 1 in 50 Greek
manuscripts contains this book. Jack Moorman, author o f the
definitive study on Revelation manuscripts says, that “if we
went strictly by the majority of extant Greek MSS we wouldn’t
be able to include the Book o f Revelation at all, for only one in
fifty MSS contain it. There was a bias in the Greek speaking
East against the book, and it was not used in the lectionary
s e r v i c e s ” (M oorm an, p. 27).
“It is not surprising that this book which so

mightily tells of Christ’s Second Coming and
Satan’s defeat, should itself be the chief object of
Satan’s attack. The “official” church both East
and West, but especially (the Greek] East, was
slow to accept the book as canonical. The
rebukes to the seven churches in Asia may
have come too close to the bone.
“Wordsworth conjectures that the rebukes

of Laodicea in Revelation influenced the
council of Laodicea [4th century] to omit
Revelation from its list of books to be read
Constas H. Demetry (D octor o f the Ecum enical Throne), The
Catechism o f The Eastern Orthodox Church, Fort Lauderdale,
publicly
FL: The Saint Dem etrios Greek O rthodox Church,
(JFB Commentary, Vol. VI, p. lxii).
“There was also a strong bias against the book’s

millennial doctrine. As there also is today!”
(M oorm an, p. 17 et al.).
The Greek church is amillennial (‘a ’ means ‘not’;

‘millennial’ means ‘1000.’ They deny the 1000 year reign of
Christ on earth; instead they teach that after his ascension Christ
began to reign on earth through the Greek Orthodox church
which will reign until he returns again (Harakas, pp. 220-221 etai.).
The Greek manuscripts which do include Revelation often

tamper with the verses which point the accusing finger at the
Greek-speaking church. For example—
■ Rev. 1:11 is changed. They drop “which are in Asia

and leave no forwarding address. The Bible says, “And
sent it unto the seven churches which are in Asia.”
“Asia” was the epicenter o f the Greek-speaking churches

which were a part o f the Eastern Roman Empire, later called
the Byzantine Empire.
The first o f the seven messages is to “the church of

Ephesus”; the last is to “the church of the Laodiceans”; The
other five are to the church “in ...” the other five cities.
Appreciable numbers o f the Greek manuscripts make the

following changes:
■ Rev. 2:1 is changed, diverting the rebuke “Unto the

angel of the church of Ephesus” to “Unto the angel of
the church in Ephesus.” The rebuke is to all the church
o f Ephesus, not just one.
■ Rev. 3:14 is changed from “And unto the angel o f the

church of the Laodiceans” to “And unto the angel o f the
church in Laodicea.”
■ Rev. 2:15 gives a rebuke to their hierarchy o f Patriarchs,

Bishops, and priests. The Greeks often omit the rebuke.
The KJB says, “the doctrine o f the Nicolaitans, which
thing I hate.” The Greek manuscripts often omit “which
thing I hate.”
■ Rev. 14:8 sometimes pulls up the stop signs by omitting

the word “a city” from “Babylon.. .that great city.”
■ Rev. 18:9 sometimes omits “her” from “the kings.. .shall

bewail her.”
■ Rev. 17:8 sometimes hides the beastly beast by

changing “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” to
“the beast that was, and is not, and will come.”
■ R ev. 2 :2 0 so m e tim e s re p la c e s “th a t w o m a n Je z e b e l”

w ith “ th y w ife J e z e b e l.” T hey change th e ir ow n
re lig io u s s y ste m in to an in d iv id u a l w o m an .
■ R ev . 11:15 is s o m e tim e s ta m p e re d w ith b e c a u se o f th e

a m ille n ia lism o f th e G re e k s; it ca u se s th e m to a lte r “ T h e
k in g d o m s o f th is w o rld are b e c o m e th e k in g d o m s o f o u r
L o rd .” T h e y sw itch tw o p lu ra l w o rd s (“ k in g d o m s ” ) to
j u s t th e s in g u la r “ k in g d o m .” T h is is an a tta c k on
P re m ille n n ia lism ; th e re is m o re th a n o n e k in g d o m on
ea rth w h e n J e su s re tu rn s. D a n ie l 2 :4 4 say s h e w ill
d e stro y k in g d o m s.
■ R ev. 11:17 so m e tim e s o m its “ a n d art to c o m e ” fro m

“w h ic h art, a n d w a st, and art to come.”
■ R ev . 15:3 te lls o f a tim e b e fo re C h ris t’s re tu rn w h e n h e

is “ K in g o f s a in ts” ; th e n a tio n s h a v e n o t re c o g n iz e d h im
as K in g yet. Y e t th e G re e k m a n u sc rip ts s o m e tim e s say
“ K in g o f n a tio n s .” T h e y h a v e a state c h u rc h w h ic h , like
o th e r state c h u rc h e s, trie s to ‘b rin g in th e k in g d o m ’ b y
e x e rc is in g p o litic a l control.
■ R ev . 2 1 :24 so m e tim e s o m its “ o f th e m w h ic h are s a v e d ”

fro m “A n d th e n a tio n s of them which are saved.”
S a lv a tio n is n o t im p o rta n t to th e G re ek s.
T h e G re e k c h u rc h te a c h e s th a t the b o o k o f R e v e la tio n is en tire ly

sy m b o lic ; th e re fo re it c h a n g e s a c tu a l fa cts to sim ile s, u sin g
“as.”
■ R ev. 4 :6 re p la c e s “ A n d b e fo re th e th ro n e there was a

s e a o f g la s s ” to “A n d b e fo re th e th ro n e as a sea o f
g la s s .”
■ Rev. 5:11 replaces “I heard the voice o f many angels” to

“I heard as the voice o f many angels.”
The Greeks say that the numbers 666 “were never intended to
be taken literally” (Harakas, p. 320 ).
■ Rev. 15:2 sometimes omits the mark of the beast, by

omitting “over his mark” in the phrase “victory...over
his mark, and over the number o f his name.”
■ Rev. 14:1 sometimes adds another name to the forehead

by changing, “having his Father’s name written in their
foreheads” to “have his name and his Father’s name
written in their foreheads.” See Rev. 7:3, 9:4, 3:12.
Revelation: Hodges-Farstad Follows Wrong Greek Texts
To further compound the problem o f the book of

Revelation,
“No text [of Revelation] prevailed in the [Greek

speaking] Byzantine Church. Instead, two forms
o f text were used and copied - often side by side
in the same monastery - down through the
Middle Ages (Zane Hodges, “ The Ecclesiastical Text o f
Revelation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, A pril 1961, pp. 120-121).
Choosing the wrong one o f the two Greek text forms of

Revelation, the Hodges-Farstad Greek Text According to the
Majority thereby misrepresents the true majority text. The
Hodges-Farstad Greek text fumbles and drops the true word of
God 600 places in Revelation and a total o f 1800 places in the
New Testament. Hodges wrongly aligned his so-called
‘Majority’ text with the 046 line, instead o f the purer Andreas
line of Revelation manuscripts. Both text forms are equal in size
(about 80 extant MS each); the Andreas line is older, going

“back well into the second century.” Hodges chose neither the
‘majority’ nor the oldest manuscripts for his readings for
Revelation (Hodges, Majority Text, p. xxxvi as cited by M oorm an, pp. 19, 27).
These changes were all grafted by the ghoulish Greek

monks who were too busy digging up corpses for Halloween-
like displays, then burying words which did not match their
bizarre world-view. Distracted monks copied the wrong edition
of the book o f Revelation and today it is sold in ‘Christian’
bookstores as the “Majority Text.” The Andreas manuscripts
honor the deity o f Christ and the Trinity by generally including
the following, which the 046 Greek manuscripts o f Revelation
omit.
Rev. 1:8 the beginning and the ending

Rev. 1:11 I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last
Rev. 19:1 Lord (partial)
Rev. 20:9 From God
Rev. 21:3 and be their God (partial)
Rev. 21:4 God (partial)
The Hodges-Farstad text follows Hoskier’s small collation

o f Greek manuscripts. Moorman adds,
“The MSS Hoskier gathered on Revelation

should be viewed in this light. Though he
collated a majority o f the available MSS, yet his
200 plus can only be considered a small fraction
o f the total MS tradition of the book. They
cannot be used to reconstruct the text...This
leads to another point which is often overlooked.
Certainly in Revelation and to a lesser extent in
the rest of the New Testament we must
occasionally look to the Latin West for

corroboration on a disputed reading. The Latin
Christians who opposed Rome had a far more
vital faith than that which usually
characterized the Greek East. We look to them
for our spiritual heritage, and they were an
important channel through which God preserved
His Word. This helps explain why there is a
sprinkling o f Latin readings in the Authorized
Version (Moorman, p. 27).
The Greek Bogamiles, Paulicians and others had the true Greek
text which included the pure readings.
Phony Majority: Hodges, Farstad, Pierpoint, and Robinson
Those who have taken the worship o f the manuscripts of

this bizarre Greek church to extremes include:
1. The Greek Text According to the Majority Text (1982)

by Zane Hodges and A.D. Farstad
2. The New Testament in the Original Greek, William

Pierpoint and Maurice Robinson (pseudo Byzantine
textform).
The Hodges-Farstad so-called ‘Majority’ Text pretends that

the Oxford 1825 (Early Stephanus) edition o f the Greek Textus
Receptus differs from the Greek manuscripts produced by the
Greek church in 1800 places, 600 o f these in Revelation. These
Greek professors are not allowed to teach in the Math
Department. They think that the collation by Hermann von
Soden of about 414 Greek New Testament manuscripts
constitutes a ‘Majority’ o f the approximately 5,700 manuscripts.
Hodges, Farstad, Pierpoint, and Robinson did not collate all

existing Greek manuscripts, but merely looked at this one m an’s
collation in the main. Given von Soden’s pursuit o f manuscripts
which matched the critical text, his choice o f manuscripts may
not have been representative, making his figures not statistically
significant. The misdirected Greeks who produced these
aberrant manuscripts and the math-handicapped Greek
professors who today publish such works have given cynics
cause for questioning the validity o f some 1800 readings in the
Oxford 1825 Greek Textus Receptus (not necessarily a perfect
TR to begin with) and nearly as many readings in the KJB.
Observe some o f the following problems evidenced in what

the uninformed call the ‘majority’ text o f the Greek Orthodox
church. (Some o f these verses are even given correctly in the
ancient Greek uncials which preceded the Greek Orthodox
church). God has preserved these pure readings, in spite o f the
Greek Orthodox church and their gullible followers and not
necessarily through every Greek manuscript. The following
words and verses will be omitted or changed should the phony
‘majority’ text men be given free reign with their pen knife.
Greek Manuscripts Omit More Big Chunks
Acts 9:5, 6 Omits “it is hard for thee to kick against

the pricks. And he trembling and
astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou
have me to do? And the Lord said unto
him.”
Luke 17:36 Omits “Two men shall be in the field; the

one shall be taken, and the other left.”
Matt 27:35 Omits “that it might be fulfilled which

was spoken by the prophet, They parted
my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots.”
Acts 10:6 Omits “he shall tell thee what thou

oughtest to do.”
Acts 10:21 Omits “which were sent unto him from

Cornelius.”
Greek Manuscripts Omit Jesus, Christ, and God et al.
Matt. 4:18 Omits “Jesus.”

Matt. 8:5 Omits “Jesus.”
John 1:43 Omits “Jesus.”
Rev. 12:17 Omits “Christ” from “Jesus Christ.”

Acts 15:11 Omits “Christ” from “Jesus Christ.”
2 Cor. 11:31 Omits “Christ” from “our Lord Jesus
Christ.”
2 Tim. 2:19 Replaces “the name o f Christ” with “the
name o f the Lord.”
Rev. 22:21 Omits “our” from “our Lord Jesus

Christ.”
Rev. 19:1 Omits “the Lord” from “the Lord our
God.”
Rev. 16:5 Omits “O Lord” in “Thou art righteous,
O Lord.”
James 5:11 Replaces “The Lord is very pitiful” to
“he is very pitiful.”
Rev. 20:12 Omits “God” from “stand before God.”
Rev. 21:4 Omits “God” from “And God shall wipe

away all tears.”
Phil. 3:3 Replaces “worship God in the spirit”
with “worship in the spirit o f God.”
Rev. 1:11 Omits “I am the Alpha and Omega, the
first and the last.”
Rev. 21:6 Omits “I am” from “I am Alpha and
Omega.” This is a direct reference to “I
AM THAT I AM” Ex. 3:14.
Rev. 5:14 Omits “him that liveth for ever and ever”
from “and worshipped him that liveth
for ever and ever.”
Rev. 14:5 Omits “before the throne” from “They
are without fault before the throne.”
Greek Manuscripts Teach Salvation By Works
The Greek church teaches a works-based salvation which

crept into their manuscripts.
Rev. 22:11 Changes “let him be righteous still” to

“let him practice righteousness still.”
(The Bible says, “And be found in him,
not having mine own righteousness,
which is o f the law, but that which is
through the faith o f Christ” Phil. 3:9).
Rev. 3:18 Changes “and anoint thine eyes” to “that

you may anoint.” The spiritually blinded
eyes are omitted; observe that the rebuke
is redirected away from the Greek
speaking Laodician church.
Greek Manuscripts Disregard ‘The Book’
With seeming disregard for the book God has written, the
Greeks put the “book” through the paper shredder.
Rev. 5:7 Changes “he came and took the book out o f the
right hand” to “he came and took it out o f the
right hand.”
Rev. 22:19 Changes “the book o f life” to the “tree o f life.”
Rev. 5:5 Omits “to loose” from “to open the book, and to
loose the seven seals thereof.”
Greek Manuscripts Make Serious Changes
Jack M oorman’s must-read book, When the King James

Departs From the Majority, lists page after page o f changes
Greek manuscripts make to the Holy Bible (available from A.V.
Publications). These are just a few examples:
Matt. 3:11 Omits “and with fire.”

Matt. 6:18 Omits “shall reward thee openly.”
Matt. 10:8 Omits “raise the dead.”
Matt. 12:35 Omits “o f the heart.”
Luke 6:26 Replaces “Woe unto you” with just “Woe.”
Luke 9:23 Replaces “take up his cross daily” with “take up
his cross.”
Luke 14:5 Replaces “Which o f you shall have an ass” with
“Which o f you shall have a son.”
Acts 9:38 Omits “two men.”
Acts 17:5 Omits “moved with envy.”
Eph. 3:9 Replaces “fellowship” with “administration.”
Heb. 11:13 Omits “and were persuaded o f them.”
Heb. 12:20 Omits “or thrust through with a dart.”

James 5:9 Replaces “condemned” with “judged.”
Greeks Manuscripts Change God’s Grammar
The Greek manuscripts create incorrect grammar, mixing

plural and singular together. Many “souls” have many “robes”;
many “bodies” have many “graves.” The Greeks would squeeze
everyone into one robe and then one grave.
Rev. 6:9,11 Changes “souls...white robes,” to “souls...a

white robe”
Rev. 11:9 Changes “dead bodies to be put in graves” to

“dead bodies to be put in a grave.”
Greek Manuscripts Change Personal Pronouns
Personal pronouns are sometimes changed in Greek

manuscripts. An examination o f each of the following verses
will show much confusion and a redirected focus.
Rev. 10:4 Omits “unto me” from “I heard a voice from

heaven saying unto me.”
Luke 11:6 Replaces “For a friend of mine’’ with “For a
friend.”
Luke 17:4 Replaces “turn again to thee” with “turn again.”
Luke 23:25 Omits “unto them.”

John 7:33 Omits “unto them.”
John 8:5 Omits “us.”
John 8:10 Omits “unto her.”
John 10:8 Omits “before me”
Acts 8:10 Omits “all.”
Acts 7:37 Replaces “your God” with “our God.”

Acts 14:17 Replaces “us” with “you.”
Acts 20:8 Replaces “they” with “we.”
Eph. 4:32 Replaces “you” with “us.”
2 Thes. 3:6 Replaces “he” with “they.”
Titus 2:8 Replaces “you” with “us.”
Phil. 6 Replaces “you” with “us.”
1 Peter 1:12,1 Peter 2:21,1 Peter 3:10,1 Peter 5:10,
1 John 3:1 Replaces “us” with “you.”
1 John 3:23 Omits “us.”
Rev. 1:17 Omits “unto me.”
Rev. 5:10 Replaces “us” with “them.”
Rev. 5:10 Replaces “we” with “they.”
Rev. 20:3 Replaces “him” with “it.”
Rev. 21:9 Omits “unto me.”
Greek Manuscripts Scramble Verbs
Students o f Greek can skip the memorization o f Greek

verbs. The Greeks themselves do not even know what verbs
belong in the New Testament. Greek manuscripts sometimes
exhibit the following mistakes with verbs:
John 16:33 Replaces “ye shall have tribulation” with “ye

have tribulation.”
John 17:2 Replaces “he should give eternal life” with “he
shall give eternal life.”
John 17:20 Replaces “which shall believe on me” with
“which believe on me.”
Acts 3:20 Replaces “was preached” with “was appointed.”
Rev. 17:13 Replaces “shall give” with “give.” (The word
“shall” matches the two usages o f “shall” in
verse 14.)
Christians Must Reject Heretics & Their Writings
The following diabolical heresies are central to the historic

and current practices and beliefs o f the Greek church which
produced the manuscripts which unknowing Christians
reverence as relics. Just as true Christians avoid the unscriptural
practices and beliefs o f the Greek Orthodox church, we must
also depart from the errors in the manuscripts which were
produced by these heretics. Just because their documents were
written in one of the languages of the original New Testament is
no reason to receive everything that that church produces
unquestionably.
“For there must be also heresies among you, that

they which are approved may be made manifest
among you” 1 Cor. 11:19.
God uses heresy to expose those who are not approved by God.
If the beliefs and practices of the Greek church are not
approved, then neither are their manuscripts, when they depart
from the rest o f the readings preserved by the body of Christ
worldwide. We are commanded to “reject” them.
“A man that is an heretic after the first and

second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10).
Observe the following eight grave heresies and generally

silly superstitions and practices which have continued in the
Greek church since the early centuries after Christ. These
practices were taking place at the same time that the bulk of the
5000 plus Greek manuscripts were being written in Greek
monasteries. The following heretical beliefs are taken directly
from the Greek Orthodox Catechism, Creed, or their own
publication, The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and
Answers. The Greek Orthodox trace all o f their beliefs back to

heretical church ‘fathers’ and councils from the second century
to the Middle Ages.
Christ’s rebuke to the seven churches recorded in the book

o f Revelation was a preview o f the “men crept in unawares”
(Jude 4).
“Also of your own selves shall men arise,

speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples
after them” Acts 20:30.
These men o f whom Paul warned were generally Greek

speaking men, writing Greek manuscripts. The Greek monks,
who made the Greek manuscripts, believed the following
heresies:
Greek Heresy #1: Man Is a God
According to the Greek ‘fathers’ the purpose o f life is to

attain theosis, that is, godhood. The Greek Orthodox church
quotes Athanasius o f Alexandria who said that, “He (Jesus) was
made man that we might be made god” (On the Incarnation o f
the Word). In The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and
Answers the question is asked,
“According to Orthodox teaching, we are created

in the image and likeness o f God. If it is also true
that we have nothing of His essence, how then
are we to become “Gods” as the Bible teaches
and the Church teaches in the doctrine
regarding “Theosis?”
‘Father’ Harakas answers, “As human beings we each have this

one, unique calling, to achieve Theosis. In other words, we are
each destined to become a god . . ( Har akas, PP. 3 2 8 ,329).
Early Byzantine scribes and monks who did succumb to the

serpentine temptation, “ye shall be as gods,” are hardly God’s
Spirit-led penmen. (The DVD From NIV to KJV bv Bryan Denlinger docum ents this
same heresy in the Catholic religion; available from A.V. Publications).
Greek Heresy #2: Imaginary Vampire Cannibalism
Imagine creating a religion that does the exact opposite of

what the Holy Ghost commands. The Holy Ghost tells the
church to abstain from idols and from blood.
“But that we write unto them, that they abstain

from pollutions o f idols... and from blood” Acts
15:20.
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost...That ye

abstain from ...idols, and from blood” Acts
15:29.
The Greek church’s main focus is worshipping idols and

pretending that they are drinking blood. They join the Catholic
church in pretending that their priest magically can change the
communion bread and ‘wine’ (juice) into the actual body and
blood o f Christ to then become an idol to be worshipped (Harakas,
p. 74).
“ ...the Orthodox Church believes that after

consecration [by the Greek Orthodox ‘priest’]
the bread and wine become in very truth the
Body and Blood o f Christ: they are not mere
symbols, but the reality.. .The Eucharist is not a
bare commemoration nor an imaginary

representation o f Christ’s sacrifice but the true
sacrifice itself...” Tim othy W are, The Orthodox Church, pp.
283, 286-287).
, Christ rebuked the Greek-speaking church in Revelation for

its flesh-centered ceremonialism and eating “things sacrificed
unto idols.” The Greek churches have an ornate “Holy Bread
Box” to house the now idolized bread-tumed-flesh (they drank
all o f the alcohol!). The Bible says that the Greeks’ repeated
‘sacrifice’ is putting the Son to an open shame. They call
themselves ‘priests’ because in the Old Testament only the
‘priest’ could make a sacrifice (Lev. 1:9 et al.). In reality, one
sacrifice was sufficient.
“seeing they crucify to themselves the Son o f

God afresh, and put him to an open shame” Heb.
6 :6 .
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice

for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of
G od...For by one offering he hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:12,
14).
Their disregard for the scriptures causes them to misinterpret

John 6:53 which says, “Except ye eat the flesh o f the Son of
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” They do not
define each word in the context which concludes in John 6:63,
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
We are to live by every word o f God and be so hungry for it
that we virtually consume the book as the apostle John did. He
said, “Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it,
and eat it up” (Rev. 10:9). Jeremiah, the first sword swallower,
writes, “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy
word was unto me the joy and rejoicing o f mine heart:...” (Jer.
15:16).
If you thought eating make-believe blood and flesh was

gruesome, it gets more shocking. The Greeks follow Cyril and
Theodoret, early Greek ‘fathers,’ and adopt their stranger-than-
Horror-movie ideas about communion.
“The Eucharist has been called a nuptial

encounter o f the soul with her Lord, a marriage
union between Christ and the soul. In the words
o f Cyril o f Jerusalem: “Christ has given to the
children o f the bridal chamber the enjoyment of
His body and His blood” Another ancient
Christian writer, Theodoret, writes, “In eating the
elements o f the Bridegroom and drinking his
blood, we accomplish a marriage union”
(Anthony M. Coniaris, Introducing the Orthodox Church, p. 134).
Hollywood’s most grueling horror movie has yet to surpass the

Greek Orthodox church’s vampire-cannibal honeymoon. Even,
non-Greek Orthodox pastors have been bitten by this heresy.
Schlep up to their pastor’s kool-aid communion to hear a
Protestantized view o f this so-called Divine Intimacy.
The Orthodox Creed says, “Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century)

concisely expressed this: “Our Faith is in accord with the
Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our Faith.” It states
further that “Early Christians began calling the Eucharist “the
medicine o f im m ortality...”” This pretense, that Christ and
eternal life are received, not by faith, but through a piece of
cracker, washed down with a swig o f God-forbidden alcohol, is
the bait-worm that hooks membership in the Greek Orthodox

and other churches which teach this (Catholic, Lutheran,
Anglican, Episcopalian). (The Anglicans modify this calling it
the ‘Real Presence,’ the Lutherans call it ‘Consubstantiation,’
wherein Christ’s body and blood are with the bread and wine.
The Reformed Calvinists taught that communicants received
“the power or virtue” o f the body and blood o f Christ. Only the
Baptists and a few other groups correctly believe that it is just a
memorial, as the Bible states.)
When the question is asked if “contagious diseases will be

transferred from one to another, since the Divine Eucharist is
received from the same spoon,” the Greek catechism answers
that ‘the alcohol (Greeks use real alcohol, not grape juice) in the
cup will kill any germs.’ I thought it was not alcohol any more,
but the blood o f Christ! (p. 55). In place o f such heresy, Christ
offers the “hidden manna” (Rev. 2:14, 17).
Greek Heresy #3: Icons & “Worship”
In addition to the bread idol, Greek ‘Father’ Harakas says,

“As you know, we use icons in our churches...” (Harakas, p. 323).
They even teach that Luke, author of the gospel, painted the
first icons o f Christ and the ‘Virgin.’ Greek Orthodox use the
term ‘icon,’ which is simply a Greek word for ‘image.” Yet, the
Bible charges—
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven

image, or any likeness of any thing that is in
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...”
(Exodus 20:4).
The Greeks stop short of disobeying the whole verse by limiting

their icons to “likeness” in the form of pictures and bas-relief
images. They are ignoring God’s explicit command to—
“destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their

molten images” (Numbers 33:52).
God warns,
“for the day o f the LORD o f hosts shall be upon

every one that is proud and lofty, and...upon all
pleasant pictures” (Isa. 2:12-16).
The book of Revelation records a rebuke from Jesus Christ

to Greek-speaking churches for their involvement with “idols”
(Rev. 2:14, 20). He said, “Repent.” They refused, so he said he
would “fight against them with the sword o f my mouth” (Rev.
2:16). The word is the enemy o f the Greek church; and the
Greek church is the enemy of the word.
Objections to icons, based on the commandments (e.g. Ex.

20:4) prevailed among true Christians. In A.D. 730 Emperor
Leo banned and ordered the destruction o f all images.
Rebellion was in the air, however.
‘Father’ Harakas says,
“This lasted until Empress Irene, regent for her

son Constantine, and Patriarch Tarasius called
the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787 which met in
Nicaea and formulated a clear teaching about
icons which defined their proper place and
use...A gain a woman, the Empress Theodora,
together with patriarch Methodios restored
forever in Orthodoxy the proper use of
icons...O ur Church uses icons throughout the

church building, precisely because they are
associated with w orship...Orthodox Christians
do feel this communion with God in the presence
of the holy icons and are uplifted by them ...O n
the other hand, when approached as a reverent
example o f how spiritual reality is embodied in
material things...and how material things can
be means of spiritual realities (like the
sacraments), it cannot help but both inspire and
instruct u s ... the icon shares in the
incarnational reality of Our Lord...when we
reverence the icon, we are not honoring paint,
metal, and glass...” (Harakas, pp. 157, 158).
This Greek council which approved o f icons in 787 was

overturned exactly 666 years later in 1453 when the Muslims
captured these areas and took over Constantinople, observes
Keith Whitlock. Interestingly, the Mohammedans will not allow
images or pictorial representations. The Byzantine Empire fell
to the Ottoman Empire. God used the heathen to judge the
heathen practices o f those who claimed his name, just as he did
in the Old Testament. The Greek church’s manuscripts, carried
by fleeing Greeks, fell into the waiting arms o f their sister
church in Rome. (See the chapters on the Hebrew text and
Reuchlin). The book, Image Worship by J. Endell Tyler,
explains the unscriptural use o f icons and images in much more
detail.
Today opulent icons often cover the entire structure and

walls of Greek churches. Tales of moving, talking, crying, and
bleeding icons are common. The Greek church is built entirely
on the fragile foundation of fleshly sensations — visual,
olfactory and auditory. Their entire services are sung in

operatic style; nothing is read or spoken in a normal speaking
voice. Incense is used during all services. The censer is swung
back and forth by the priest to honour the icons and the church
building itself. Harakas says, “The priest or deacon censes the
Bishop (or his throne), the icons of Christ and the Saints, the
altar, and the people” (Harakas, P. 163). (Are they so different who
bum potpourri and hours in front o f their TV ‘picture’ tube,
when souls are perishing?)
Greek Heresy #4: Necromancy
The Greek church left Jesus Christ to pursue contact with

the dead ‘Virgin’ and the dead saints. Jesus had warned—
“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee,

because thou hast left thy first love....repent,
and do the first works; or else I will come unto
thee quickly and will remove thy candlestick
out o f his place, except thou repent” (Rev. 2:4,
5).
Their candlestick, holding forth the word of God, was removed

by Jesus Christ for their abominable necromancy. God corrected
Saul because he tried to contact one o f the dead Old Testament
‘saints’ in rebellion to the commandment (1 Sam. 28:8-15).
“There shall not be found among you any one

that ... [is a] necromancer [one who contacts the
dead]. For all that do these things are an
abomination unto the LORD” (Deut. 18:10, 11,
12).
The Greek Orthodox church’s primary focus today is

necromancy; they are “defiled by the dead” as it were (Num.
5:2). Yet, the Greek Catechism says that dead spirits follow
people around!
“Surely, because the Saints pleased God, God

must reward them. As a part o f their happiness
they must be given the liberty to make use o f
their ability as spirits to follow their loved ones
here on earth and to hear and see their needs”
(Dem etry, p. 37 et al.)
The Orthodox Creed says, “Prayer to the saints is encouraged

by the Orthodox church...so we pray to the saints who have
departed this life, seeking their prayers...” (http://w ww.bible.ca/cr-
O rthodox.htm#creed). Harakas adds, “We need to pray regularly for
ourselves with the formal, written prayers o f the C hurch...”

(Harakas, p. 163).
Do not look for the word, which is a light unto our path, to
shine forth from the Greek church’s tarnished candlesticks.
They and everything they touch could be spiritually “unclean”
and “defiled” (Num. 9:6, 19:11, 13, 5:2).
Greek Heresy #5: Worship of the Virgin
Christ’s mother is called the “Mother o f God” (Theotokos)

by the Greek church. This title is considered blasphemy by
Christians, as she is not the mother o f the Godhead, which this
implies. She was the mother o f the human body which Christ
took on. To the question, “Why is the Virgin Mary such an
important part o f the liturgical services?” the response from
Greek Orthodox Father Harakas is:
“Worship is manifestation o f the faith and life of

the Church. The Theotokos [Mother o f God] is
an extremely important part o f the faith and life
o f the Church. Therefore, it would be
impossible for the Church to worship without
including her prominently in the
services...Further, she always prays for us, so in
worship we ask her intercessions before the
throne of the Lord. As you can see, the
Theotokos is included in worship o f the
Church so prominently precisely because she is
so prominent in the drama o f salvation” (Harakas,
pp. 190-191).
Harakas says, “We may properly call on her to save us from

dangers, illness and misfortune, through her intercessions.
(Harakas, p. 331). “Eastern tradition tends to also hold that the Virgin
Mary committed no voluntary sin” (Harakas, p. i 6 i) . The Greek

Catechism teaches “the perpetual Virginity o f the Mother of
God" (Dem etry, p. 26). Have you ever heard about Joseph’s ex-wife?
This catechism also says, “They who are called brothers of
Jesus were children o f Joseph by a former w ife...” Harakas
says, “ [T]hose persons referred to as Jesus’ brothers are
children of Joseph by a previous marriage” (Harakas, p. 333).
Harakas is asked,
“Is it necessary for the Orthodox to honor the

Virgin so much that some o f the people seem to
have more of a dedication to her than to Christ?”
Harakas replies with a hymn that says, “taking flesh by the holy
Mother o f God and ever-virgin Mary,” which he says “shows us
why the Virgin Mary is important to u s ...” (Harakas, p. 332). When
asked,
“Where does it say in the Bible we should pray

to Mary - the mother of Christ? My husband’s
minister says that your practice is false. It is not
giving “The Glory” to Christ. It also says in the
Bible to beware o f the traditions o f men. Please
explain fully, and give me a Bible verse where to
pray to Mary” (Harakas, p. 332).
Harakas answers,
“Your question goes to the heart of the

difference between the Protestant and Orthodox
Churches. The insistence on the Bible verse to
“prove a point,” out o f the ongoing
understanding of the Scriptures in the Holy
Tradition o f the Church is a position which is
purely Protestant. The most important thing to be
noted from the Orthodox perspective is the fact
that it is the Church which produced the New
Testament - not the other way around...the
Bible cannot be consistently understood properly
outside the Holy Tradition o f the Church which
produced it” (Harakas, pp. 332-333).
The Bible says, “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy
name” (Ps. 138:2). His word is exalted above the writings and
ruminations of Greek Orthodox monks and mystics. God would
not entrust his “holy scriptures” to those who place the Holy
Bible below the writings o f unholy men.
Greek Heresy #6: Tradition Over the Bible
All o f the Greek Orthodox heresies are man-made and in

direct opposition to the scriptures.
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for

doctrines the commandments of men” (Mat.
15:9).
“For laying aside the commandment o f God, ye

hold the tradition o f m en...” (Mark 7:8).
All o f the false doctrines o f the Greek church have been

taken from the writings o f heretics who lived between the
second century and 1453 A.D.; this includes the era o f the
Byzantine Empire when the majority o f today’s 5000 plus
extant Greek New Testament manuscripts were being written.
The Byzantine Greek manuscripts o f the New Testament go
hand in hand with the ‘so-called’ Greek ‘fathers.’ Harakas says,
“That is the true faith which has been handed down by the
fathers...” (Harakas, p. 154). The Greek Catechism says that the
“contents o f the Catechism” are derived “From the Holy
Scriptures and Holy Tradition” (Dem etry, P. 3). They mix the fiery
words o f God with the cold breath o f the dead and become
lukewarm. (Jer. 5:14 says, “my words in thy mouth fire”; see
also 2 Sam. 22:9 and Psalm 18:8.) Jesus said to the Greek
church,
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither

cold nor hot, I will spew thee out o f my mouth”
Rev. 3:16).
The original Greek words o f God are no longer proceeding from

the mouth o f God. He spewed them out. No one speaks or truly
understands ancient Koine Greek today. It has ceased to flow
from the mouth o f our Saviour, as there are no ears to hear.
Greeks place tradition above the scriptures because they

believe that the scriptures came from the churchmen who also
gave oral, not written ‘traditions’:
“Holy Tradition consists of those things which

Christ delivered to his Apostles and which they
transmitted to their successors orally. It is
absolutely essential to faith, because it is the
source of the Holy Scripture and we cannot
understand all of the Holy Scripture correctly
without the help o f Holy Tradition. Since the
Protestant Churches reject Holy Tradition, they
have no authoritative judge for the explanation of
Holy Scripture” (Demetry, p. 4).
The Greek Catechism says that “Holy Tradition is scattered

throughout the books of the Holy Fathers and the decisions of
the Ecumenical Councils” (Demetry, p. 5). When they say tradition,
they are referring to the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church
‘fathers.’ Consensus o f heresy is easily found in the highly
edited edition o f the church ‘fathers’ by Philip Schaff, ASV
chairman, RV member, and spearhead (with the Luciferian
Theosophical Society) o f the ecumenical Parliament o f World
Religions of 1893.
With tradition shouting louder than the word of God, Jesus

had to say to the Greek-speaking church, “if any man hear my
voice...” Jesus’ word is barred from the Greek church as he
calls from outside saying, “Behold, I stand at the door, and
knock” (Rev. 3:20). Today there are no Koine Greek speaking
ears to hear.
Some Protestant’s anachronistic tradition of elevating

the relic New Testament texts of Greek Orthodox monks
(which they cannot read) above their own Holy Bible (which
they can read) is likewise a tradition with no Bible
foundation. They are “Making the word of God of none
effect through your tradition...” (Mark 7:13). Seminary
textbook traditions are harder to bury than monk’s skulls.
Greek Heresy # 7: The Blab-It-All Box
Greek Orthodox members enter a box, the size o f a phone

booth. In it they say, “We make the sign o f the cross or kneel
and kiss the Holy Picture o f Christ...O n going out, we kiss
again the picture o f Christ” [hoping that the last person who
kissed it had not confessed that they had AIDS] (Demetry, p. 52). The
priest, or “spiritual guide,” which can even be a woman, sits in
an adjoining box and listens as the member lists all o f his sins.
“Sins are forgiven through the Confessor who has this
pow er...It is necessary for our salvation...” says their
catechism. Penances include, “deprivation of Holy communion
for a certain tim e... performance o f holy ceremonies” and other
things (Dem etry, p. 51). Their Catechism question, “Can Confession
be made directly to God?” elicits this answer:
“It can. But it is neither wise nor safe...It is as

if we sought for justice directly from the
President o f the United States, while there are
courts established for his purpose” (Demetry, P. 50 et
al.).
The Greeks never repented o f this Nicolaitanism, whereby a

clergy or priest stratum acts as interloper between God and man.
Greek Heresy # 8: Greeks Keep the Apocrypha
If the Greek Orthodox church is God’s chosen vessel to

preserve the scriptures, why don’t we use their current
scriptures? Today they omit certain verses, as we have seen, and

add non-canonical books. According to Greek ‘Father’ Harakas,
today’s Greek Bible includes,
“ ...10 books known as “Deuterocanonical,”

which were written in Greek by the Jews o f
Alexandria. Protestants accept only the 39.
Roman Catholics accept seven o f the
Deuterocanonical Books. The Orthodox accept
all 10’ (Harakas, pp. 26, 27).
Not even knowing which books belong in a Bible, the Greeks

often cite the non-canonical Apocryphal books to support their
false doctrines. Father Harakas quotes a verse from the
Apocrypha (2 Maccabees) which says, “pray for the
dead...Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, that they
might be delivered from their sin” (2 Maccabees 12:44-45).
“The Orthodox Church, from biblical times,

has offered prayers for the dead” (Harakas, p. 263).
‘The Greek says’ a whole lot more than those who make
that comment care to include.
The Greeks, who some trust to be God’s appointed race of

penmen, do not even hold to a literal view o f scriptures. ‘Father’
Harakas says, “We have not usually, that is, understood the
Genesis accounts of creation in a literalistic fashion.” He says
the Bible’s description o f Creation is not a “scientific account”
(Harakas, pp. 125, 88). It’s a good thing it isn’t; science textbooks
change every few years.

Pagan Superstition & Old Wives Fables
“But refuse profane and old wives’ fables” (1

Tim. 4:7).
Discernment — has the Greek church ever had any?

Individual Greek Christians have, but the organized Greek
Orthodox system, the editors o f the 5000 plus Greek
manuscripts, sometimes have little discernment. Greeks who
would adopt the following bizarre doctrines, documented
directly from their own writings, will not encourage me to perk
my ears when someone says, “The Greek says...”
The Greek Catechism question, “What are the means of

Sanctification?” does not include the scripture, “Sanctify them
through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). The answer
given does include holy water, exorcism against the evil eye,
veneration o f cross icons and flowers:
“The sign of the cross which we make when we

pray; the lesser and the Great Holy Water; the
Flowers o f the Cross (at the Feast o f the
Elevation, Sept. 14) and the Veneration of the
Cross, (3rd Sunday o f the Great Lent); and
Flowers o f the Holy Sepulcher (which we use on
Good Friday); the Palms; the Prayers to the
Holy Virgin and Saints; the Prayers o f
Exorcism against the evil eye and for various
needs...” (Dem etry, p. 45).
These superstitious folks also have a make-believe ‘good

eye’ to match their made-up ‘evil eye’: “This icon, known as
the “Eye o f God” is usually found in the triangular tip at the
very top o f the iconostasion,” a large bank o f idols in Greek
churches (Harakas, p. 5i ). In a Greek church, even today, make sure

that ‘the eye’ does not catch you crossing your legs. It is
“prohibited” in Greek churches. “ [I]t was felt that crossing
one’s legs in Church was indicative o f a casual, and therefore,
irreverent attitude toward God and the sacred services...”
( Harakas, p. 67).
With Christ’s word outside the church door, the following

superstitious traditions crowd him out:
■ The Bible says, “Greet ye one another with an holy kiss”

(1 Cor. 16:20). The Nicolaitans do not give kisses but
merely receive them with bended knee. Harakas says,
“The practice o f kissing the priest’s hand is in the
same category o f liturgical acts as the reverencing of
the holy icons and the cross. The Orthodox Church
explains that when we kiss an icon or the cross we are
not worshipping or adoring the wood, paint, metal, etc.,
o f which they are formed, but that which they represent.
So it is with kissing the priest’s hand” (Harakas, P. is s ) .
■ The Bible describes “doctrines of devils” as “Forbidding

to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1
Tim. 4:3). It also says, “Let not the husband put away
his wife” (1 Cor. 7:11). Ignoring all o f these verses the
Greek church teaches that a married Greek Orthodox
priest must put away his wife to become a Bishop.
Animal and dairy products are forbidden on fast days,
except o f course for “Cheese Fare” Week. Caviar is
permitted on Lazarus Saturday.
■ Harakas promotes their many “traditions o f men”

saying, “The most common exorcism practiced in the
Orthodox Church are related with the blessing of water
(holy water) and the exorcism of candidates for

baptism...In order to ask for these prayers, one does not
have to be or feel particularly “possessed”...” (Harakas, P.
126). “Sometimes we make the sign of the Cross as an
inaudible prayer when we wish to invoke God’s

presence, ward off evil influences or express thanks”
(Harakas, p. 316). Their “doctrines o f devils” draw these evil
influences.
■ To ward off the devils they attract, “Two water blessing

services are conducted...[T]he “Lesser Water Blessing
Service” and the one conducted on the feast day itself is
sometimes called the “Greater Water Blessing
Service” . . .Holy water is used in many different ways in
the life of the Church. It can be used for drinking or for
sprinkling, and is often kept with our icons throughout
the year...” (Harakas, p. 344).
■ The Bible says that “It is good for a man not to touch a
woman.” (1 Cor. 7:1). But take a peek inside a Greek
church where singles have suppers and snuggle. Harakas
says, “[The] Greeks permit weddings, dances, etc.
during Lent, especially during Christmas Lent.” “I see
dinner-dances scheduled even after St. Spyridon’s day
(Dec. 12)” (Harakas, p. 186).
■ The Bible says, “Is any sick among you? let him call for
the elders o f the church; and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name o f the Lord...”
(James 5:14). Harakas forgets the Lord and replaces the
oil with grease, a trip to Greece that is, to a shrine to the
Mother o f God. He says, “One famous and well known
shrine where such healings take place is on the Greek
Island o f Tenos, the shrine o f the Theotokos [Mother o f

God], especially around the feast of the “Falling Asleep”
(K oim esis o f the M other o f our Lord, August 15; Harakas, p. 221).
■ The Bible says, “And have no fellowship with the

unfruitful works of darkness...” (Eph. 5:11). The Greek
Orthodox Church has been a member o f the ultra-liberal
pro-communist National Council o f Christian Churches.
Blindly Harakas says, “All the members o f the NCCC
[National Council o f Christian Churches] are
Christians...It is ecumenical. It is precisely seeking to
bring together separated Christians...In its social
policies, often the NCCC in fact does criticize the
policies o f the U.S. government. It does this, frequently,
in the name o f justice and in concern with the rights o f
those who cannot speak for themselves” (Harakas, P. 228).
Greek Church and Islam Join in Opposing the Gospel
Greece is currently one o f the nations where the preaching

o f the gospel and the distribution o f gospel tracts are against the
law; the iron grip of the state-supported Greek Orthodox church
strongly resists anything which might bring about the
conversion o f their members. This has been their perennial
policy.
Some do leave the system and the website

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com does a service in exposing
the error o f this system and exalting the King James Bible. They
say, “We contend that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are
Roman Catholic in doctrine and practice with some minor
deviations.” “[They] rely for the most part on the works o f the
Early Church Fathers, as mis-translated in the series on the
Ante-Nicene fathers...originally edited by Philip Schaff.”
They wrote in response to my inquiry about the behind-

the-scenes activities o f the Greek church since they were sacked
by Rome during the fourth Crusade o f 1204 and then isolated
from the West under Islamic oppression between 1453 and
1822:
“The history of the Greek Orthodox Church is

replete with instances o f cooperation and
collaboration with various Islamic Empires, so
much that the Islamic world came to count on the
Orthodox to be the administrators o f the Islamic
empires in terms o f their daily operation...[T]he
administrators and trainers of previous
generations o f Greek Orthodox taught their own
leaders to become and remain subservient to
Islam...”
“ [There is] opposition to missionary work,

opposition to translation, and excommunication
for any Greek church member who actually reads
a New Testament translated by Missionaries
[Koine to Modem Greek], The Greek Orthodox
Church thus began its own campaign to replace
tradition back as the cornerstone o f the
Patriarchate, and to oppose the diffusion o f the
New Testament and Mission w ork...”
“And Eastern Orthodox priests and Patriarchates

are very willing to turn a blind eye, to any
Islamic attack against Protestant targets, which in
turn helps the Patriarchates continue their
dominance in those areas. Where Patriarchates
rule Protestant Churches are attacked,
pastors jailed, people fined, material is
confiscated, and raids are conducted, all

under the blessing and watchful eye of the
local Orthodox priest and the Hierarchy. It is
a very deliberate policy and it is very aggressive
as w ell.. .The Greek Orthodox Church has a deep
and abiding hatred o f Jew s...” (letter on file).
Greek Anti-Semitism is evident in the changes which they made

in their manuscripts.
■ Acts 24:9 often changes “and the Jews also

assented” to “And the Jews also joined in the
attack.”
■ Rev. 21:10 often changes “that great city, the holy
Jerusalem” to “city, the holy Jerusalem”
Greek Orthodox Practice Today
If the ‘original’ Greek held the key to understanding the

Bible, it would seem that the Greeks would be at a distinct
advantage. The best Christians would be members o f the Greek
Orthodox church. God would not cast upon us amateur
dabblers, for whom Greek is scarcely a second language or train
us through unsaved lexicographers with a liberal agenda. But
true Greeks would be a priest-class o f teachers for the body of
Christ, teaching the rest o f us what the Bible ‘really’ says. This
obviously was not God’s plan and is nowhere compassed by the
scriptures. For after 2000 years of intimate access to the Greek
language and ancient Greek manuscripts, the Greek ‘church’
represents THE most unscriptural representation of
‘Christianity’ on the planet. The Greek church’s printed
statement o f faith, described in this chapter, mirrors its daily
practice, even today. Their unrepentant state is documented by
David Johnson, a convert to the Orthodox Church. He freely
describes the current tone o f such churches in 2008 in a letter to

this author, expressing support for the KJB, while remaining a
member of an Orthodox church. He says,
“Over the past 14 years, I have attended various

Churches in the Eastern Orthodox
Church...W hat I would like to do is compare my
experience to the prior experience as a Protestant
Christian and make some comments. One o f the
first things that a visitor will experience upon
entering an Orthodox Church is the abundance of
Icons and visual sym bols...The important thing
seemed to be maintaining a sort o f museum piety
with bits and pieces o f ancient vestments, Icons,
and religious furniture... Another serious
deficiency to be noted is the feeble or utterly
lacking emphasis on preaching the word of
G od...Often, the homily would revolve around
the saint o f the day or perhaps the meaning of
the Icon in the middle o f the chapel.”
“Much o f their practices and opinions o f what it

means to be ‘righteous’ fly in the face of God’s
word.”
“I have noticed that the general movement in our

services is for longer and longer odes and that
the nature o f the hymnody is more and more
Byzantine plain chants which go on and on to
the point o f a hypnotic stupor...The pride of
place is given to choreography, flow, and rhythm
o f the services.. .[T]he congregation seems to
play out a sort o f creative anachronism
community by adopting 19th century attire and

building homes o f an antiquated style. Any one
feature would be harmless by itself, but I discern
a sort o f monastic escapism in their
w orldview ...”
“I do suspect that the current Orthodox Patriarch,

Bartholomew, is working very hard at reunion
with Rome and it seems to be trickling down to
the parish level.”
“I am an Orthodox Christian...the reason I write

to you is the book being suggested as a study
manual in my Orthodox Parish...The Mountain
o f Silence by Kyriaacos C. Markides. This book
is so full o f strange and bizarre tales and
theories and clearly takes a light and shallow
view of the written word o f God, choosing rather
the ‘testimonies’ of lone monks who
supposedly visit with John the Baptist and the
Blessed Virgin Mary [necromancy], as well as
a host o f saints while doing their long prayer
rules...The general view they seem to hold of
piety borders on masochism and pathological
neglect o f basic health.”
“There has often been a sort o f Manicheanism

and Gnostic Dualism that emerges and re-
emerges in Monastic circles, i.e. the Spirit is
good, the Natural is bad....[T]hey seem to
tolerate a lot o f bizarre self-appointed Holy Men
who confuse and solicit followers/devotees.”
“The ‘assumption’ of the Virgin Mary [bodily

resurrection from the dead and ascension into
heaven] is generally believed, but not
dogmatized.” “ [W]e do honor her with hymns
and chants.”
“My major critique as a convert is the pride o f

place given to the opinions and writings of
Monastics, with little regard to check it against
the Word o f G od...”
“My approach/response is not limited to terms of

strict dogmatics, but rather the psychological
manipulations that can arise out o f the Chanting
and Choreography, i.e. the ‘cult’ like
methodologies that can form in Orthodoxy, via
long sustained chanting and repetition o f banal
phrases. Ron Enroth in Dealing with Cult
methodology touches on the tactic.”
“The sacrament o f Holy Communion takes the

central role in Sunday W orship...The Orthodox
churches are likely the most ornate and artistic
o f the Christian confessions, replete with golden
candelabras, Icons, chandeliers, and detailed
woodwork around the altar tables. The Priests
and Acolytes are usually vested in flowing robes
and much fine needlework.”
“The Orthodox church teaches a salvation

which, like the Roman Church, includes our
personal struggle for righteousness. The actual
process is not very well explained, but picked
up as time goes on...The means to do this are

generally to withdraw from society”
“Prayers to the Virgin Mary are encouraged as

beneficial to the believer. Monastics in particular
make a great deal o f emphasis on the Veneration
o f the Mother o f God. Probably more than the
Roman Church, the veneration o f the Saints is
very much a practice o f the O rthodox...Relics
[bone or hair fragments o f dead people] o f the
Saints are held in great esteem and are
considered to be ‘Grace filled.’”
“The writings o f “Holy Elders” or Mount Athos

Saints acquire a place above the Word o f God in
terms of directing and guiding the lay faithful.
Orthodox churches are generally full o f books
about the lives o f Saints. These books are held
on an equal footing, and sadly often a superior
level than the VERY Word o f God.”
“[T]he Reader, when reading the Epistle will

chant in a resinous tone that often obscures the
sense of the passage in favor o f a melodious
style. The Priest or Deacon reading the Holy
Gospel will do the same. It becomes more o f an
opera than a reading, and the nature of the
presentation obscures meaning in favor of
dramatic effect.”
“For now I am staying on Board, but must

confess that we have some problems. My
particular concern is the area o f subliminal
seduction and the abuse o f liturgical drama to
induce a trance like state.,.[S]ome churches do

fall into a strange mode o f operation and
combine this with a ‘Guru’ cult minded
Priest...” (taken from letters on file from Mr.
Johnson).
Ancient Greek Was For Ancient Greeks
The candlestick o f the Greek church, which held the light of

the word to ancient Greeks, has been removed. Its remaining
manuscripts are mere relics of their irreverent attitude toward
the word o f God. Those who reverence these dusty dead relics
in lieu o f the living words which speak through Holy Bibles are
more Greek Orthodox in spirit than they realize. Like the now
empty skulls o f the men who made the manuscripts, thoughtless
scholars mull over the lifeless hulls o f manuscripts which no
longer bear a living seed to living speakers. Jesus said, “the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”
Only living things can reproduce. The “life” and “spirit” did not
die when Paul spake unto the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, when
the Gothic and Latin Bibles burst forth into the English Bible,
or when ancient Koine Greek became Modem Greek. Since
when was Jesus Greek-only?
“First, it is clear that Jesus spoke the common

language o f the Jewish people o f Palestine, i.e.
Aramaic. It is also clear that He knew how to
read and understand Hebrew since He read the
scriptures publicly in the Synagogue and
commented on them (read Luke 4:16-21). Did
Jesus know Greek? We have no direct evidence
that he did (Harakas, pp. 184-185).
Jesus’ brother James probably spoke the same language

Jesus spoke. In what language did he write the book o f James?
None o f these facts are known through the Bible, because
evidently God did not think ‘original’ languages were important
to anyone who did not speak them. Jesus’ words were translated
into all o f the languages o f the day via the gift o f tongues. Even
the Greek Bible would perhaps have been a translation o f his
words. Therefore translations can be inspired.
When straining to find any indication in the Bible that the

New Testament ‘originals’ were written only in Greek, some
will cite Romans 1:16, which says, “the Jew first and also to the
Greek.” The context’s previous parallelism in verses 13 and 14
had defined the “Greek” as the “Gentiles,” “Greeks,” and
“Barbarians.” These would include all extant languages (e.g. the
Latins were Gentiles, the Goths and Celts were Barbarians etc.).
The Greeks were not offered the gospel before the Ethiopian
eunuch or the Latin Cornelius. Even the Greek Orthodox priest
understands what is meant by “Greek” in this verse. Harakas
says, “But if we understand the use of the word “Greek” in this
context, we cannot interpret it in any narrowly nationalistic
way. It would be a mistake to do that” (Harakas, P. 37).
The ending letter ‘s’ in Esaias, used in the New Testament

for the Old Testament name Isaiah, is similar not only to Greek,
but to early inflected forms also seen in the Gothic, German,
Spanish, and Latin Bibles (see e.g. Hutter’s Polyglot A.D. 1599
available from A.V. Publications). If all Bibles sprang forth
from a solitary Greek original, instead o f from Acts 2, the
Italian and French Bibles (not the Latin, remember), which do
not carry this Gothic-Greek-Germanic form forward, would also
have this ending; they do not. English Bibles have not always
carried the ‘s’ forward. The Anglo-Saxon Bible says ‘Esaiam,’
‘Isaiam,’ or ‘Ysia’; the post-Wyeliffe period Bible says ‘Ysaie,’

or ‘Ysaye,’ the Coverdale Bible o f 1535 says ‘Esay’; the
English Bible o f 1599 in the Hutter’s Polyglot says ‘Esai.’
There are no proofs, either internal or external, that the
‘originals’ were written in Greek alone. (The Goths were living on the
Black Sea during the time o f Christ; it is not scriptural (Col. 1:5, 6, Rom. 16:26, etc.) to pretend
that they had no scriptures until hundreds o f years later when we are ‘told’ that U lfilas translated
them from Greek). Do we believe the scriptures or the writings o f men? Our history o f the Bible
m ust com e from the Bible, not from the writings and surmising o f liberal non-regenerate British
scholars.)
Given the early and current heresies o f the official Greek

church whose monks manufactured the 5000 plus Greek
manuscripts which are still extant today, is it wise for true
Christians to mull over every wayward word, as if it had
dropped directly out o f heaven and distilled on paper in a Greek
Orthodox monastery? The shadow o f the Moslem mosque,
looming over the Greek monks darkened the glass here and
there. Thank God he has worked with his people, true bom
again Christians in every land, to preserve his Holy Bible. He
does not need those chanting charlatans, chained to their
chiaroscuro icons.
There are those who would improve upon a rendering in the

KJB saying, ‘That word in Greek really m eans...” In the book
The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers by Greek
Orthodox priest Stanley Harakas, the question is asked, “Every
Bible study I hear refers to the Greek; is there not an accurate
English translation?” (Harakas, p. 28). Harakas answers in the typical
Nicolaitan ‘you-need-a-priest’ mode; he recommends
conflicting versions so that he gets to “be as gods,” picking and
choosing the reading he likes. He says,
“No translation can claim to fully and adequately

render the original Greek. This is precisely the
reason why all New Testament bible studies

must continuously refer back to the original
Greek language o f the biblical text. I would
recommend three for your consideration, as
approaching what you are seeking. I list them in
the order of my own preference: The Revised
Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible, the New
King James Versions.”
“O f all these, the most accurate and useful for

Orthodox readers is the Revised Standard
V e r s i o n s ’ (Harakas, pp. 28, 29).
(If he is following the majority o f his own Greek

manuscripts, they will not match the RSV in many places.)
Unasked question #456 begs for an answer: If no English

translation can express the original Greek, as he and others
claim, what about the English translation given when someone
says, “That word in Greek means ‘such and such.’” That
meaning given is someone’s ‘translation.’ If no English
translation can be correct, why give one to correct the KJB
when studying the Bible? Or why not accumulate all o f these
corrections and more precise renderings and create a new bible?
Voila! Hundreds and hundreds o f failed English translations of
the Bible have attempted to do this with the very lexical words
used to ‘define’ Greek words. (If translation were a science, all
o f these failed attempts would be alike.) G od’s view o f these so-
called meanings is evident. He does not honor and use bibles
which contain these replacement words. So why would we use
these words to ‘define’ the words in the Holy Bible which he
has preserved and honored? God has not honored these
‘meanings,’ either moved into new versions or resident in
lexicons. (The numerous chapters on lexicons expound upon

this topic further.) A minister’s approach to the Bible should be
ministerial, that is, preaching the word, not magisterial, lording
it over the Holy Bible.
Chapter 21
Zodhiates’
B yzantine E m pire Strikes B ack
With Both Barrels
- AMG Uses Two Wrong Greek Texts
- AMG Plagiarized From NIV Editors

Summary: Spiros Zodhiates
Serious Flaws in His Hebrew and Greek

Study Tools and Bibles
1. Zodhiates’ publications use the wrong Greek

texts, including a gravely defective parallel
Greek New Testament from the Greek
Orthodox church.
2. Zodhiates’ “KJV” is not a KJV!
3. Zodhiates plagiarizes from NIV editors and

uses NIV words for definitions. He was forced
to pay penalties for “copyright infringement.”
4. Zodhiates uses corrupt lexicons, such as Brown,

Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew-English
Lexicon, Strong’s Old and New Testament
Lexicons, and Parkhurst’s Greek-English
Lexicon.
5. Zodhiates uses the out-of-date pre-1995 NASB

and its out-of-date eclectic and highly corrupt
Westcott and Hort type Greek text. It generally
followed the old and uncorrected Nestle’s 23rd
edition.
6. Zodhiates’ heretical Calvinism cankers his view

o f salvation and hence his Greek-English
definitions.
7. Zodhiates sells multiple different new versions,

including the blasphemous Contemporary
English Version. If he does not even know
which version is the uncorrupted Holy Bible,
why would anyone look to him for insights?
ZODHIATES’ CORRUPT GREEK TOOLS 799
Spiros Zodhiates: Guilty of “Copyright Infringement”
ost lexicons were written in the 1800s and any
M copyright protection they may have had has

expired. Consequently, as reported in the chapter
The Confessions o f a Lexicographer, most modem
lexicographers simply copy the old lexicons which are no
longer protected by copyright, such as those written by Liddell
and Scott, Trench, Vincent, Moulton and Milligan, Thayer, and
Strong.
Spiros Zodhiates was more o f a copy-cat than a careful rat,

like his fellow lexicographers. He recklessly “borrowed
extensively” from M oody’s 1980 Theological Wordbook o f the
Old Testament by NIV editors R. Laird Harris, Gleason L.
Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. The widely circulated
magazine Christianity Today reported on Zodhiates’
“Plagiarism,” saying that his organization,
“Advancing Ministries o f the Gospel [AMG] has

agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to Moody
for copyright infringement. Spiros Zodhiates
Hebrew-Greek Key Bible Study borrowed
extensively from other similar works, but claims
this one is original. Project editor Tim Rake, who
saw and reported the copying, is less than
satisfied with the efforts put forth to correct the
error and has resigned his position. There will be
no recalls or public notification for the 1 million
copies printed. Only a small pamphlet, available
on request listing sources will be offered”
(iC hristianity Today, John Kennedy, “AM G Com pensates M oody for
Plagiarism,” News, June, 19, 1995, p. 42).
The odd thing about such a legal battle is that i f an English

word really means what a lexicon says it means (e.g. Moody’s
Theological Wordbook o f the Old Testament), just as 2 plus 2
really equals 4, how can someone own the English equivalency
of a Greek word? In fact, all lexicographers know that
lexicography is not a science and that most o f the definitions
chosen by any lexicon are subjective and arbitrary; the words
chosen as definitions are in fact the editor’s own stab-in-the-
dark to match-make the 5,000 word Greek New Testament
vocabulary with the 1,000,000 word English vocabulary. The
lexicographer then gets a marriage license, called a copyright, to
wed the unequally yoked pagan ‘meanings’ with the Christian
words. Should someone be the first to accidentally copyright the
correct English equivalency for a Greek word, subsequent
lexicographers are then forced to use a different and perhaps
less precise synonym, just to avoid copyright infringement, just
as new version editors must use words that are not already in
the KJB or in another modem version with a copyright. God
made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the
correct equivalency long before copyright laws were created
worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen’s Patent is
never enforced to curtail its spread in Great Britain.
Because o f copyright restrictions, so-called English

equivalencies, definitions, and new version word choices are
getting further and further from the truth, merely because
contemporary lexicographers and new version editors must use
words which have not been used elsewhere. Today, if you are
going to pick your definitions from someone else’s pocket-
dictionary, you are liable to get caught with your hand in the
book e-jar. Electronic text scanning, anti-plagiarism software,
and copyright laws make it simple for modem publishers to spot
pilferers, like Zodhiates.
Zodhiates’ Burglary Tools
Zodhiates has broken into the “word o f God which is settled

in heaven” with a number of Greek and Hebrew study tools,
which pry words away from the King James Bible. These
include:
1. The Complete Word Study New Testament with Greek

Parallel
2. Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NASB)
3. Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (KJV) [so-called]
4. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: NASB (2008)
5. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: KJB (2008)
6. The Complete Word Study Old Testament
7. The Complete Word Study New Testament
8. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
9. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament
The Complete Word Study New Testament (KJV):

Not Really a KJV!
The most shocking thing about Zodhiates’ Complete Word

Study New Testament, with the words “King James Version”
printed on the cover and front page, is that it is not the King
James Version at all! And strangely, although Zodhiates claims
to give deeper insights into the Greek ‘original,’ he changes the
actual English KJB words, following no Greek New Testament
text or manuscript, as the following will demonstrate!
Note the following examples o f verses in which Zodhiates’

so-called KJV New Testament denies the pre-incamate Christ.
It removes the name o f ‘Jesus’ from the “King James Version”
two times, where every Greek manuscript and printed edition
ever created, both pure and corrupt, have the Greek word for
‘Jesus’ (This is discussed in detail in another chapter in this

book):
■ Heb. 4:8 “For if Joshua had given them rest, then would
he not afterward have spoken o f another day” (Spiros
Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, Chattanooga, TN: AMG
Publishers, 1991, p. 724).
■ Acts 7:45 “Which also our fathers that came after

brought in with Joshua into the possession o f the
G entiles. . . ” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, p.
415).
The Greek word in both verses is actually not ‘Joshua,’ but

“Jesus,” as seen in the KJB. If this Greek word is going to be
translated ‘Joshua,’ then the name ‘Joshua’ would have to
replace the name ‘Jesus’ throughout the entire New Testament.
Zodhiates’ change is ‘commentary,’ not accurate translation.
The Complete Word Study New Testament With Greek

Parallel
An edition of his phony KJV is available with a parallel

Greek New Testament. WARNING: ZODHIATES’ GREEK
TEXT IS CORRUPT!
■ It does not match pure Greek manuscripts from

centuries past.
■ It does not match any historic printed Greek Textus
Receptus.
■ It does not match the pure textual readings o f the
currently available Greek Bible, which is called the
Vamvas or Bambas (original 1850 edition from
olivetree.com, not later adulterated editions still
misidentified as a ‘Vamvas’).
■ It does not match the KJB or any pure vernacular Holy

Bible, past or present.
Zodhiates admits that it is a product o f the “the Greek and

Eastern Orthodox Churches.” He glosses over its serious
omissions saying,
“The text appearing in the margin is the text

approved by the Greek and Eastern Orthodox
Churches. There are some differences between
the two texts [TBS and his], but since both texts
are o f the Byzantine family, the differences are
m i n o r ” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament
With Greek Parallel, Chattanooga, TN: AM G Publishers, 1992, p. vii).
Zodhiates’ Greek text represents the very worst errors the

Byzantine Empire ever concocted. The chapter in this book, The
Wobbly Unorthodox Greek Orthodox Crutch, documents in
detail that this text o f the Greek Orthodox church is a corrupt
text from a corrupt church. Its changes are major, not
minor, according to Revelation 22. Zodhiates’ Greek text is a
highly unique edition, exhibiting what seems to be randomly
picked readings from the multiple textual errors introduced by
heretical Greek Orthodox monks over the centuries.
A call to AMG Publishers’ ‘editorial questions’ extension

#5 elicited the response that this Greek parallel text was used
because they could not afford the royalties demanded by the
copyright owners o f the Textus Receptus [TBS?]. The editor
called the text the Vamvas, but it is not at all the original and
pure Vamvas o f the early 1800s (c. 1850), as published by the
British and Foreign Bible Society. Since AMG does not regard
any edition of the Textus Receptus as the preferred text, they do
not seem to care that the edition they are printing contains
numerous errors.
Compare Zodhiates’ Greek parallel text with those verses

listed in the chapter The Wobbly Unorthodox Greek Orthodox
Crutch. A few examples of the many, many errors in Zodhiates’
Greek text are shown in the following section.
The ‘Byzantine’ Empire Strikes Back at Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ rebuked the Byzantine churches in the early

chapters of Revelation. The ‘Byzantine’ empire strikes back by
striking out his words and his name:
Rev. 1:11 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits Jesus Christ’s

statement, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first
and the last,” as do the corrupt Greek texts of
heretics Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. (Henceforth
referred to as G, L, T, Tr [Tregelles, not Textus
Receptusl], and W; see the footnotes on textual
variants in George Ricker Berry’s Greek-English
Interlinear). These words are included in the
pure Greek Vamvas, the historic Textus Receptus
(TR), and the KJB.
Rev. 1:8 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits the title o f Jesus

Christ, “the beginning and the ending,” just
like G, L, T, Tr, A (Alford), and W. The KJB,
Vamvas, and the TR include these words.
Rev. 19:1 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits the word “Lord,”

just like G, L, T, Tr, A, and W. The KJB, TR,
and Vamvas Greek have it.
Rev. 21:3 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “their God,” just

like Tischendorf and Tregelles. The KJB, TR,
and Vamvas have these words.
Acts 4:18 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Jesus,” just like G,

L, T, Tr, A, and W. The KJB, TR, and Vamvas
retain it.
Mat. 8:5 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Jesus,” just like G

and W. The KJB, and TR, Vamvas include it.
Rev. 12:17 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Christ,” just like

G, L, T, Tr, A, and Westcott. It is included in the
KJB, TR, and Vamvas.
Acts 15:11 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Christ,” just like

G, T, T, A, and W. The KJB, TR, and Vamvas
include it.
2 Tim. 2:19 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Lord,” just like G,

have it.
Rev. 19:1 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Lord,” just like G,

include it.
Rev. 16:5 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “Lord,” just like G,

include it.
Rev. 20:12 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “God,” just like G,

include it.
Rev. 14:5 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “before the throne

of God,” just like G, L, T, Tr, A, and W. The
KJB, TR, and Vamvas include it.
Rev. 5:14 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “four and twenty”

and “and liveth forever and ever,” just like G, L,
T, Tr, A and W. The KJB, TR, and Vamvas
include these words.
Acts 9:5, 6 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “it is hard for thee to
kick against the pricks. And he trembling and
astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do? And the Lord said unto him.” This major
portion o f verses 5 and 6 is omitted, as it is
omitted in G, L, T, Tr, A, and W. It is in the
KJB, TR, and Vamvas.
Matt. 27:35 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits a large portion o f

the end o f verse 35 which says, “that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They
parted my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots.” Again, he is in bad
company with G, L, T, Tr, and A. The KJB, TR,
and Vamvas retain this portion.
Rev. 2:15 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “which thing I

hate,” because the Greek Orthodox ‘priests’ were
guilty o f the Nicolaitan heresy specified by our
Lord. G, L, T, Tr, and W omit this incitement
and say “in like manner” instead. The KJB, TR,
and Vamvas include the correct words.
Rev. 14:8 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “city,” just like the
corrupt G, L, T, Tr, A and W. It is correct in the
KJB, Vamvas and the TR. The street sign

pointed too close to the harlot religion followed
by the Greek Orthodox church.
Rev. 21:24 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “o f them which are

saved,” just like G, L, T, Tr, A, and W, which
have “the nations shall walk by means o f its
light.” The KJB, Vamvas, and TR have “and the
nations o f them which are saved shall walk in the
light o f it.”
Acts 10: 6 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits “shall tell thee what
thou oughtest to do,” along with G, L, T, Tr, A,
and W. The KJB, TR, and Vamvas retain this
portion.
Acts 10:21 Zodhiates’ Greek text omits the words, “which

were sent unto him from Cornelius,” just as G, L,
T, Tr, A, and W. They are retained in the KJB,
TR, and Vamvas.
Drum roll \ / \ / \ /
G od’s dire warning which says, “and if any man shall take
away from the words o f the book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life...” is altered in
Zodhiates’ Greek text!
Rev. 22:19 Zodhiates’ Greek text changes “the book o f life”

to the “tree o f life,” just like the wicked texts of
Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and
Westcott. The KJB, TR, and Vamvas retain the
“book.”
The deletions and additions in Zodhiates’ Parallel Greek text

place it under God’s curse. We are not to bring a cursed thing
into our homes.
Researcher Michael Prostka wrote the following:
Dear A.V. Publications,
My purpose for writing is twofold. First, I want to express

my deep gratitude to you for products. They have had a
tremendous impact on my life and ministry. For ten years I was
a champion o f Greek scholarship, first backing the Nestle-Aland
text, then later pushing the Textus Receptus. Eventually I
sought to “out-Green” Jay Green, Sr. by hand-compiling my
own interlinear. A year into that arduous task I was gifted with a
copy o f In Awe o f Thy Word. Needless to say, the scales came
off! It was a hard ego-death to realize my Greek labors were in
vain, but what a relief to finally know the word is forever settled
in the A.V.. And what a relief not to break my neck over verb
charts anymore (not to mention buying expensive Greek books).
I simply cannot thank you enough.
The second reason is to inquire about your policy on

manuscript submissions. I’ve written a detailed critique of
AM G’s Complete Word Study New Testament with Greek
Parallel. They actually paired the KJB with the 1914
Constantinople/Antoniades text o f the Greek Orthodox church,
and market that odd blend as “the original Greek.” This text is
altered in 3,358 places, 2,953 o f which “coincidentally” match
the [corrupt] NA27/UBS4 readings. Granted, many o f these are
less important spelling variations, but many serious changes
exist. As always, the danger is that the unsuspecting consumer
would think this odd Greek authoritative over the KJV,

particularly when the Greek omits whole phrases.
In Christ,
M. Prostka
(letter on file)
[An overview o f Prostka’s research follows. Although I have

not made a word-for-word count, his conclusions generally
corroborate my own.]
A Short List of “Word Study NT” Data |by M. Prostka]
(All changes made to Zodhiates’ marginal Greek text unless

specified.)
W ords added: 272 o f those, 224 follow N A 27/UBS4 (82.35%)

dropped: 639 621 (97.18%)
respelled: 818 665 (81.30%)
transposed: 649 587 (90.45%)
changed: 711 628 (88.33%)
substituted: 269 228 (84.76%)
T otal C hanges 3,358 2,953 (87.94% )
Changes in descending order,
Book Changes Follows NA27/UBS4
Revelation 912 855

Luke 437 396
Mark 395 356
Acts 384 340
John 352 279
Matthew 266 189
1 Cor. 82 69
Hebrews 69 62
2 Cor. 67 57
Romans 46 35
1 Peter 43 39
1 John 33 17
E phesians 32 29
Jam es 32 28
2 Peter 29 26
C olossians 26 23
1 Tim . 25 24
Philippians 22 19
G alatians 21 19
2 Tim . 21 18
1 Thes. 18 16
Jude 17 15
2 Thes. 11 10
3 John 6 6
Titus 5 5
Philem on 5 5
2 John 2 1
Assorted Complaints
* “Jesus” omitted 7 times ( plus 2 in English)

■ “Christ” omitted 6 times
■ “God” omitted 5 times
■ “Lord” omitted 1 time [I counted 6 times]
■ “Amen” omitted 2 times
■ Greek direct article omitted 137 times

* Greek direct article added where TR has none (80 times)
■ Greek printing errors resulting in nonsense (35 times)
■ Mark 7:16 bracketed as spurious
■ Luke 14:5 “ass” replaced with “son” per NA27/UBS4
■ John 8:10 “And saw none but the woman” and “those
thine accusers” omitted per NA27/UBS4
Acts 21:8 “we that were of Paul’s company” omitted

per NA27/UBS4
■ Ephesians 3:21 “Unto him be glory in the church by

Christ Jesus” changed to “glory in the church
and by Christ Jesus” upholding the
Catholic/Orthodox heresy o f their infallible
Church
■ Colossians 1:14 “through his blood” omitted per

n a 27/ u b s 4
■ 1 John 2:23 “but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the

Father also” omitted. Even NA27/UBS4
contains this reading.
■ Rev. 1:6 “kings and priests” changed to “kingdom of

priests,” precisely the Catholic/Orthodox
model
■ Rev. 7:5-8 all instances of “were sealed” omitted per

n a 27/ u b s 4
■ Rev. 8:7 “third part o f the earth” added per NA“7/UBS4
■ Rev. 8:13 “angel” changed to “eagle” per NA27/UBS4
■ Rev. 11:1 “angel stood” omitted per NA27/UBS4
■ Rev. 14:1 “his Father’s name” changed to “his name and

his Father’s name” per NA27/UBS4
■ Rev. 15:2 “and over his mark” omitted per NA~7/UBS4
■ Rev. 15:3 “King o f saints” changed to “King o f nations”

per NA27/UBS4
■ Rev. 18:13 “and amomum” added per NA27/UBS4
■ Rev. 20:12 “God” changed to “throne” per NA27/UBS4

■ Rev. 22:6 “the holy prophets” changed to “the spirits of

the prophets” perN A 27/UBS4
■ Rev. 22:11 “let him be righteous” changed to “let him

work righteousness” per NA27/UBS4
(salvation by works, anyone?)
The reason no one to my knowledge has noted that

Zodhiates’ Greek New Testament text does not match the
accompanying English New Testament is that most o f those
purchasing Greek study tools cannot really read Greek.
Apparently Greek study is not the study of Greek; it is all for
‘effect.’
Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NASB)
Zodhiates claims to have found a skeleton key for unlawful

entry into the holy o f holies, where the word o f God is settled.
The Preface to his Hebrew-Greek Study Bible (NASB) admits
that the corrupt “Hebrew Text” was used:
“In the present translation the latest edition of

Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has been
employed together with the most recent light
from lexicography...” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew-Greek
Key Study Bible: NASB, Chattanooga, TN: AM G Publishers, 1980,
Foreword).
The corruptions in this NASB Hebrew Old Testament are

discussed in the chapters on the Hebrew text elsewhere in this
book. The Kittel family and their anti-Jewish criminal activities
and trial for Nazi war crimes are all documented in New Age
Bible Versions (chapter “Lucifer’s Lexicons”) and in the
chapter on Hebrew in this book.
ZODHIATES ’ CORRUPT GREEK TOOLS 813
Zodhiates’ Word Study New Testament cover says,

“Bringing the Original Text to Life.” My chapter herein “The
Seven Infallible Proofs That the King James Bible Is Inspired”
proves that the KJB is alive; no CPR is necessary from the
feeble lips of Spiros Zodhiates. God’s word which, “liveth and
abideth forever” is still inspired, and will remain so, even after
Zodhiates and his copyrights have expired. Which is “the
Original” o f which he speaks? Zodhiates publishes two different
Key Study Bibles (a so-called KJV and an outdated NASB).
These two have completely different underlying Greek texts,
which have many thousands o f differences (see Jack M oorm an’s 8000
Differences, available from AV Publications).
His Greek reeks. He refers to “the Greek,” yet prints Bibles

from Greek texts which are poles apart. There are thousands
upon thousands o f differences between the NASB’s underlying
eclectic Nestle 23rd Greek edition and the mixed-up Greek
Orthodox Greek text he also prints.) They are not only
somewhat different in their Greek style (the ancient Koine vs. a
somewhat more Modem Greek), but they are textually different.
He obviously prefers the corrupt text as he charges the KJB and
TR with error in Mark 3:29. He says, “ ...In other manuscripts,
instead of kriseos, “judgment,” the word harartematos is used
connoting the individual sin... (Complete Word Study N ew Testament, p.126).
In the Foreword, Zodhiates also admits the use o f a highly

corrupt underlying Greek New Testament text,
“In most instances the 23rd edition o f Eberhard

N estle’s Novum Testamentum Graece was
followed.”
This N estle’s Greek edition is generally that o f Westcott and

Hort.
Zodhiates’ NASB omissions and changes are documented in

New Age Bible Versions, published in 1993. That book’s
documentation was so overwhelming that the editors o f the
NASB quickly admitted errors and published a patched NASB
Update in 1995; it fixed a handful of its many, many serious
errors. The NASB edition o f Zodhiates’ does not include these
corrections. Nor does it include the corrections to the Nestle’s
23rd edition which appeared in the Nestle’s 26th edition. The
Nestle’s 23rd edition missed the 765 changes in subsequent
editions of the Nestle text; 470 of these corrections were a
return to the KJB (See Adams and Gipp, The Reintroduction o f Textus Receptus
Readings in the 26"' Edition and B eyond o f N estle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece,
M iamitown, OH: D aystar Publishing, 2006, available from AV Publications).
Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (KJB)
The Zodhiates Key Study Bible gives Lucifer the title of

Jesus Christ, the “daystar” (Isa. 14:12; 2 Peter 1:19). From this,
it appears that the editor knows little Hebrew. This also gives
the untypical impression that he has a questionable regard for
Jesus Christ. The Hebrew word for ‘star’ is not in any Hebrew
text; the Hebrew word for ‘day’ or ‘morning’ is not in any
Hebrew text twice, as his note would mandate. Zodhiates
merely accessed another lexicon that followed pagan Roman
mythology which says that Lucifer, not Jesus Christ, is the
“daystar” (P . 869). Such error is an adaptation from the corrupt
lexicons he used, such as the Wordbook by three NIV editors,
Strong’s Lexicon (who says he used Gesenius), and Brown,
Driver, and Briggs.
The Key Study Bible includes James Strong’s corrupt "A

Concise Dictionary o f the Word in the Hebrew Bible." On the
second page of this Dictionary Strong says that he follows
Gesenius, whose corruptions merited a chapter in this book.
Also included is A Concise Dictionary o f the Words in the

Greek Testament by Janies Strong. He was a member o f the
wicked ASV and RV committees. Strong’s definitions copy the
readings in the corrupt ASV. This is documented in an entire
chapter in this book.
Devils in Hell Become Gods
After using conflicting Greek texts, an outdated NASB, and

reference books by NIV editors, a confused Zodhiates has little
use for the words which have been in the English Bible for a
millennium. He may speak Greek, but English is not his
mother-tongue and this is evident in his English usage. He
frequently makes such comments as, “There are several words
in this verse mistranslated in the KJV.” His sentence is not the
best English usage. Proper English would render this, “There
are several words in this verse which are mistranslated in the
KJV.” Can you imagine the gall o f a Greek-speaking immigrant
to America correcting the English o f the British King James
Translators? He says that the word “Hades” is “inadequately
translated in the KJV as hell.” His so-called Greek expertise
fails him as he suggests leaving the Greek word hades
untranslated. The KJB translators had no problem translating
the word as “hell.” He further says that “Genna” is “wrongly
translated as hell or grave” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study N ew
Testament, pp. 800, 881, 897).
Another word that he does not like is “devils.” He would

also leave it in the somewhat transliterated form, ‘demons’ and
define it as ‘gods’!! Following the secular-bend o f every
lexicon, he says that a daimon (“devil” KJB) is a “god.” He
adds, “Thus they called the happy or lucky person eudaimon
who is favored by this divine power” (emphasis mine) (Zodhiates,
The Complete Word Study New Testament, p. 900). So why do We need a Greek
speaking native from Cyprus to tell us that there is no English

word for either the Greek words hades or daimon, when the
English Bible has supplied them for over 1000 years?
Not only can he not translate the Greek hades or daimon

into English, but also his use of ancient pagan lexicons
overshadows his own native tongue. The synonyms and
definitions Zodhiates gives for the word daimon and its
derivative deisidaimdnesteros include such holy and positive
words as — “gods,” “God,” “devout,” “godly,” “religious,”
“pious,” “deity,” “reverence,” and “piety” ! These definitions
and equivalencies have no basis in Greek and certainly do not
relate to devils! In fact the word deilia (1167) simply means
‘fear’ (Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study D ictionary, pp. 401, 402). His idea that
the root-word daimon is used, “not in a bad sense,’ came from
Trench’s Synonyms, and is discussed thoroughly in the chapter
exposing Trench. Recall that Trench used Luciferian Madame
Blavatsky’s serpent logo on his book. The sole purpose of the
Holy Bible is to disprove pagan beliefs, such as the belief that
‘devils are gods.’
O f the Greek word deisidaimdnesteros, used in Acts 17:22,

Zodhiates says, “fear of demon-gods” “superstitious but not in
a bad sense; the recognition of God or the g o d s...” (Strong’s
numbers 1174 and 1175). The KJB translates it “too
superstitious” because it is from deilos which means ‘fear’ and
daimon which is translated “devil” in the KJB. (There is more
than one devil (diabolos); Judas was called a devil. According
to all Greek experts who have translated the English Bible since
its inception, the Greek language had two words for ‘devils,’
diabolos and daimon.)
ZODHIATES ’ CORRUPT GREEK TOOLS 817
In his Complete Word Study Dictionary he says,

deisidaimonestero means “fearing the gods. Religiously
disposed (Acts 17:22).” Then he contradicts his Word Study
New Testament saying,
“The subst. deisidaimonia (1175), piety that

leads to fear instead o f worship (Acts 25:19) in
contrast to deilia (1167) which is the fear o f
demon-gods (daimonia [1140]). The
recognition of God or the gods mingled with
more fear than trust...” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete
Word Study Dictionary: N ew Testament, Chattanooga, TN: AMG
Publishers, 1992, p. 402).
O f desisdaimonia (1175) he says,
“ ...fearing the gods. Reverence towards deity or

fear o f God” (emphasis mine for all bolding of
daimon) (p. 402).
With Greek study tools, such as those o f Zodhiates, which

turn a ‘daimon’ into a “God,” it is not a wonder that the wicked
do not repent o f worshipping ‘devils.’ Rev. 9:20 warned, “Yet
repented not..that they should not worship devils” (See N ew A ge Bible
Versions, chapter 12 “ Finally, They W orshipped Devils”).
The pagan Greeks and their pantheon o f gods show up in his

definition o f “ouranios” (heaven). He says, “heaven, especially
o f the gods.” Sorry, there is only one God in the Christian
Bible. His pagan usage gives no insights beyond the word
“heaven” used in the KJB. It merely adds the pagan “gods”
(Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, p. 942).
The Complete Word Study Dictionary
■ His Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament

serves the tainted new version smorgasbord by including
the “reading differences between the KJV, NASB, and
NIV translations o f the Bible”
(http://w w w .am gpublishers.com /w w w /docs/l 01,80/com plete-wordstudy-dictionary-
ot.html.
■ His Complete Word Study Dictionary says, “I have

closely followed two dictionaries”; these include “ The
Greek and English Lexicon by John Parkhurst”
(Preface). The problems with Parkhurst are discussed
elsewhere in my books. John Parkhurst labored in the
1700, writing polemics against John Wesley. It has been
suggested that Parkhust’s work contains “ridiculous
etymologies bearing traces o f the Hutchinsonian
opinions of their author.” Hutchingson, “after Origen”
“asserted that the Scriptures are not to be understood and
interpreted in a literal, but in a typical sense...”
(M cClintock and Strong, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprint, 1981, vol.
7, p. 694; vol. Zodhiates also follows the

4, p. 426).
“Septuagint,” “Greek O.T., ed. Alfred Rahlfs,” which is

the corrupt Vaticanus and Alexandrinus text (Zodhiates. The
Com plete Word Study Dictionary, p. xvii).
■ “Strong’s Dictionary of the New Testament Words

included in lexical entries” brings all o f James Strong’s
errors on board in Zodhiates’ The Complete Word Study
Dictionary: New Testament
(http://w ww .am gpublishers.com /www /docs/101.81/com plete-wordstudy-nt.htm l).
The Complete Word Study Old Testament
Zodhiates’ Complete Word Study Old Testament includes

his own “Lexical Aids to the Old Testament” which used the
following corrupt Hebrew lexicons:
■ He admits that he copies “The New Brown, Driver,

Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon” in both
his complete Word Study Old Testament and his
Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. The corruptions o f these
men merited two chapters in this book (Spiros Zodhiates, The
Complete Word Study O ld Testament Chattanooga, TN: AM G Publishers, 1994, p.
2295; K ey Study, p. 1593).
■ His admits that he copies NIV editors, R. Laird Harris,

Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke and their
Theological Wordbook o f the Old Testament. He also
used Merrill Unger’s corrupt Expository Dictionary o f
Biblical Words (Zodhiates, Word Study O ld Testament, p. 2295; Zodhiates,
H ebrew-G reek K ey Study Bible p. 1593).
* The Complete Word Study Old Testament also includes

“Strong’s Dictionaries.”
Biblical Greek vs. Zodhiates’ Modern Greek
There are many differences between the modem Greek

spoken by Spiros Zodhiates and that used in the Bible and in the
first centuries after Christ. The vocabulary o f modem Greek is
only slightly different from that of ancient Greek. In syntax,
many changes are seen. Its verbs frequently have personal
pronouns, as seen in languages such as French. (This can
change the case previously required by a verb or particle.) The
grammatical structure is appreciably different. Although it
retains the three genders and the declension o f nouns, it no
longer has the dual number, the optative mood and the middle
voice. The dative, for example, is now supplied by means o f the
accusative. The conjugation o f verbs has vastly changed and
almost all o f the simple tenses are gone. The future is not shown
by a simple tense and is seen in three ways. Possessive
pronouns are no longer kept; instead the genitive case of
personal pronouns is used. The infinitive is now shown by way
o f the particle (and the subjunctive). All in all, the Greek
language Zodhiates learned at his mother’s knee, mixed with
the pagan Greek definitions he ‘plagiarized,’ together “have
taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered” (Luke 11:52).
AMG Offers Corrupt Materials: CEV & Ankerberg
Zodhiates and AMG have no discernment about Greek texts

or English translations. They offer the adulterated
Contemporary English Version (1991-1995). It entirely omits
the use o f Christian Bible words such as: gospel, grace, mercy,
redemption, righteousness, salvation, repent, judgment, lust,
carnal, covetousness, tribulation, and ungodly. The CEV
wrongly concludes, “It’s terribly hard to get into God’s
kingdom!” (Mark 10:24).
AMG is currently making available works by new version

advocate John Ankerberg, who hosted the debate pitting new
version editors against KJB advocates. He clipped out o f his
video recording the embarrassing segment in which an NASB
editor lost his voice when he tried to respond to the charge that
some new version editors had lost their voices! Ankerberg’s
book against the KJB contains errors and misrepresentations.
His booklet, How is Christianity Different from Other
Religions? has a picture o f a Roman Catholic crucifix on the
cover, intimating that Catholicism is Christianity. Ankerberg’s

pitiful booklet on the King James issue has been thoroughly
answered by John Hinton, a Ph.D. linguist and graduate of
Harvard University. Hinton observes o f Ankerberg, “ [H]e deals
so dishonestly with Dr. Riplinger’s exposure o f the influence of
the New Age movement on the modem Bible versions.”
Contactjhinton@post.harvard.edu for the entire rebuttal.
Zodhiates also offers corrupt courses in New Testament

Greek “using texts such as M achen’s New Testament Greek fo r
Beginners, Summers, Davis and Hadjiantoniou’s grammars.”
Such works are proven faulty in the chapter in this book on
Greek grammars (“Living Verbs: W ounded in Greek G ram m ars” ;
http://w ww .am ginternational.org/www/does/186.785).
Zodhiates’ Heretical Calvinistic Definitions
Zodhiates is a follower o f the “Reformed” sect, which takes

its direction from the heretical teachings o f John Calvin. He
strangely believed that God has not given man a free will, but
instead chooses some to be saved and selects others for hell.
The online “Christian Authors Database: Bible Reference
Authors” lists Spiros Zodhiates as “Reformed”
(http://faith.propadeutie.com /authors/bibleref.htm l).
Zodhiates’ heresy causes him to misrepresent the meaning

o f Bible words which deal with salvation. The 2008 edition of
the Hebrew-Greek Key-Word Study Bible adds to Strong’s
Dictionaries “additional material taken from AM G’s Complete
Word Study Dictionaries.” It contains “Bible doctrines” which
makes it even more dangerous because o f AMG and Zodhiates’
Calvinism.
(http://am gpublishers.com /www/docs/163/kjv_keyword_studybibles/)
Although brevity marks most o f Zodhiates’ definitions, the

words ‘elect’ and ‘chosen’ take four pages. These words are
taken out o f context and mis-defined by Calvinists. For
example, Zodhiates definition of Strong’s 1588 eklektos says,
“ ...the elect are those chosen of God unto

salvation and who therefore enjoy His favor and
lead a holy life in communion with H im ...They
are Christians because God chose them from
among the lost world to become His
followers” (Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New
Testam ent, p. 545).
O f Strong’s #1589 he says,
“Election, the benevolent purpose of God by

which any are chosen unto salvation so that
they are led to embrace and persevere in Christ’s
bestowed grace...” (Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study
Dictionary: New Testament, p. 545).
He says further,
“The elect know who they are, and their lives

indicate a transformation.”
“Although God knows and foreordains the

chosen ones, yet as Jesus Christ invited all to
come to Him, we also must do likewise since we
are totally ignorant o f who the elect are.”
“Therefore, they who intuitively know and love

God are identical with “them that are the called
according to His purpose” (Zodhiates, The Complete Word
Study Dictionary: N ew Testament, p. 545).
In his Complete Word Study New Testament his

commentary on Ephesians 1:4, 5 says,
“The real dilemma in this passage is determining

how a person can know if he is one of the elect,
or even if he can be given that kind of
knowledge” (Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament,
p. 630).
“In this context, this word means that at one

particular time in the past, God chose
individuals for salvation...”
“It is also evident that the believer is fulfilling

G od’s purpose for his life, resulting in him
becoming one o f G od’s elect” (Zodhiates, The Complete
Word Study New Testament, p. 630).
His definition o f proorizo includes a comment that some are

“predestinated to salvation” (Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New
Testament, p. 951).
His Calvinism is seen in “Primitive Baptist Online,”

“Studies in Romans-Chapter 9:6-13.” Their article on “Divine
Hatred” says that Zodhiates “rejects” the “God hates the sin but
not the sinner idea in his Keyword Study B ible...” Zodhiates
says “believers” who “still sin”' are hated by God
(http://prim itativebaptist.info/m am bo//content/view /1391/69/; H ebrew-G reek K ey Study Bible,
p. 711).
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his

only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life”
(John 3:16).
This verse and a hundred verses like it have little meaning to

Calvinists.
In Closing
Unlike the turn of the century lexicographers, most o f whom

were anything but evangelical, Zodhiates has a zeal to find his
‘elect’ brothers and sisters. His mission and humanitarian work
merited an article in Christianity Today (Kevin d . Miller, “ Church in
Action: M issions’ W ild Olive B ranch,” 1996, Dec. 9). Only God knows the heart
o f each man; it is not this author’s purpose to pronounce

judgment on Mr. Zodhiates personally, but merely to expose
what he has plainly stated for all to read in his books. Those
who set themselves up as teachers will receive the greater
condemnation for their errors. Omitting weighty words from his
NASB and Greek Parallel editions cannot be outweighed by
‘good works.’
C h ap ter 22
Child Molester
on New Version Committee
■ Pederast, C.J. Vaughan, and his protector,

B.F. Westcott, helped choose Revised
Version words.
■ Their wicked RV words are now in Bible

Dictionaries and Lexicons by Strong,
Vine, Moulton, Brown, Driver and Briggs.
■ Their RV words are also seen today in the

TNIV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and
HCSB.
■ Their RV became the RSV, and finally the

NRSV.
Child Molester on New Version Committee
cross-examination o f the words in new versions, such
A as the NKJV, TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, and

NRSV, as well as the definitions in post-1880s Bible
Dictionaries and Greek-English Lexicons, reveals that they
looted legions o f words from the Revised Version (RV) o f 1881,
written by the “much-scheming” B.F. Westcott, F.J.A. Hort,
pederast C.J. Vaughan, A.P. Stanley, and their legion o f like-
minded libertine translators (pederasty: Unnatural connexion
with a boy; sodomy, OED).
James Strong’s Concordance and its Greek Lexicon often

use Revised Version words as definitions. The definitions in
Vine’s Expository Dictionary come quite often from this RV, as
was demonstrated in chart form in the accompanying chapter
which exposes W.E. Vine. Moulton and M illigan’s Vocabulary
o f the Greek New Testament also uses the words from the RV as
‘definitions’ for English Bible words. George Ricker Berry’s
Greek-English Interlinear New Testament uses RV words in its
English Interlinear and Greek-English Lexicon. Lexicographer
Frederick Danker says o f the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew-
English Lexicon, “BDB” “relies too much on word meanings of
the RV (Frederick W. Danker, M ultipurpose Tools f o r Bible Study, Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993, p. 106). A large number o f the words in new bible
versions can be traced back to their original use in the Revised

Version.
Such grand larceny demands an autopsy o f the RV

translators’ hearts, out o f which these Bible-correcting words
proceeded. The ringleaders in this circle o f vice are RV
committee members B.F. Westcott, C.J. Vaughan, and A.P.
Stanley. Their crime: involvement, cover-up, acceptance, or
reward o f the homosexual and child-molestation practices at
NEW VERSION CHILD MOLESTER 827
Harrow Boys’ School and their even more shocking subsequent

cozy reunion together, just ten years later, as members o f the
Revised Version translation Committee.
The pivotal role of B.F. Westcott in the plunder o f the Bible,

while he was a member o f the RV committee, was thoroughly
documented in New Age Bible Versions. The role in Bible
revision of the second sinister member, A.P. Stanley, is
examined in James Sightler’s A Testimony Founded For Ever.
Philip Schaff s Companion to the Greek Testament and English
Version lists the third scoundrel, C.J. Vaughan, as a member of
the RV Committee,
“C. J. Vaughan, D.D. (Dean o f Llandaff, and

Master of the Temple, Member of the N.T.
Revision Company)”
Schaff notes that Vaughan authored a book against the KJB,

entitled, ‘Authorized or Revised? Sermons on Some o f the texts
in which the Revised Version Differs from the Authorized.
London (Macmillan & Co.), 1882.” It was published as a
response to the heavy criticism which the RV immediately
r e c e i v e d (Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, New
York: H arper and Brothers, 1885, 2nd edition revised, pp. 376, 384, et al.).
In the next chapter, Dennis Palmu, a member o f the North

American Conference on British Studies, will thoroughly
document the entire child molestation scandal and its links to
the new version (nacbs.org). He is responsible for first bringing this
information to Christian audiences. The following will serve to
introduce the subject. Warning: This is an unpleasant
chapter to read. This and the following chapter are best
skipped, unless one is adamantly resigned to continue
consulting the unholy RV words in the dictionaries o f Vine,

Strong, Moulton, Milligan, Brown, Driver, and Briggs.
Brooke Westcott, The Bad Babysitter
Why were these men feverishly filing off the sharp and
powerful edges o f the Bible? The Holy Bible “is a discemer of
the thoughts and intents” o f their unholy hearts (Hebrews 4:12).
Charles John Vaughan (1816-1897) was Headmaster o f Harrow
Boys’ School from 1845 to 1859. When Westcott was about
twenty-nine years old, “Dr. Vaughan invited him to Harrow”
(Joseph Clayton, Bishop Westcott, London: A.R. M ow bray and Co, 1906, p. 25). V a u g h a n
hired Westcott to work for him as house-parent soon after

W estcott’s graduation from Cambridge University. W estcott’s
boarding house was called “The Butts” (Clayton, p. 26). Vaughan
was most closely “assisted by B.F Westcott.” Vaughan kept
Westcott close at hand in his “Sixth Form where Vaughan
presided, assisted by Westcott” (Christopher Tyerman, The H istory o f Harrow
School, Oxford: O xford U niversity Press, 2000, pp. 260, 261, 264 et al.). V aughan S
selection o f Westcott does not speak well o f Westcott.

Homosexual child-molesters, such as Vaughan, never select
born-again Christians as barriers between them and their prey.
Vaughan was the Head Master (1845-1859) and Westcott was
boarding House Master (1852-1861) o f the Sixth Form house
when the assaults and child-molestations took place. Such a
man as Vaughan would never have hired a house-parent who
would disapprove of and deter his access to the boys. Westcott
did not serve as the boys’ protector, as a house-parent might be
expected to serve. “Another o f W estcott’s Harrow pupils wrote
in Edgbastonia: - “I remember very well that he [Westcott] at
first rather shocked in some ways our boyish conservatism”
(Clayton, p. 28).
The abuse came to a head when Vaughan was forced to

resign his position and go into exile due to the scandal
involving homosexual child molesting charges involving Alfred
Pretor, a boy under B.F. W estcott’s care. Furthermore,
Vaughan’s replacement, Dr. Butler, attests to “the hold which
he [Westcott] had acquired on the affection o f Dr. Vaughan”
(Arthur W estcott, The Life and Letters o f B.F. Westcott, London: M acmillan and Co., Lim ited,
vol.i, p. 276). Vaughan’s selection of Westcott as surrogate ‘parent’

and the subsequent “hold” Westcott had on Vaughan’s
“affections” speaks volumes about W estcott’s possible
predilections. Vaughan’s homosexual “affections” for another
houseparent, like Westcott, are revealed by love letters which
Vaughan wrote to Edward Latham, “head o f house in his final
year, 1851-1852.” “Twenty-two letters to him from Dr.
Vaughan survive in Harrow School archives” (Tyerman, P. 280). At
the top o f one letter Vaughan wrote, “Bum this” (Vaughan to Latham,
17 Feb. 1853 as cited by Tyerman, p. 2 8 1 ). “In November 1 8 5 3 Vaughan
suggested Latham might prefer to visit when they will be

‘entirely alone.’” Another letter drones, “I always feel towards
you so very much more than I can w rite...” (Tyerm an, P. 2 8 1).
Another o f Vaughan’s handpicked masters includes F.W.
Farrar, whose filthy book on onanism and his “photo album”
“show his own keen appreciation o f male adolescent beauty”
(Tyerman. p. 261). The History o f Harrow School refers to Vaughan
as a “flawed tragic figure.” Vaughan’s eye for selecting

decadent school masters brought his selection of C.F. Holmes,
who wrote “intimate” and “flirtatious poems to his colleagues’
wives, Catherine Vaughan included” [Vaughan’s wife, whom
he no doubt left lonely and “without children”] (Tyerm an, pp. 2 6 2 ,2 6 5 ;
W ilson, p. 291 et al).
Vaughan naturally “got on well” with a later Head Master,

C.E.J. Welldon, who authored what the History o f Harrow
School calls a “dreadful book” about a homosexual “boy meets
boy” affair. Being tutored by such predators, it is no wonder

that in W elldon’s era the students still had “the morality of
savages” (Tyerman, pp. 3 6 8 ,3 6 9 ). The History includes a portrait of
Welldon, posing with a telling homosexual hand signal. Mind
you, all o f this was cloaked with the gravest Victorian decorum.
The History says “Vaughan’s quiet rigid facade sheltered
hypocrisy of proportions startling even for the most enthusiastic
reader o f contemporary novels. Middlemist was not alone in
leading a double life.” (Middleman, another o f Vaughan’s
masters played the gay bachelor blade, only to have it
discovered on his death that he had hidden away in another city,
a wife and four children who were barred from his funeral by
the Head Master.) Vaughan could have had his pick of masters,
because o f the extremely high salaries he could offer. His own
lucrative position made him “the equivalent o f a modem day
millionaire.” “Westcott, in a small house, could charge around
£150 per boy; as few as seven in residence producing £1,000 a
year.” “ [S]uch men were the Great Moguls o f British
education.” (Tyerm an, pp. 2 6 7 ,2 6 2 - 2 6 3 ,2 6 5 ,266). Vaughan selected as a
housemistress, Mrs. Wood, whose daughter Annie Besant,
would go on to become the editor o f Lucifer magazine and the
protege o f Luciferian, Madame Biavatsky. Annie accompanied
Harrow’s hell-ward march on W estcott’s own piano. Vaughan
and W estcott’s Harrow was anything but a Sunday School
p i c n i c (Tyerm an, p. 255; see Sightler’s A Testimony Founded For Ever).
The recently published diaries o f J. A. Symonds, one of

Vaughan and W estcott’s students at Harrow, reveals the
widespread debauchery fostered under W estcott’s cankered eye.
Dr. Phyllis Grosskurth’s book, The Memoirs o f John Addington
Symonds, brings to light in graphic detail (Chapter 5) what went
on at Harrow under Westcott and Vaughan. (It is unfit to print
here. If you read it, you would put gloves on to throw away the
RV-contaminated dictionaries of Strong, Vine, Moulton,

Brown, Driver, and Briggs.) Symonds begins, “Every boy o f
good looks had a female name, and was recognized as a public
prostitute or as some bigger fellow’s ‘b ...h .’” Westcott hosted,
allowed, and covered up vile behavior in the young boys’ dorm,
which he supervised. The details in Symonds’ Memoirs
concerning this could never be printed in a book for a Christian
audience. Later Symonds admits, “Alfred Pretor wrote me a
note in which he informed me that Vaughan had begun a love
affair with h im ...” (Phyllis G rosskurth, The Memoirs o f John Addington
Symonds, N e w Y ork: R andom H ouse, 1984, pp. 94, 97 et al).
The London Review o f Books summarizes the disclosures by

John Addington Symonds, a ward of W estcott’s, and a
homosexual himself. Symonds’ “jealousy” over Vaughan’s
attentions to Alfred Pretor led him to tell John Conington, a
homosexual Professor o f Latin at Oxford, about the homosexual
relationship between Vaughan and Symonds’ fellow-student,
Alfred Pretor. Conington in turn coaxed Symonds to make the
case public. Symonds told his father, a noted surgeon, who in
turn threatened Vaughan with exposure, if he did not resign
immediately and henceforth refrain from assuming any
leadership positions in the church of England. The review cites
all o f the Church o f England hierarchy who knew o f the
Vaughan scandal. Abused children become abusers themselves.
Symonds went on “to become Victorian England’s only
champion o f gay rights” (The London R eview o f Books, M ay 22, 2003, vol. 25, #10;
http://lrb.co.uk/v25/nl0/letters.htm l; Tyerman, p. 278 ).
A recent Cambridge University Press book says Symonds—
“ ...had a rough childhood...especially when he

got to Harrow...Particularly disturbing, however,
was the “low moral tone” - like the other public
schools, Harrow was a remarkably licentious

environment:”... [The following paragraphs,
describing the licentious atmosphere nurtured
under Vaughan and Westcott’s supervision at
Harrow, are obscene and therefore unprintable
here.] (Bart Schultz, H enry Sidgwick: E ye o f the Universe, Cambridge
U niversity Press, 2004, pp. 387-389).
Symonds reports that, “ ...the “beasts” tried to seduce

h im ...” “Symonds, age seventeen and in the sixth form” under
Vaughan and W estcott’s tutelage, read Plato’s homoerotic
“Phaedrus and the Symposium,” which Symonds said
confirmed “my congenital inclination toward persons o f the
male sex, and filled my head with an impossible dream, which
controlled my thoughts for many years” (Schultz, PP. 387-389).
“Symonds implies that Vaughan was in the habit o f sitting next
to pupils on his sofa stroking their thighs while going over their
Greek verses” (Tyerm an, P. 279). Schultz says Symonds was —
“Shocked by his friend Pretor’s revelation that he

was having a love affair with none other than
their headmaster, C.J. Vaughan, Symonds was
thrown into a good deal of casuistical turmoil
and cynical reflection about hypocrisy in high
places. Plato helped, as did Aristophanes, the
erotic dialogues o f Lucian and Plutarch,
Theognis, Theocritus, and the Greek Anthology.
He threw himself even more passionately into
things Greek” (Schultz, P. 389).
When Jesus Christ came to the Graeco-Roman culture, he

rebuked their heathen practices. When subsequent missionaries
brought Christianity to this and other pagan cultures, they
overturned their wicked practices o f infanticide, sodomy,
homosexuality, and suttee (burning widows on their husband’s

funeral pyre). Why are Christians returning to this horrible
pagan pit from which Christianity came to deliver them?
Schultz says Symonds was not “filthy” compared to the

usual low “Harrow standards.” When at Oxford, Symonds
“informed his tutor about Vaughan’s affair with Pretor.
Conington insisted that Symonds should go to Clifton to inform
his father about these goings-on.” Symonds describes Vaughan
as “the awe-inspiring ruler o f the petty state o f Harrow.”
Symonds says,
“ ...I felt a deeply rooted sympathy with

Vaughan. If he had sinned, it had been by
yielding to passions which already mastered
m e...M y blood boiled and my nerves stiffened
when I thought what mischief life at Harrow
was doing daily to young lads under the
autocracy of a hypocrite” (Sym onds’ M em oirs, as cited in
Schultz, pp. 390, 391 et al).
The History o f Harrow School says, “Symonds portrays the

school” as a place o f “vulgarity, violence, and vice, shameless
in bullying, aggressive in sodomy” (Tyerm an, P. 2 7 1). One student’s
Recollections o f Harrow warned students, “set your face and
ears against lewd and obscene jokes and jests, and shun, like the
touch o f a leper, any approach to acts o f immorality...you will
see all things going on about you that will shame” (Tyerm an, P. 2121
The recent historical compendium, The Victorians, describes
Harrow during the Vaughan-Westcott era as “a hotbed of
homosexual bullying.” where students were “frequently
compelled into (often public) acts o f incredible obscenity...”
(A.N. W ilson, The Victorians, NY: W.W. Norton & Com pany, 2005, p. 289, 290, 291).
During Vaughan and W estcott’s tenure at Harrow, public

“scandals” erupted over the sadism of “Head master beatings,”
in “drawing blood,” while “caning and flogging” disrobed
students. Vaughan would “draw blood.” “The press and public
had a field day” with the exposure of the “beating scandals,”
wherein masters also had students beating other students. The
case made The Times and the attention of the then Home
Secretary, Lord Palmerston.” Vaughan was “unbending to
public opinion,” claiming it was all about discipline, so the
beatings continued (Tyerman, pp. 257, 258; W ilson, p. 291). The Vaughan
(1845-1859) and Westcott (1852-1861) era at Harrow brought
about “growing critical clamour,” culminating in 1861 with
outside attempts at “reforming corrupt” schools, such as this.
“[P]ublic accountability” and “last ditch attempts to ensure a
measure of external scrutiny through statutory school
inspection” brought about some weak regulations and a “House
of Lords Bill.” “Flogging and caning were much discussed at
the time o f the Clarendon Commission.” W ilson’s otherwise
non-sensational book, The Victorians, closes his discussion of
the Vaughan era at Harrow, noting a student’s comment on “Dr
Vaughan’s malign influence” (p. 291); then it concludes saying,
“flagellant pornography, sado-masochistic prostitution and its
twilight psychological hinterlands are all tokens o f how potent
the boarding-school experience was...” (p. 292). Westcott and
Vaughan, both young men in their thirties during this debacle,
were to join ranks again ten years later to flog the Bible, as
members o f the Revised Version Committee; their m ind’s meet
yet again, flogging the pages o f the dictionaries o f Strong, Vine,
Moulton, Milligan, Brown, Driver, and Briggs (see first page o f chapter
12 in The H istory o f Harrow School; W ilson, pp. 289-290, 291, 292).
Further docum entation is available in Strange Audacious Life: The Construction o f John
Addington Symonds by Andrew Dakyns; Letters o f John Addington Sym onds (Detroit: W ayne
State U niversity Press, 1967-1969); and John Addington Symonds: Culture a n d the Demon
Desire, ed. John Pemble (London: M acmillan, 2000).
Schultz says spiritualist Henry Sidgwick knew o f the

Harrow “sex-scandal and coverup, courtesy o f his old friend
Symonds” (Schultz, p. 714). According to Sidgwick’s biographer,
Symonds was the best friend o f this occultist and head o f The
Society o f Psychical Research. This necromancy group was an
offshoot o f B.F. W estcott’s own Ghostly Guild. Among its
founders were the homosexual Symonds and the pedophile
Lewis Carroll (Liddell’s Charles Dodgson). Harry Potter’s
spooky Warthog school paints quite an accurate picture of
British schools, such as Harrow.
Westcott & Vaughan
Vaughan’s “affection” for Westcott was reciprocated by

W estcott’s “complete confidence in his Head, Dr. V aughan...”
(W estcott, p. 174). Joseph Clayton’s biography o f Westcott, entitled
Bishop Westcott, reiterates W estcott’s esteem for Vaughan ( 1906,

available as a Goggle book). That they worked close together is seen in
the lurid three volume diaries o f Symonds. Vaughan and

W estcott’s Sixth Form boys are mentioned frequently. The
diary entry, dated Dec. 5, 1857, discusses the pertinent parties.
Two budding catamites, Symonds and Pretor, were apparently
selected for special advances (Webster: catamite, a boy kept by
a pederast). Symonds writes,
“The Scholarships Examination Lists have been

read out. We were all summoned at 5 o ’clock to
the School Yard where after waiting a short time
the Examiner and Dr. V.[aughan] and Westcott
appeared on top of the steps...he cleared his
throat and began ‘First Class Symonds,
Edwards, [Alfred] Pretor, etc.”
A “ |F]airy” and Marijuana?
A letter from B.F. Westcott, published in The Life and

Letters o f B.F. Westcott, gives a quick peek into the horror that
he hosted when he was the dorm supervisor at Harrow Boys
School. It mentions the catamite, Alfred Pretor. It also infers
that the use o f marijuana was not uncommon in W estcott’s
house. A portion of W estcott’s letter about Pretor is veiled in
Greek prose; its translation has never before been made public.
Alfred Pretor and his female-like “small” “body” receive the
most praise from Westcott. Dr. C. Winsor Wheeler, Classics
Professor at Louisiana State University, provides the English
translation from the Greek of W estcott’s so-called “Homeric
fragment.’ Dr. James Sightler supplied in brackets the names of
W estcott’s six students, whom Westcott mentions in the same
order in the preceding English portion of the letter. When
differing, the translation by Greek expert, Dr. Manwell, is in
parenthesis { }. W estcott’s letter said,
Harrow, Dec. 7, 1854
Dear Fredric - H arrow is dissolved - the school, I mean, and not the hill, which holds out
still against the rain m ost valiantly. Gould the noisy and M arshall the unready are done.
Sandars the interrogative and Burdon the dem onstrative are gone. M eek the cold-handed is
gone. Pretor the clear-headed is gone. I too the much-scheming am going.
[The Greek can be translated as follows].

Thus he [V a u g h a n ]' spoke and they heard him and now rejoiced very much
Quickly then they fle w through the wide-streeted city
With a deafening shout; and the houses resounded to them.
Six they were, preem inent, like p a le wasps,
Chrysos [or "gold"] [G ould the noisy], who was excelling all his fellow s
In voice and in shout; P h yla x [or “the g u a rd ”![M a rsh a llthe unready] always troublesome;
Psam m ites [or "sandy "][Sanders the interrogative], best o f all the youths to ask great
things,
A n d Phortos, [or "cargo ” (baggagej] [Burdon the demonstrative] you cozener [impostor]
{a beguiler o f women}, and then Preys [or “mildman "] [M eek the cold handed] was
p resent
With cold hands, and last cam e upon the others,
L a st in age, y e t he appeared fir s t in honor,
Praitor [ or “the governor "J [Pretor the clear headed], whose body is sm all but his spirit
[or will, o r arrogance] is great [Translations on file in letters from Professors W heeler and
Manwell],
1 “The Headm aster [Vaughan] on last m orning Schol. Harr.)

“ Harrow em phasis gratia.
This is a Homeric fragment. I hope you can scan it; I w o n 't attempt to do so. The MS. is
sadly defaced, but 1 can see som e allusion to the w asp jersey o f our house, and a good
scholiast could doubtless explain it all. Even now I have scarcely realized your
disappearance. I never likened M oorsom to a fairy, but he certainly carried you o ff in a
fairy-like fashion. I am not quite sure that I will pardon you till I have a full account o f the
“supernatural” phenom enon which m ust have accom panied your evanishment. It is but just
to say that I did not smell the odour of hempseed in the house. 1 am sure the Greek lines
will be as good as another whole sheet of words. Fancy that they form a paper in a little
ro o m ...v ery affectionately yours. Brooke F. Westcott” (W estcott, Vol. 1, pp. 229, 230).
Classicists Respond
The world’s leading scholar o f the Classics agrees that this

is not a Homeric fragment, as Westcott pretends. Professor of
Classics and Comparative Literature at the University of
California, James Ivan Porter, formerly o f the University of
Michigan, says, “This looks like somebody composing a joke
about his contemporaries in Homeric-style G reek...It’s not
ancient Greek but a modem affectation by the author o f this
book about the Praetor o f whatever school is in question” (letter to
his brother, John Porter, dated June 12, 2008 on file).
Professor Manwell, a Classicist and Greek expert from

Kalamazoo College, agrees saying, “One thing I think I can say
with assurance is that this is not H om er...Y our author seems to
have applied the style to the exploits o f his students. Writing
Greek poetry on ancient models was a common school
exercise...even more common in Britain” (letter on file to Dr. James
Sightler from Professor Manwell via Chris Strauber, Reference and W eb Services Librarian at
W offord College on July 17, 2008).
In a note after his translation o f the Greek portion o f

W estcott’s private letter, Professor Wheeler quips, “In keeping
with the drift o f your research, I expect you’ve already seen the
[homosexual] flap about Virginia Ramey Mollenkott o f the

NIV. If not, I ’ll try to hunt it back down for you. Same old
same old” (letter on file).
Inversion and the Revised Version
W estcott’s reference to the “odour of hempseed,” (cannabis,

i.e. marijuana) is obviously incriminating. Everyone had left, so
the usual smell of marijuana was not there. The McClintock and
Strong Cyclopedia's cites the intoxicating use of “Indian hemp”
and “the hemp poison (Cannabis Indica),” during W estcott’s
e r a (vol. 10, p. 214, s.v. Temperance).
Such scandalous activities mandate the protection of

“Phylax, the guard,” who would warn o f any approaching
intruder. The use o f this post appears even more incriminating,
because o f Vaughan’s membership with the Knights Templar
guards, as will be seen later in the chapter.
What did Westcott mean by the use of the term “fairy” in

his letter o f 1854? The term “homosexual” was not used until
1869 (in a pamphlet published anonymously by Karl-Maria
Kertbeny). During the Westcott-Hort-Vaughan era, the terms
‘fairy,’ ‘invert’ or ‘Uranian’ were the terms most widely used to
identify a male homosexual. The Oxford English Dictionary
cites the use of the word “fairy,” as referring to “A male
homosexual,” in the 1800s. Their “small body, like Pretor s,
brings about the association with ‘fairies, which are merely
miniature people, like children. The OED cites the 1895
American Journal o f Psychology, Volume VII, p. 216, which
says regarding the word ‘fairy,’
“This coincides with what is known of the

peculiar societies o f inverts. Coffee-clatches,
where the members dress themselves with

aprons, etc., and knit, gossip and crochet; balls,
where men adopt the ladies’ evening dress, are
well known in Europe. ‘The Fairies’ o f New
York are said to be a similar secret organization”
(O xford English Dictionary, Unabridged. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989,
vol. 5, p. 676, s.v. fairy).
Vaughan and W estcott’s Harrow Boys’ School was a

training ground for the transvestite activities associated with
“T o p h a ts v B o n n e ts ” a fo o tb a ll m a tc h w ith a d iffe re n c e in 1 9 0 2
F ro m A n Illustrated H istory o f Harrow School
B y P a tric k L ic h fie ld ,a n d R ich a rd S h y m a n s k y w ith J im G o lla n d
C o p y rig h t © 1 9 8 8 T h e P e n g u in G ro u p
U sed b y the kind perm ission o f H arrow School, R ita B osw ell, A rchivist.
‘fairies,’ as cited by the OED. This can be graphically seen in

the accompanying picture o f an official Harrow school activity
in which young Harrow boys are dressed and made-up as girls
and are partnered affectionately with male classmates. It was
one o f several such pictures o f boys dressed as girls, seen in the
official book about Harrow School, An Illustrated History>o f

Harrow School by Patrick Lichfield and Richard Shymansky
(The Penguin Group, 1988), used here, by kind permission of
Harrow School, Rita Boswell, Archivist. Hare, another student
at Harrow writes in his “Story o f My Life, of “his delight at
performing in elaborate drag show s.. (Tyerman,p. 272).
W estcott’s charge, J.A. Symonds, is even cited by the

Oxford English Dictionary (Unabridged), under the word
“Uranian,” which is defined as a “Homosexual.” The OED’s
citation under “uranism” identifies it as “H om osexuality...” It
shows the word used in 1895 in the Journal o f Comparative
Neurology V. 33, which said, “The education of congenital
inverts (or uranists, to employ a word invented by a famous
in vert...[see masochism.]” ( o e d , s.v. uranian, pp. 328, 329). The
“famous invert,” whom they cite as first using the word in
English, is the student in Westcott’s Sixth Form at Harrow,
J.A. Symonds, who took the word from Plato’s Greek
Symposium, as did the German activist Karl Heinrich Ulrich in
1864. The OED defines a “Uranian” as a —
“Homosexual...(from the reference to Aphrodite

in Plato’s Symposium”)..A893 J.A. Symonds in
Spirit Lamp III. II. 29 Thou standest on this
craggy cove, Live image o f Uranian Love.”
The word uranian comes from the Greek word uranus,

meaning ‘heaven.’ The Greek goddess Aphrodite was said to be
bom o f the ‘heavens,’ without a woman, and hence the terms
urning or uranian. Under the term “uming,” the OED says, “A
homosexual” and again cites —
“ 1896 J. A. Symonds Probl. Mod. Ethics vii. 91

Man, Woman, and Uming - the third being
either a male or a female in whom we observe a
real and inborn, not an acquired or a spurious
inversion of appetite” (s.v. uming).
Here we have the product o f Westcott as ‘babysitter’ and

Greek professor. His progeny is the first to invent the lie that
homosexuality is “inborn, not an acquired” or an “inversion of
appetite.” Parents had no idea that Westcott was not their
child’s protector, but the predator pushing a philosophy that
ruined Symonds, who never outgrew this early bad influence.
The OED cites a 1908 volume which says, “An appreciable
influence in developing early Uranism is the fact that the
tutor...may be a Uranian o f pederastic [child molesting]
inclinations” (s.v. Uranian). Living under Westcott, a libertine
who winked at such perversion, Symonds went on to become
one of the first open pro-homosexual advocates. Symonds’
book, “A Problem in Modem Ethics,” tells its readers that an
acceptance o f homosexuality will unite “estranged ranks of
society.” Symonds went on to write a book called Sexual
Inversion (S c h u itz ,p .7 i2 ).
Symonds was also a student o f the bachelor, Benjamin

Jowett, who was the Victorian popularizer o f Plato, the
homosexual and his pederast professor, Socrates. All o f this is
the product of the focus on Greek language and Greek
mythology. Dr. James Sightler says,
“What was happening in 19th century Britain was

that many were abandoning the manly orthodox
doctrine o f the 17th and 18th centuries for a
higher critical attitude of unbelief in those
doctrines. You might look at Benjamin Jowett’s
teaching at Oxford the virtues of Plato’s

Symposium as an attempt to change the
leadership of British society by substituting both
higher criticism and Uranianism [Plato’s
homosexuality] for the old, and true doctrines
and attitudes of what life ought to b e .. .Looked at
this way Vaughan’s appointment to the [RV]
committee was similar to and just as offensive as
that of G. Vance Smith, [the Unitarian]
...Remember that Annie Besant’s mother and
Mrs. Vaughan were good friends... [Anne
Besant played the piano at W estcott’s Harrow
sing-a-longs and later became the world leader of
the Luciferian movement and editor o f Lucifer
magazine] (letter on file; also see Sightler’s W estcott’s N ew Bibles
and A Testimony Founded F or Ever).
The Life and Letters o f B.F. Westcott includes references to

W estcott’s work for Vaughan, as observed by Dr. James
Sightler in the following (letter on file):
■ “ [I]n 1852 that, at Dr. Vaughan’s invitation, he went to

Harrow” (Westcott, p. 272 ).
■ Vaughan gave Westcott the house mastership over the
“ Sixth Form” (over students like Symonds and Pretor
etc.) soon after Westcott came (Westcott, p. 172).
■ “He had the most complete confidence in his Head, Dr.
V aughan...” (W estcott,p. 174 ).
■ Westcott took charge o f the Sixth Form in the
headmaster’s (Vaughan) absence. The number of
students boarding with Westcott was very small and
only ranged from “eight” to “thirty-six.” Consequently,
one student said, “we were in constant touch with him”
(W estcott, p. 195).
* Vaughan was given a presentation copy o f a book from

Westcott (W estcott, p. 232).
■ Vaughan requested a volume o f chapel sermons by
Westcott be written (w estcott, p. 268).
■ In a Greek poem, Westcott mentions the victim Pretor
and his predator Vaughan (W estcott, PP. 229-230).
■ In 1863, three years after Vaughan’s supposed
banishment, Westcott writes to Lightfoot, “Dr. Vaughan
comes here on Tuesday, and I shall talk the matter over
with him - Ever yours, B.F. Westcott” (W estcott, P. 282).
Vaughan, Master of the Temple (1869-1894)
Although Symonds’ exposure o f the “mischief,” going on

continually at Harrow, caused “the partial ruin” o f Vaughan,
this shame was only temporary (Schultz, P. 392 ). In 1869 Vaughan,
the pederast, was brought out o f his clerical hideaway and
appointed as the Master o f the Temple (Temple Church) by
Prime Minister Gladstone, who was much more liberal than his
predecessor, Prime Minister Palmerston. As the ‘M aster,’
Vaughan became ‘Dean’ or ‘Bishop’ o f the Temple church. The
Title “Master o f the Temple” is “Originally the official title of
the Grand Master o f the Templars” (Albert M ackey, Encyclopedia o f Free
M asonry, New York, London: The M asonic History Company, 1873, 1927 et al., Vol. II, p.
476).
The movie, the Da Vinci Code, reveals the occult nature and
background o f Vaughan’s Temple and was filmed on location
there. Vaughan’s round Temple church was built in 1184 by the
evil Order o f the Knights Templar. It is used for their initiation
ceremonies, which are said to include trampling the cross and
committing unmentionable blasphemies. According to King
Philip IV o f France (1268-1314), the Temples erected by the
Knights were used for bizarre rituals o f a Satanic nature, such as
black masses. Because of this, at that time its membership was

arrested, imprisoned, and burned. Ancient documents from their
trials state that they worshipped a cat, a head, or what Satanist
Alistair Crowley calls, “Baphomet, the Androgyne,” part-man,
part-woman and part-goat (Alistair Crowley, M agick, W eiser Books, 1997, Book
4; see com m ents by their current followers, Christopher Knight, and Robert Lomas, The Second
The Temple S
M essiah, London: Arrow Books Ltd., 1997, pp. 294, 256-257, 182-183).
original builders, the Knights Templar, were renegade Catholic

monks, who, according to admissions by their current
chroniclers and followers,
“denied the Crucifixion...They believed that the

Knights possessed an insight which eclipsed
orthodox Christianity, an insight that permitted
them the certainty that the Church had
misinterpreted both the Virgin Birth and the
R e s u r r e c t i o n ” (Laurence Gardner, Bloodline o f the H oly Grail,
NY: Barnes and Noble, 1996, pp. 265, 270).
“The easiest charge was that o f heresy, for it was

well established that the Knights did not hold to
the orthodox view o f the Crucifixion...The
Templars were accused of a number o f assorted
practices deemed unsavoury, including
necromancy, homosexuality, abortion,
blasphemy, and the black arts” (Gardner, pp. 270-
271).
According to Laurence Gardner, “an internationally known

sovereign and chivalric genealogist” and professional historian
of the Knights Templar, their ceremonies and occult practices
have continued in unbroken succession until today (Gardner, p. i).
Gardner’s blasphemous book, not only details the continual
ungodly practices o f the followers o f the Knight’s Templar to
the present, but he promotes their blasphemous theory that Jesus

was merely a man and had children by Mary Magdalene.
Freemason Albert Pike wrote of the organization o f the
Templars saying,
“Nevertheless it lived under other names and

governed by Unknown chiefs, revealing itself
only to those in passing through a series of
Degrees, had proven themselves worthy to be
entrusted with the dangerous Secret...” (Albert
Pike, M orals and D ogm a, Richmond, VA: L.H. Jenkins, Inc, 1871, 1923,
1942 et al., p. 821).
What is the “dangerous Secret”? The Templars were accused of

practicing child molestation and sodomy according to Proces
des Templiers, Vol. II, ed. J. Michelet, Paris, 1841, p. 213.
Contemporary books echo that “their path to eternal life is the
sexual violation of little children” (p .d . stuart, Codeword Barbelon, London:
L ux-verbi Books, 2008, p. 500). No wonder Vaughan was chosen as
'M aster’! The Encyclopedia o f Freemasonry, available during

Vaughan’s tenure as Master o f the Temple has numerous
pictures o f naked little children, young boys, and men. More
naked children and adults are pictured throughout their books; it
seems to be their favorite pictorial image (Albert M ackey, An
Encyclopaedia o f Freemasonry, Chicago, N ew York, London: The
Masonic History Company, 1873, 1927 et al., Vol. 1, pp. 74, 188, 284;
Vol. II, p. 548; see chapter on Trench).
The seal for the Knights Templar was a

homosexual picture o f two cozy men, riding
one horse. As a homosexual, Vaughan was the
logical selection to oversee this homosexual Temple o f doom.
Vaughan had offered himself as the scapegoat for the whole
herd of pederasts and libertines who trampled over the Church
of England. As Master o f the Temple, Vaughan was to sit in
Parliament as first baron o f the realm. Stillson’s History o f

Freemasonry says, “The Master of the Temple in England had a
seat in Parliament as baron” (Stiiison, pp. 152). The Victorians, by
A.N. Wilson, describes the “secret life o f Vaughan” and also
depicts in its later pages the depths to which Victorian society
h a d s u n k (W. W. N orton and Com pany, 2004, pp. 291 et al.).
The most famous member of Vaughan’s London

Temple, was Cecil Rhodes, a homosexual and the founder of
the new world order. Other notorious members are listed on the
Temple’s current web site. Rhodes had been a freemason since
his Oxford days, placing him in Vaughan’s era a 869-1894; schaff-
Herzog, vol. 12, p. 157). Rhodes’ secret society and its influence
eventually reached Harrow. “In the field o f education, its
influence was chiefly visible at Eton and Harrow and at All
Souls College, Oxford” (Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-Am erican Establishment:
From Rhodes to Clivedan, NY: Books in Focus, 1981, p. 5).
The Templars absconded with many so-called ‘relics’ from

Jerusalem, during their Crusades. These items are still housed in
the ‘Temple’ and are thought to have occult powers. Since its
construction by the Templars, Vaughan’s London Temple has
remained one o f the occult community’s most important sites
for Satanic initiations. The standard reference work, The
Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics, describes only one group
under its article “Satanism,” — The Knights Templar and their
modern day Freemasonic adherents. The article states that they
practice,
“ ...foul, cruel, and obscene rites, culminating in

the formal abjuration of Christ and His religion,
the apparition of the Devil in person to his
votaries, and their organized and periodical
worship o f him. Some of these charges were

among those brought against the Knights
Templars in the year 1307” (Jam es Hastings, ed., NY:
Charles Scribener’s Sons, 1928, vol. 11, pp. 203-207, s.v. Satanism).
The Encyclopedia states further that their practices were

made public beginning in 1886 by a series o f books by
individuals who asserted that they were now “converted” and
wished to expose the evil in modem Templar organizations.
Books such as Revelations completes sur la franc-maqonnerie
(Paris, 1886) and Memoires d ’une Ex-Palladiste (1895)
describe, as both “grotesque and gruesome,” “the initiation o f a
Mistress-Templar according to the Palladian rite, that is to say,
with revolting obscenity.” Strangely, one o f these authors used
the name ‘Vaughan’ as a pen name; Charles Vaughan was not
the author, but since Vaughan (the he-she) was the well-known
Master o f the Temple during the period described in these
books, the ‘Vaughan’ name was perhaps a logical choice for a
nom de plume. Vaughan, the ‘he-she,’ had written a story
entitled, My Pretty Jane, which was a love story, written from
the ‘she’ viewpoint. “Diana Vaughan,” wrote o f her love affair
with Lucifer, himself (Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics, s.v. Satanism).
Naturally, the contents o f these books were dismissed by some
o f the academic community as mere sensational fictions.
The Luciferian aspect o f the Templars and their

contemporaries is admitted in their own The History o f
Freemasomy which asks, “Is it Lucifer or the Vespers.. .” (Henry
Leonard Stillson, ed., London: George K enning; Boston: The Fraternity Publishing Company,
1904, p. 101; see also pp. 119, 140, 146, 789, plate after pp. 795, 876, 898). A full page
picture o f Luciferian Albert Pike crowns the book. Pike said,

“Satan created and governs the visible world.” “Lucifer, the
Light-bearer!...Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who
bears the Light.. .Doubt it not!’ (Morals and D ogma o f the A ncient and
A ccepted Scottish Rite o f Freemasonry, Richmond VA: L.H. Jenkins, Inc., reprint 1948 pp. 321,
567).
Vaughan’s Temple, a site of such perceived occult power,

would not go unused today in the highly occultic milieu of
Harry Potter’s England. Still today, the 32° of the Scottish Rite
Freemasonry and the highest degree of the York Rite are called
the Order o f the Knights Templar. Other wicked books, such as
Holy Blood Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh,
echo the depraved century stepping practices of the Templars.
John J. Robinson’s book, Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets o f
Freemasonry admits the unbroken connection between today’s
Freemasons and the ancient Templars. He traces the Templars
from the death of Master o f the Temple, Jacques de Molay, in
1313 to the Grand Lodge in England in 1717 and beyond.
Today’s Freemasons name their young boys’ group after
Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay, who was executed
after confessing his participation in Templar debaucheries.
Robinson describes the secrecy of Templar initiations and
portrays Vaughan’s London Temple.
“Templar initiations and chapter meetings were

conducted in total secrecy. Any Templar
revealing any proceeding, even to another
Templar o f lower rank than himself, was subject
to punishment, including expulsion from the
order. To preserve secrecy the meetings were
guarded by knights who stood outside the door
with their swords already drawn. Although there
is no documentation, legend has it that several
times spies, or perhaps the merely curious, met
death the moment they were caught...The
circular Templar church in London, for
example, has a stone bench around the entire
perimeter so that seated knights would all be

looking toward the center (John J. Robinson, Born in
Blood, N ew York: M. Evans and Company, 1989, p. 73; also see his book
Proofs o f a Conspiracy).
Freemasonary today, and at the time o f Vaughan, mimicked this

Templar practice. Robinson admits, “When the Templars
processed around their circular churches they had only one way
to move: in a circle, just as today’s Masons process in their
‘circumambulation’ of the lodge.” Hitler’s SS chief Heinrich
Himmler had a castle with a circular temple, like Vaughan’s
Knights Templar building. It was used as a cult center by the
SS. A poster o f Adolf Hitler, depicted as a Knights Templar,
was designed by Albert Speer for the Nazi Party Festival at
N u r e m b e r g (M ichael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, The M essianic Legacy,
An
NY: Henry Holt and Company, 1986, See plates follow ing p. 178; this is a wicked book).
Encyclopaedia o f Freemasonry says “Circular Temples” “were

a representation of the zodiac (Albert M ackey, Chicago, NY, London: The
Masonic H istory Com pany, Vol. 1, p. 152).
The Templars were said to be

“initiated into the mysteries o f the
Cabbala.” Joining Vaughan on the
Revised Version Committee was C.
Ginsburg, author o f a book on the
Cabbala, which revived this ungodly
belief system for his 19th century
C o n t e m p o r a r i e s (Eliphas Levi, H istoire de la Magie,
Paris: Germ er Bailliere, 1856, 1860, p. 273; See chapter on
Ginsburg.)
Vaughan’s Temple is strange in that

the floor is frequently interrupted with
effigies o f the ancient Knight’s Templar
lying prostrate on the flo o r, rather than
standing erect, as statues usually do. These Knights are

positioned with their legs crossed in an ‘x ’ formation,
representing the skull and crossbones insignia o f death. The
Second Messiah explains saying, “This pose was also crucial to
Templars as every one of their knights was laid in his tomb with
his legs crossed in precisely this manner. The crossed legs form
an ‘x ’ shape...” They continue saying,
“As Freemasons, we are not at all surprised that

the Templars had human heads [out o f which
they were said to drink] because a skull and
crossed thigh bones are still used in the Masonic
living resurrection ceremony that has Templar
O rigins” (Knight and Lomas, pp. 126, 127, 116).
The Encyclopedia o f Freemasonry, circulating in Vaughan’s

day, shows the skull and crossed bones, as well as the Templar
checkerboard motif. The Encyclopaedia has an article on the ‘x ’
motif, a Masonic and occult symbol, also worn by lexicographer
R.C. Trench, author o f Synonyms o f the New Testament (Mackey,
Vol. 1, pp. 74, 188; see chapter on Trench; the letter ‘x ’ is discussed elsewhere in this book).
The dead knight is also posed with the occult lion’s paw
hand sign, seen elsewhere in this book in the portrait o f RV
member and ASV chairman Philip Schaff and others.
Richardson’s Monitor o f Freemasonry identifies the

current “degree of the Order o f the Knights Templar.” John
Wilkes Booth, the assassin o f Abraham Lincoln, was a Mason
o f the Order o f the Knights Templar. The Encyclopaedia o f
Freemasonry details the connection between the original
Templars, who founded Vaughan’s Temple, and those
participating in subsequent generations (pp. 404-416). It cites
such references as “Eclectic Review, 1842, p. 189, review o f the
History of the Knights Templars, the Temple Church, and the

Temple by Chas. G. Addison” (p.4i4).
According to J.A. Symonds, Charles Dalrymple, a student

o f Vaughan’s and life-long correspondent with B.F. Westcott,
knew the details o f the Harrow scandal, yet kept quiet. He
became, not surprisingly, a Provincial Grand Master of Scottish
Rite Freemasonry, serving at the Lodge Loch Fyne No. 754 in
New Hailes. See the upcoming chapter by Dennis Palmu for
details.
Inversion and the Revised Version
Gladstone, the new Prime Minister o f England, not only

brought Vaughan out o f banishment, he approved the push by
liberals to revise the King James Bible. The next year, when the
hatchers of the Revised Version were looking for proven God-
hating heretics to join them in over-ruling the Holy Bible, they
asked Vaughan to join them as a member o f the translation
committee. After nearly ten years o f exile in a remote
ecclesiastical closet, Vaughan joined Westcott (Vaughan’s old
compatriot in crime) and Stanley (Vaughan’s brother-in-law,
former classmate at Rugby, and the Dean o f the Cathedral
hosting the RV translation meetings) for their Satan-sent
assignment. Westcott and Hort now made room for Vaughan on
their Bible-attacking warhorse (Schaff-Herzog, vol. 12, p. 157, s.v. Vaughan,
Charles John; see also ‘N ancy’ on p. 284 and Stanley on p. 880 et al.).
The hierarchy in the government, as well as that o f the

Church o f England, was well aware o f Vaughan’s predilection.
The London Review o f Books titled its article about Vaughan,
“What Palmerston Knew” (M ay 22, 2003, vol. 25, # 10). Palmerston was
the Prime Minister o f Great Britain between 1855 and 1865,
during the Vaughan scandal. The article calls Pretor “house
tart” at Harrow (Bradley W intertonin, “ What Palm erston Knew" in London Review o f
Books, Letters, Vol. 25, No. 10, Cover date, M ay 22, 2003; see also The H istory o f Harrow
Vaughan would have been glad to see the more
School, p. 258).
conservative Palmerston leave as Prime Minister. “Vaughan

was a liberal by political and personal inclination, although he
was careful to disguise the fact. He was probably one o f the
most politically radical Head Masters in Harrow’s history...”
(Tyerm an, p. 251).
In addition, Grosskurth quotes Symonds as saying that RV

spearhead, “Arthur P. Stanley,” who was Vaughan’s brother-in-
law, was among those who knew about Vaughan’s pederasty.
Oxford University’s article about the discovery o f W estcott’s
translation notebooks says that, “Dean, Arthur Stanley, [was] an
organizing force behind the Company and its membership.”
Stanley had even written an article, “School, A Little World,”
for The Rugby Magazine (issue 2 , O ctober 1835). In it he justifies the
brutal system o f ‘fagging,’ wherein younger boys serve as
slaves to older boys (Grosskurth, P. 112). This appears to be the origin
of the English word ‘fag’ and ‘faggot, first cited in 1914 as a
name for homosexuals (OED).
“Only after Dr. Symonds’ death did Vaughan accept higher

preferment, becoming dean of Llandaff in 1879” (Tyerm an, p. 278).
“Between 1861 and his death in 1897, privately and for no fee
he [Vaughan] tutored 461 young ordinands for the
priesthood... These pupils were known as Vaughan’s
‘doves’...It may be significant or coincidental that one of
Vaughan’s first visitors at Doncaster was William Johnson
Cory, the Eton master who became a sort o f high priest of
intellectual pederasty.” Vaughan’s ‘training’ must have been
rather weak, as one o f his “doves” became one o f the “noisiest
Roman Catholic converts o f our time” (Tyerm an, p. 279; g . g . couiton.
Fourscore Years, New York: The M acmillan Com pany, 1944, pp. 141, 142).
Alfred Pretor’s “love affair” with Vaughan put him in the

position o f “head boy of Harrow,” according to his official
obituary. St. Catherine’s College, where Pretor later taught, is a
division of Cambridge University, where Westcott taught. His
childhood brainwashing seduced him to succumb and keep “to
the last an unbroken friendship” with his predators.
“Alfred Pretor, Died at Wyke, near Weymouth,

on January 8, Alfred Pretor, formerly head boy
of Harrow, scholar o f Trinity College, and for
thirty-five years fellow o f S. Catherine’s
College. Among the instructors of his youth may
be mentioned the names of C.J. Vaughan, B. F.
Westcott, J.B. Lightfoot, and F.A. Paley, with
all o f whom he maintained to the last an
unbroken friendship” (The Classical Review o f 1908, editor
W .H.D. Rouse, London: David Nutt, Volum e 22, N um ber 1, Feb., 1908,
p. 26).
Such a continued friendship was not a good influence on

Pretor. An autobiography entitled Fourscore Years, by G.G.
Coulton, a “dove” of Vaughan’s and a student at St. Catherine’s
when Pretor was there, recalls, “Alfred Pretor...had been a
favourite pupil o f Vaughan at Harrow... But, in my days, Pretor
drew his dividend practically as sleeping partner...But there
his rooms stood opposite to Spratt’s, with a beautiful many-
branched porcelain chandelier always on the inner window-
ledge, advertising to passersby that the College possessed a
man o f refined taste who condescended at rare intervals to show
his attractive face and select dress at the High Table” (Cambridge:
Cambridge U niversity Press, 1944, p. 117-118).
Vaughan’s wife “knew o f what she called her husband’s

‘weakness,’ but argued that it had not interfered with his
running of the school” (Tyerm an, p. 278). The History o f Harrow

says,
“Vaughan presents a problem. He left
instructions on his death that all his papers be
destroyed and that no biography be attempted. In
life, too, he was the most hidden and elusive of
m en...M onty Butler remarked on Vaughan’s
battle to control his sarcastic wit and his lively,
often irreverent conversation. There was the
suspicion o f insincerity in his manner, knowing
all but feigning innocence, all things to all who
m attered.. .Writing in his first term at Cambridge
in 1851, Monty Butler records that ‘nearly all of
the Harrow men’s rooms have Vaughan’s picture
in them ’. . .Vaughan may have been a dissembler,
but on occasion he could be refreshingly
unsanctimonious. O f his sarcastic vein, little
evidence survives. He liked to pour scorn on
politicians. Once he insisted that ‘he found boys
always fair, masters sometimes [Westcott,
Farrar, et al.??], the parents never; and as for
widows, he confessed he had sometimes been
tempted to reconsider his objections to sutee.’
[the Hindu practice o f killing widows by
throwing them alive onto the funeral pyre of
their dead husband]” (Tyerm an, pp. 275, 276).
He so disliked church services that “Vaughan had extracted

the school from any formal attendance at the Parish Church.” O f
Vaughan’s ‘sermons,’ “Every paragraph proclaims Vaughan as
no theologian” (Tyerm an, p. 276 et ai.). Vaughan’s remaining Sermons
include several revealing portions which says,
“One man, by a plausible manner eludes for

many years the discovery o f his wickedness;
perhaps he dies with it still hidden’: or: ‘we
enable ourselves to do wrong, to gratify our
sinful desires to the very uttermost, and yet all
the time to do our appointed work, as though we
had been Upright” (Tyerm an, p. 282).
In 1897, the year o f his death, he addressed the Triennial Dinner

o f old Harrovians. He said, “The Harrow o f 1845-1859 would
not know me now - an old man, full o f regrets and sorrows for
many things, but most o f all for this - that he is laden with a
gratitude which he does not deserve.” “On his deathbed he
persistently asked, “Is there forgiveness?”” In an earlier sermon
he had said,
“I was once as you are now. I lived as you are

living. I sinned as you sin. I have suffered for it.
Behold me now. Hear my tale o f sorrow - how
my sin found me out - how it pursued me all my
life long - how it brought me to a condition
which you cannot envy - how it has aggravated
all my difficulties and poisoned all my joys.
Hear and Fear” (Tyerm an, P. 283).
The History o f Harrow summarizes calling, “Vaughan, the

stupendous hypocrite” (Tyrem an, p. 282).
Westcott’s Newly Discovered Notebooks
The recent and surprising discovery o f some o f the

notebooks of B.F. Westcott sheds further light on the closeness
of Westcott and Vaughan. In 2007, The Journal o f Theological
Studies from Oxford University published an article by Alan

Cadwallader entitled, “The Politics of Translation o f the
Revised Version: Evidence from the Newly Discovered
Notebooks of Brooke Foss Westcott” (Vol. 58, Num ber 2, pp. 415-439).
Evidently the “irreverent conversation,” “sarcastic wit,” and
“raucous laughter” o f their boarding house spilled over to
Revised Version committee meetings. In Notebook III is a loose
piece o f “notepaper, on which is recorded, in W estcott’s hand, a
number of humorous exchanges mainly involving Vaughan.”
Evidently, the Bible’s admonition to be grave and sober and its
warning against foolish talk and jesting are scorned by Westcott
(Tyerm an, pp. 275, 276; http://its.0xf0rdi0um als.0rg/cgi/c0ntent/full/58/2/415).
The loose inserts left in the Notebooks by Westcott were

equally interesting. In Notebook II Westcott had shoved the,
“ProForma reminder slip of the next meeting,

commencing 8 November 1870 which included a
printed copy of resolutions to be proposed by the
Master of the Temple (C.F. Vaughan) seeking
to divide the Company in order to make swifter
the progress.”
Evidently Vaughan wanted to rush through the translation,

so that he could swing by the nearest elementary school
playground, on his way back to the Temple o f doom. Vaughan’s
central role in the Revised Version surfaces as “the resolutions
to be proposed by the Master of the Temple (C.J. Vaughan)”
were given much discussion, then “debated and subsequently
withdrawn” “(Minute Book, 8 Nov. 1870 (CUL, Add. MS 6935,
fos. 55-69).” “Some streamlining did occur with the
appointment o f the ‘Committee for Marginal References...’”
This committee included none other than “Revd. G. Vance
Smith,” the blasphemous Unitarian, who denied the Trinity and
the deity o f Christ. Vaughan’s input into the Revised Version is

demonstrably bad (http://jts.0xf0rdj0urnais.0rg/cgi/c0ntent/fui1/ 58/2/415).
One peek into the past even finds Westcott staying with
Vaughan during the Revision work. Fellow RV translator
Edward Bickersteth writes, “Did I tell you that Dr. Vaughan
said to me that Westcott was staying with him at the time o f
Lightfoot’s consecration [c. 1879]...” (The Life o f E dw ard Henry
Bickersteth, D.D., Bishop and P oet by Francis Keyes Aglionby, M.A., London: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1907, p. 42).
Hort and Trench’s Apostles
The general public may not have been aware o f the Harrow
scandal, because o f pledges of secrecy, such as the one written
by F. J. A. Hort for his secret pro-homosexual club, called the
Apostles [see next chapter for details]. Hort was on the Revised
Version committee and his prime role is discussed in New Age
Bible Versions. Henry Alford o f the Apostles was also on the
RV Committee. R.C. Trench, author o f the sinister Synonyms o f
the New Testament, discussed in another chapter in this book,
was one o f the early members o f this secret group.
In the papers o f Roger Eliot Fry, is found one o f the

questions discussed by the Apostles, “Ought we to be
Hermaphrodite”? W ebster’s II defines an ‘hermaphrodite’ as
“One who has the sex organs and many o f the secondary sex
characteristics of both male and female.”
http://janus.lib.cam .ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=ead% 2F0272% 2Fpp% 2Fref;recurse=l). The
standard academic study entitled, The Cambridge Apostles, says
that “there had always been distinct undercurrents of
homosexuality in the Society...[Later] homosexuality became
almost a creed” (R ichard D eacon, The Cambridge Apostles, N ew Y ork: Farrar,
Straus & G iroux, 1985, p. 55). Cambridge University Press’s book on
Henry Sidgwick calls Hort’s Apostles a “secret society” which

went on to “fortifying the gay propensities o f the Bloomsbury
set” [e.g. Virginia Wolfe] (Schultz, p. 29). One o f Hort’s Apostles,
Richard Monckton Milnes, whom Hort calls one o f the
Apostles’ “best members,” had the largest libraries of
pornography in all of Europe (See the next chapter).
Canadian Scholar Dennis Palmu Contributes Next Chapter
The next chapter, written entirely for this book by Dennis

Palmu o f the North American Conference on British Studies,
details and documents the scandalous behaviors o f Revised
Version committee members C.J. Vaughan, B.F. Westcott,
F.J.A. Hort, and his group called the Cambridge Apostles. The
details are given so that all will know the unsafe mindset o f the
men who created the Revised Version of 1881 and coined many
o f the English words now given as ‘definitions’ for Bible words
in the dictionaries o f Strong, Vine, Moulton, Milligan, Brown,
Driver, Briggs, and other men. Palmu is one o f the world’s
leading authorities on 19th century British theologians and
knowledge communities. He contributed vital information to the
Oxford University Press book, The Organization o f Knowledge
in Victorian Britain, a volume containing a compilation of
papers by leading 21st century scholars on Victorian Britain (i.e.
chapter sixteen, w ritten by W .C. Lubenow, Professor o f History at Richard Stockton College o f
New Jersey and past president o f the NACBS, 2005, p. 365). P c illT lU S O W I1 b o o k ,
Cutting Edge Lodged in the Groves, gives never before seen

details about the graphics in the 1611 edition o f the King James
Bible (available from Palmu Publications and A.V.
Publications).
C h ap ter 23
by Dennis Palmu,
Member of the North American Conference on British Studies
Moral Hazard:
The Pederast on Westcott and Hor t’s

English Revised Version Translation
Committee
■ The Harrow School scandal
■ The perpetrator
■ The penalty
■ The cover up
■ The preferments
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful

works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
For it is a shame even to speak of those things
which are done of them in secret.
But all things that are reproved are made
manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth
make manifest is light.” (Ephesians 5:11-13)
by Dennis Palmu
ot unlike the destructive potential of the contagion in

N today’s financial derivatives market, the translation
committee appointed by the authority o f British Parliament in
1870 had an imbedded ‘moral hazard’ o f its own. Although
much debate has swirled around the inappropriate inclusion of
the Unitarian Vance Smith on this committee to revise the
Authorized Version o f the Holy Bible, no such debate has
occurred regarding the brazen appointment of a pederast to the
revision committee. How can this be, one should ask,
considering that the majority of new bible versions trace their
patrimony to the 1881 English Revised Version o f the New
Testament and to Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text which
underlies it? The reason lies in a cover up involving three key
people on the ERV committee [referred to as the RV committee
elsewhere in this book], and others.
The Harrow School scandal
Harrow School was re-endowed from an existing boys’

grammar school in the parish o f Harrow, England in 1572 by
John Lyon under a charter from Elizabeth I. The new
schoolhouse opened its doors to the first pupils in 1592,
beginning a public school history o f successes and failures that
are documented in numerous volumes. Harrow’s evolution to a
place o f prominence among English public schools has been
described in this way:
Lacking available capital or a large endowment,

Harrow has always depended on numbers to
secure its success. As (George) Butler (Head
Master 1805-1829) was indicating, the need for
MORAL HAZARD: VAUGHAN, WESTCOTT & HORT 861
pupils demanded the constant reforging of a

good reputation. (Christopher Tyerm an, A H istory o f Harrow
School 1324-1991, Oxford U niversity Press, 2000, pp. 1-2).
This “good reputation” was in tatters in the first part o f the

nineteenth century, not only at Harrow but at Rugby,
Winchester and other public schools due to both external and
internal events.
Early nineteenth-century Harrow witnessed the

school’s descent from the second most popular
and, for its meagre endowment, easily the most
successful public school in England to one
facing closure. In 1805 George Butler inherited
over 250 pupils and an established reputation. In
December 1844 Christopher Wordsworth left
just sixty-nine on the roll... (T yerm an, A History, p.
167).
The external pressures included an agricultural

depression, financial and economic crises and attacks on the
public school system’s perceived failures in curriculum and
discipline. Internal pressures manifested themselves due to
deficiencies in religious training and moral standards.
Isaac Williams, a prominent Tractarian, at

Harrow 1817-21, later lamented that there was
‘no one in that little opening world to guide me
or to Speak o f Christianity’. (T yerm an, A History,
p. 169).
Many o f the signs o f decay were familiar from

other schools. The curriculum was sclerotic,
designed to favour the few and ignore the
many, indifferent to education, open to

mechanical cribbing. Discipline in school and
by masters was brutal. Amongst boys it was either
barbaric or non-existent. Drinking, gambling,
smoking, fighting and bullying, as well as a whole
range of illicit outdoor pursuits and sadistic
initiation rituals, were standard. (T yerm an, a History,
p. 172).
Due to the public outcry against many o f the public schools,

Harrow included, a number o f improvements were implemented
during the tenures o f Harrow Head Masters from George Butler
through to Christopher Wordsworth. Boarding houses were
managed by house masters, and houses were encouraged to
develop a sense o f identity and pride through competition and
sport. Improvements were made in the tutor system, fagging
and the role o f monitors. The average age o f students entering
the school was increased to between thirteen and fourteen.
Flogging by the Head Master was virtually eliminated, although
still brutally administered by masters and monitors.
It was into this environment that Charles John Vaughan, at

the young age of twenty-eight, began his duties as Head Master
o f Harrow School in January 1845. In 1829 Charles Vaughan
was sent to Rugby where he studied under the famous Broad
Church Head Master Thomas Arnold. He then went to
Cambridge where he graduated in 1839 with honours from
Trinity College. His family, school, church and university
connections proved to be helpful in securing his appointment as
Head Master, not the least o f which included Arnold’s widow
and Arthur P. Stanley, whose biography o f Thomas Arnold had
just been published in 1844. After the moral and disciplinary
failures of the past few decades, Harrow’s governors looked to
Arnold’s star pupil, Charles Vaughan, to restore their sagging

fortunes and dilapidated structures.
Physically, the school was a wreck...The

sanitation was appalling...The boys’ side o f the
Head M aster’s still lay in ruins: the Grove was
untenanted...Surrounding a depressed school
was a depressed village, the school being the
major landowner, employer, and customer.
(T y erm an , A History, p. 250).
To Vaughan’s credit, stability and therefore confidence was

soon restored, and enrollment doubled in 1845 and doubled
again in 1846. In 1847 enrollment increased to 300. By 1850
Harrow’s reputation as a national school had been fully
restored, with pupils coming from no less than twenty-six
countries. With the increased enrollment came the funds to
embark on an ambitious and successful building program,
starting with the Head M aster’s house. Donations came from
many wealthy families. Four large new houses were added
along with a number o f small houses, including the refurbished
vicarage in 1846, under the care o f a widow named Mrs. Wood.
Mrs. W ood’s daughter, nicknamed ‘Sunshine’, was to become
the notorious theosophist Annie Besant.
Vaughan, like his mentor Arnold, was a strong

disciplinarian who approved o f beating with birch canes. This
punishment was usually inflicted by monitors (students) but
occasionally Vaughan would administer the punishment, and
when he did it was severe. With the rapid increase in pupils,
Vaughan was able to correspondingly increase the number o f
assistant masters from six in 1845 to twenty-one by 1859. His
‘right-hand man’ from 1852-1859 as Head M aster’s assistant
for the Sixth Form was B. F. Westcott, also a graduate fellow of

Trinity College, Cambridge. In the years that followed,
Vaughan looked to Trinity College, and especially the secret
group known as the Apostles, for other assistant masters. These
included F.W. Farrar (Assistant Master 1855-
70 and Housemaster o f The
Park 1869-70) and Edward
E. Bowen (Assistant Master
1859-1901 and Housemaster
o f The Grove 1881-1901).
He also encouraged, behind
the scenes, the appointment
of his successor, a former
student o f Harrow, fellow of Trinity College and member of the
Cambridge Apostles, Henry Montagu Butler. Still another
member o f the Apostles, George Otto Trevelyan, was a former
student at Harrow from 1851-57 who became a Governor of the
School. It was during Fenton John Anthony
Hort’s time at Trinity College as Secretary of
the Cambridge Apostles (elected 1851) and
keeper o f the Ark (the records) that Hort was
instrumental in vetting Farrar (elected 1852)
and Butler (elected 1853) as Apostles-to-be
(known as embryos).
Although most of the group o f assistant masters that

Vaughan was able to attract to Harrow were men of high
academic credentials, their reputation as scholars apparently did
not carry over to their abilities as schoolmasters, as Tyerman
points out from the many sources he cites on page 263 and 264
o f his book. He continues:
For all the splendid array, as in previous

generations, the key to Harrow’s academic
reputation was the Sixth Form where Vaughan
presided, assisted by Westcott who marked the
language work (astonishing drudgery for one of
the leading theologians of his generation).
(T yerm an, A History, p. 264).
O f interest, in addition to the aforementioned Harrovians who

were elected to the Cambridge Apostles, there were others such
as Francis Vaughan Hawkins (elected 1851) and Henry William
Watson (elected 1848) who were students o f Vaughan and
elected during his tenure at Harrow. As we will see, Vaughan’s
liberal, even radical, Broad Church views together with his
guarded moral ambivalence were imparted to the type o f boys
that would soon be vetted as ‘embryos’ at Cambridge, to join
those engaged in the spirit o f ‘free inquiry’.
Vaughan was a liberal by political and personal

inclination, although he was careful to disguise
the fact. He was probably one o f the most
politically radical Head Masters in Harrow’s
history... (T yerm an, A History, p .2 5 1).
It is important to realize that not only was Vaughan a person o f

power and influence, he was a person o f wealth.
On a conservative estimate, by the late 1850s

Vaughan was earning from tuition and entrance
fees, capitation, and boarding charges, between
£10,000 and £12,000 gross a year, the equivalent
o f a modem millionaire...(but) his generosity
towards the school was massive. None the less,
he may still have made profits o f over £5,000 a
year. Married (in 1850 to his best friend A. P.

Stanley’s vivacious sister ), but without children,
he lived at the Head M aster’s house in some
style, his household including a governess,
housekeeper, lady’s maid, cook, maidservant, six
housemaids, a butler, a coachman, and a
footman. His eagerness to have the boy’s side
rebuilt, and later to pay for its extension, is
understandable in terms o f financial investment.
It was no coincidence that o f the seventy-three
boys he admitted to Harrow in 1845, thirty were
assigned to his house.
Westcott, as well as the other Harrow assistant masters, were

beneficiaries o f this system of largesse.
What applied to the Head applied to the

assistants. By increasing their salaries and
offering almost all the chance to take borders,
Vaughan attracted his talented staff, the boarding
fees being described by Westcott as ‘a means for
making it possible for a junior Assistant Master
to live at H arrow ...it is in fact payment for his
School services’, without which he could not
have remained. (T yerm an, A History, p. 265).
Westcott, in a Small House, could charge around

£150 per boy; as few as seven in residence
producing £1,000 a year gross to go with £750
from salary and pupils...W ith no capital gains
tax and income tax varying in this period
between 6 per cent and 2 per cent such men were
the Great Moguls of British education. (T yerm an.
A History, p. 266).
This system o f control and rewards instituted by Vaughan

ensured that he was independent o f the rank and file, and that
questions would dare not be asked.
Westcott noticed in 1852; ‘we are so far

independent that one master knows little o f
another’. Oxenham apart, some masters clearly
disliked Vaughan, perhaps because o f his
aloofness, his steely blandness or simply the
awful feelings o f obligation they all must have
felt towards the provider o f their riches.
After he left it was said he made enemies and,

his old pupil Butler excepted, the masters never
talked about him. Perhaps they then knew what
before they may have sensed that Vaughan’s
quiet, rigid facade sheltered hypocrisy of
proportions startling even for the most
enthusiastic reader o f contemporary novels.
Middlemist was not alone in leading a double
life. (T yerm an, A History, pp. 2 6 6 -2 6 7 ).
As the school year drew to a close prior to summer vacation

in 1859, there was nothing to indicate that Vaughan would not
continue at Harrow until some well-deserved preferment came
his way - a see (Bishopric) perhaps or Master at one o f the
colleges in Cambridge. Yet to everyone’s surprise, Vaughan
sent out a letter on September 16th announcing his intention to
resign at Christmas.
The surprise turned into bewildered amazement when
Vaughan successively declined two preferments, the sees o f
Rochester and Worcester, and other offers o f even more
prestigious positions, to become the lowly vicar o f Doncaster.
Observers o f the time put this unusual behaviour down to
Vaughan’s acute sense o f humility, an attribute which Vaughan

conveniently reinforced in a sermon to the faculty and students
at Harrow in May 1859, just before his letter o f resignation.
...he urged the virtues o f renunciation, hoping

some would be ‘contented...to stand aside...to live
under reproach and even to die under
misconstruction, if a sense of the national interests
both make a certain course their obvious duty and
debarred them from an immediate explanation of
reasons and motives’. (V aughan, Memorials, 362 as cited
in T yerm an, A History, pp. 278-279).
The truth o f the matter, however, centers on hypocrisy not

humility. Due to the fact that Vaughan forbade the publication
o f any biographies o f himself, and like many other English
authors o f his time burned most o f his personal papers, the facts
surrounding his sudden departure from Harrow remained
cloaked in mystery to the outside world for well over one
hundred years. The 1899 Dictionary o f National Biography
entry for Charles John Vaughan, composed by his nephew
Charles Edwyn Vaughan, partially disobeyed his uncle’s
directive but served to confirm the recent accolades (expressed
at C. J. Vaughan’s funeral in 1897) and prevailing sentiment
about the former Head Master o f Harrow School.
At the end o f 1859 Vaughan resigned his

headmastership of Harrow. A few months later
Lord Palmerston, who as chairman o f the
governing body, had formed the highest opinion
o f his capacity, offered him the bishopric of
Rochester. He accepted without hesitation. A
day or two later, probably after a severe struggle
with his ambition, the acceptance was withdrawn.

It is commonly believed that offers o f a like sort
were renewed more than once, but even to his
closest friends he never spoke o f them; his
determination had been taken once and for all. In
the latter part o f 1860 he was appointed to the
important vicarage o f Doncaster, and threw
him self heart and soul into the ordinary work o f a
town parish. (DNB vol. 20, page 160, p ublished 1899
as cited in Life Writing and Victorian Culture, Ed. D avid A m igoni,
A shgate Publishing L im ited, 2006).
The scandal surrounding Vaughan’s departure at Harrow

eventually came to light, however, with Phyllis Grosskurth’s
1964 publication of the edited memoirs o f John Addington
Symonds, who was a student at Harrow during Vaughan’s last
years there. This was followed by her 1984 edition o f
Symonds’ unedited memoirs, which this time included a full
account o f Symonds’ recollections o f life at Harrow.
Symonds’ biographer and literary executor Horatio Forbes
Brown, who like Symonds was homosexual, had published a
carefully edited (with the assistance of Edmund Gosse)
‘biography’ o f Symonds’ life in 1895, excluding all references
of Symonds’ (and Vaughan’s) sexual history. This was due in
part to the Oscar Wilde trials and was in keeping with the:
Victorian codes of literary decorum (which)

required a stringent distinction between public
and private roles in all those who published their
autobiographies... Because Symonds did not
comply with autobiographical self-censorship in
a way that satisfied the requirements o f Victorian
society, the task was eventually undertaken by
his literary executor, Horatio Forbes Brown...
(O liver S. B uckton, Secret Selves: Confession and Same-Sex

Desire in Victorian Autobiography, T he U niversity o f N orth
C arolina Press, C hapel H ill and L ondon, 1998, p. 84).
According to Symonds’ Memoirs he originally admired

Vaughan for his adherence to the principles o f moral reform
first initiated by his mentor Arnold at Rugby. This admiration
turned to astonishment, however, when Symonds was given a
note by Alfred Pretor, his ‘superficially bright and attractive’
fellow student in Vaughan’s and W estcott’s Sixth Form:
In the month o f January 1858 Alfred Pretor

wrote me a note in which he informed me that
Vaughan had begun a love affair with him. I
soon found that the boy was not lying, because
he showed me a series o f passionate letters
written to him by our headmaster. (The Memoirs of
John Addington Symonds, Ed. P hyllis G rosskurth, R andom
H ouse, N ew Y ork, 1984, p. 97).
The revelation of Vaughan’s pederasty came at a time when

Symonds was struggling with his own impulses and desires, and
resulted in a form o f vindication in Symonds’ mind o f his
suppressed tendencies regarding sexual behaviour. He was not
so empathetic towards his Head Master.
I was disgusted to find it (pederasty) in a man

holding the highest position o f responsibility,
consecrated by the Church, entrusted with the
welfare of six hundred youths - a man who had
recently prepared me for confirmation, from
whose hands, kneeling by the side o f Alfred
Pretor, I received the sacrament, and whom I had
been accustomed to regard as the pattern o f my
conduct. (Memoirs, p. 97).
Vaughan’s ‘affections’ were apparently not confined to Pretor,

as Symonds continues:
I used to take essays and verses to Vaughan in

the study, which was the scene o f his clandestine
pleasures... I remember once that, while we sat
together reading Greek iambics, he began softly
to stroke my right leg from the knee to the thigh.
( Memoirs, pp. 97-98).
In March 1858 Symonds recounts a further ‘discovery’ upon

reading the Phaedrus and the Symposium from Cary’s
translation o f Plato - the ‘true liber amoris’ in Symonds’ words
- in the form o f the ancient Greeks’ acceptance, even elevation,
of love between men. This ‘love’ would euphemistically
become known as ‘the Higher Sodomy’, and was both discussed
and practiced to a greater and greater degree amongst the
Cambridge Apostles, starting in the 1850s when Hort was the
Secretary and keeper o f the Ark and its secrets. Some o f the
practitioners among the Apostles o f the mid-1800s are as
follows:
William (Johnson) Cory elected 1844
Roden Noel elected 1857
Oscar Browning elected 1858
William Johnson (later Cory) was dismissed from his

position as a master at Eton in 1872 due to a scandal similar to
Vaughan’s. O f interest, we find in Graham’s biography o f The
Harrow Life o f Henry Montagu Butler, Longmans, Green, and
Co., 1920, p. xix, that one o f Vaughan’s first visitors (in
purgatory?) at the vicarage of Doncaster was none other than
William Johnson. Johnson, like Vaughan, contributed to
Symonds’ introduction into Greek ‘Platonic’ love by means of
his Ionica, a book of homoerotic verse, first published

anonymously in 1858.
Oscar Browning, tutored by Johnson at Eton, likewise was

dismissed as a master at Eton. Unlike his former tutor,
however, Browning took no pains to be discreet in his ‘student
affairs’, making his departure inevitable.
The elitist attitude of the Cambridge Apostles was summed up
by Charles Merivale, one o f their early members (elected 1832)
and much later a member o f the English Revised Version
translation committee.
Our common bond has been a common

intellectual taste, common studies, common
literary aspirations, and we have all felt, I
suppose, the support o f mutual regard and
perhaps mutual flattery. We soon grew...into
immense self-conceit. We began to think we had
a mission to enlighten the world upon things
intellectual and spiritual...W e lived in constant
intercourse with one another, day by day, met
OVer Our wine and Our tobacco. {Autobiography and
Letters o f Charles Merivale, Dean o f Ely, edited by Judith Anne
Merivale, Oxford, 1898 as cited by Richard Deacon in The
Cambridge Apostles: A History o f Cambridge University’s Elite
Intellectual Society, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, 1985).
During Symonds’ first term at Balliol College, Oxford,

in the autumn of 1858, he became acquainted with a number of
powerful churchmen including Edwin Palmer and Arthur P.
Stanley. Both men would be appointed in 1870 to the
translation team for the English Revised Version o f the Bible.
Stanley was to become the Dean o f Westminster in 1863, and
confidant o f his long-time friend and the future Prime Minister
Gladstone and o f Queen Victoria through his marriage to Lady

Augusta Bruce, the Queen’s favourite lady-in-waiting.
Gladstone was to recommend Palmer as Dean o f Westminster in
1872. Charles Vaughan married Stanley’s sister Catherine
during his Headmastership at Harrow in 1850, and in 1851
became chaplain to the Queen.
Another acquaintance of
Symonds at Oxford was his
tutor John Conington,
Professor o f Latin, who in
Symonds’ words ‘sympathized
with romantic attachments for
boys’. Conington gave
Symonds a copy o f Ionica,
which prompted Symonds to
contact the author, who duly
responded with ‘a long epistle
on paederastia in modem
times, defending it and laying
down the principle thataffection between people of the same
sex is no lessnaturaland rational than the ordinary passionate
relations’. It was in a relaxed discussion o f Ionica with
Conington during the summer tenn o f 1859 that Symonds was
prompted to divulge the love affair and letters between Vaughan
and Alfred Pretor, which he found out about the year before.
Conington recommended that Symonds go at once to Clifton,
and show his father Pretor’s incriminating letter along with his
own diaries from Harrow. Buckton, in Secret Selves, postulates
that ‘in turning on Vaughan, then, he (Symonds) can both purify
himself o f illicit desire and keep his latest suitor, Conington, at
a safe distance...M aking Vaughan the sacrifice to his own self-
loathing..., Symonds displaces his unmanageable desires onto
someone else, whose punishment might enable him to resolve

his own sexual crisis’ (pp. 88-89).
The outcome of Symonds’ revelations to his father had the

following result, according to Symonds:
My father wrote to Vaughan, intimating that he

possessed proofs o f his correspondence with
Alfred Pretor. He promised not to make a public
exposure, provided Vaughan resign the
headmastership of Harrow immediately and
sought no further advancement in the Church.
Otherwise the facts would have to be divulged.
On the receipt o f my father’s ultimatum,
Vaughan came down to Clifton where he
inspected Pretor’s letter. He accepted the terms
dictated to him. Mrs. Vaughan followed after a
few days and flung herself at my father’s knees.
‘Would Dr. Symonds not withhold the execution
of his sentence? Her husband was subject to this
weakness, but it had not interfered with his
usefulness in the direction o f the school at
Harrow.’ (Memoirs, p. 112).
Dr. Symonds was touched by the pathetic sight of

Vaughan’s wife and A. P. Stanley’s sister ‘prostrate on the
ground before him ’ but was resolved to follow through with his
ultimatum.
(H)e was supported by Conington, and also by

the friends whom Vaughan employed in the
transaction - his brother-in-law Arthur P.
Stanley and Hugh Pearson, afterwards Canon of
Windsor. (Memoirs, p. 112).
Vaughan then sent out his letter o f resignation, and in

Symonds’ words ‘no one knew the reason o f his sudden
abdication except Conington, my father, myself, and a few
undergraduates at Cambridge and Oxford, o f whom I shall have
to speak’ (Memoirs, p. 112). In addition to the victim, Alfred
Pretor, and the aforementioned Hugh Pearson, others ‘in the
know’ regarding the reason for Vaughan’s resignation were
Charles Dalrymple and Robert Jamieson, Symonds’ close
friends at Harrow. Although the latter two did not approve o f
Symonds’ disclosure, ‘Pretor was in the habit o f confiding the
story with incredible levity and imprudence to anyone he
thought it would impress’ (Memoirs, p. 113).
Tyerman, in A History o f Harrow School, informs us that

‘(f)or some years after 1859 there was much high-class clerical
gossip about Vaughan’s reasons (for resignation), the nolo
episcopari stance from a man of known ambition fuelling
incredulity and speculation.
In Symonds’ Memoirs (pp. 114-115) we read:
Hugh Pearson, with whom I became

intimately befriended, told me a singular
anecdote which illustrates the delicacy o f the
situation. The Bishop o f Oxford, Samuel
Wilberforce, came to him one day at Sonning on
the Thames and said, ‘I am certain that Vaughan
had some grave reason for leaving Harrow and
refusing two mitres. An ugly story must lie
behind. You had better make a friend o f me. If I
discover the truth I shall be an enemy.’
Pearson replied, ‘Even if I knew something, it

would be my duty to withhold it. But you have
no right to suppose that I do.’
‘Very well,’ said the Bishop, ‘I shall find out.
And I have warned you.’
Some while afterwards he came again, and
told Pearson that he had learned the whole secret.
‘How and where?’ asked Pearson.
‘At a dinner party from a lady next to whom I
was sitting,’ answered the Bishop.
‘And what have you done?’
‘Oh, I ’ve told the Archbishop o f Canterbury
and the Prime Minister.”
Grosskurth informs the reader in her References section of

Symonds’ Memoirs that in 1859, the Archbishop o f Canterbury
was John Bird Sumner and that in June 1859, Lord Palmerston
succeeded Lord Derby as Prime Minister.
All o f the above being said, it remains an open question as

to how many more knew o f the facts surrounding Vaughan’s
resignation, and further, how many more influential politicians
and High Church officials knew o f Vaughan’s pederastic
behaviour by 1870 (the year Convocation was revived by
Parliament in order to appoint a preliminary revision committee
including Vaughan) and were prepared to accept his behaviour
as a ‘natural and rational’ form o f love, or at the very least
tolerate it.
One final example ‘o f the closed society of the Victorian

establishment (in) covering up the scandal not just from public
gaze but from those inside the charmed circle’ (Tyerman, A
History, p. 280):
Preaching in Llandaff Cathedral on 24 October

1897, a few days after Vaughan’s death, on the
text ‘He served his generation’, (Henry
Montagu) Butler goes almost as far as he could
in lifting the veil on Vaughan’s secret and his
character. For Butler, it is uncharacteristically
acute and poignant: he must have known.
(T yerm an, A History, p. 281).
Nature had m eant him for an ambitious m an ...B u t along w ith this current o f a natural ambition
there w as another, a supernatural current o f quite exceptional devoutness, a dread o f him self, a
profound prostration before God in Christ, an overwhelm ing sense o f the danger o f personal sin,
and o f being led by the tem pter to a pinnacle and a pitfall. It is I believe in the recognition o f
these two sw eeping currents o f tem peram ent and o f the pathetic struggle carried on between
them, that w e shall best see the beauty o f his life, the secret o f his influence, the key, it may be,
to som e unexplained decisions at some critical moments.
From H. M. Butler, 'He Served H is Generation A sermon P reached at L la n d a ff Cathedral
on 24 October 1897 (n.p. 1897), p. 12 as cited in Tyerm an, A History, pp. 281-282.
We find another poignant

reflection, this time by John Addington
Symonds, on the effect the ideas o f the
Broad Church leaders had on an
impressionable youth, in Symonds’
Memoirs'.
Some o f his (Symonds father’s)

most intimate friends had been, and
others still were, thinkers o f the Broad
Church School - John Sterling, the
Rev. Frederic Myers o f Keswick, F. D.
Maurice, Francis Newman and
Professor Jowett. Their ideas filtered through my father’s

conversation into my head, together with the criticism o f his
own clear logic. The conversation o f the three last whom I have
mentioned, and also o f the subtle thinker, Sydney Dobell,
familiarized me with lines o f speculation antagonistic to any
narrow interpretations o f Christian dogma. The creeds which
cling so firmly to many minds hung loose on me. As they
dropped off and melted away, they did so without appreciable
suffering or keen regret. I felt, indeed, the difficulty and the
danger o f living in the world without a fixed belief in God,
Christ, the scheme o f redemption, the immortality o f souls
assigned to reward or punishment. I sympathized much with
Arthur Clough. But I soon perceived that it would be
impossible for me to rest in that halting place with men like my
father, Maurice, Jowett, Stanley, had constructed for
themselves, and fitted up according to the particular tone and
bias o f their several dispositions. I understood and respected
their position, especially my father’s.
Still I felt that their qualified adherence to Christianity and the

Scriptures had something illogical in it, which might be
explained and excused by the circumstances o f their emergence
out o f rigid orthodoxy into liberalism. I was starting from the
point which they had reached; and I should be compelled to go
further, (pp. 243-244).
One might want to reflect on Symonds’ words as to the

downward road ahead when one starts with ‘speculation
antagonistic to any narrow interpretations o f Christian dogma’
(‘a fixed belief in God, Christ, the scheme o f redemption, the
immortality o f souls assigned to reward or punishment’), then
slides into a ‘qualified adherence to Christianity and the
Scriptures’ (‘liberalism’), and is compelled (due to the
‘illogical’ position o f a qualified belief in God, Christ and the

Scriptures) to ‘go further’.
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley
When Gladstone became Prime Minister o f England in

December 1868, the stage was set for him to encourage
Convocation, the clerical body he was instrumental in reviving
as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, to formally embark on
Bible revision (a long-time goal o f the Tractarians, o f which
Gladstone was one). A. P. Stanley, Gladstone’s long-time
friend and confidant, had been appointed in 1863 by the Crown
to the deanery o f Westminster. Within weeks he married Lady
Augusta Bruce, sister of Lord Elgin, and favourite lady-in-
waiting to Queen Victoria. In February 1860, a major
controversy erupted upon the publication o f Essays and
Reviews, a volume to which two o f his closest friends,
Benjamin Jowett and Frederick Temple, had contributed. Due to
his recent appointment, Stanley was cautious and selective in
his support o f Essays and Reviews but ensured that he had
sufficient support in writing behind the scenes from allies (and
soon-to-be fellow members o f the ERV translation committee)
such as B. F. Westcott, J. B. Lightfoot and (his brother-in-law)
Charles Vaughan.
Stanley recounts with great relief the delivery o f the final

judgment o f the Privy Council to Parliament on February 8,
1864 on the trials o f Dr. (Rowland) Williams and Mr. (Henry
Bristow) Wilson, two other contributors to Essays and Reviews:
‘I saw at once, from the absence o f the two

Archbishops and the fallen countenance of
Phillimore, that we were safe. But I had not
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley
also k n o w n as “N a n c y ” (se e p. 2 8 3 )
expected anything so clean and clear, still less

that the Archbishops would have concurred in
the acquittal on the score o f Eternal Punishment,
and (what I myself should have considered far
the most questionable part of the statements, in a
legal view) Justification.
That the Church o f England does not hold -
(1) Verbal Inspiration, (2) Imputed
Righteousness, (3) Eternity of Torment, is now, I
trust, fixed for ever. I hope that all will now go
smoothly, and that the Bible may be really read
without those terrible nightmares. Thank God!’
(R ow land E. Prothero, Life and Correspondence o f Arthur
Penrhyn Stanley, C harles S crib n er’s Sons, N ew Y ork, 1894, vol.
2, chap. xvi, pp. 43-44).
Stanley, as Dean o f Westminster, was in a unique position o f

power and influence in addition to having the ear o f Prime
Minister Gladstone and Queen Victoria. As Dr. James Sightler
points out in A Testimony Founded For Ever: The King James
Bible Defended in Faith and H istory...
Westminster Abbey is a national monument, also

called the Collegiate Church o f St. Peter in
Westminster, and the most famous church in
England...The Dean was not only pastor o f a
congregation o f notables, able to will their pews
to descendants, but also curator o f a national
museum. The present cathedral was built in
1245 across from the houses o f Parliament, and
its Jerusalem chamber, where revision took
place, is the official reception room for the Dean,
who was the host to the revision committee.
Tradition has it that St. Peter consecrated the first
Dean o f Westminster, so that the office carried a

tremendous influence generally and a remarkable
degree of freedom from interference by other
ecclesiastical persons. Westminster Abbey is
one o f two Royal Peculiar institutions in
England, the second being St. George’s Chapel.
Therefore the Dean o f Westminster was
responsible to the Crown rather than to the
Archbishop o f Canterbury and enjoyed a certain
degree o f freedom from constraint with respect
to the Convocation o f Canterbury, (pp. 191-192).
Dean Stanley, in this influential position, would ensure

that the ten-year ‘wilderness experience’ of his brother-in-law
Charles Vaughan would finally end in 1869 with his
appointment by Gladstone as Master of the Temple, a church
for young men studying at the law school, a venue that was
certain to please Vaughan. As a further proof o f Vaughan’s full
reinstatement amongst the ecclesiastical elite, he was named to
the company o f revisers in 1870, followed by a further
preferment as Dean o f Llandaff in 1879.
Brooke Foss Westcott
W estcott’s complicity in the Vaughan scandal was in his

acquiescence to what was occurring under his watch. He was
obviously very familiar with the personalities o f the boys in the
Sixth Form (which included Alfred Pretor) in 1854, as shown in
his letter to Frederic Wickenden (one of his private pupils at
Cambridge ) at Christmas break.
HARROW, 7th December (1854).
My, dear Frederic - Harrow is dissolved - the
school, I mean, and not the hill, which holds out
still against the rain most valiantly. Gould the
noisy and Marshall the unready are gone.
Sandars the interrogative and Burdon the
demonstrative are gone. Meek the cold-handed
is gone. Pretor the clear-headed is gone. I too
the much-scheming am going. (Life and Letters of
Brooke Foss Westcott by A rthur W estcott, M acM illan and
C om pany, London, 1903, vol. 1, pp. 229-230).
This letter continued with a ‘Homeric fragment’ containing

phrases which he likened to images o f Harrow - ‘the
Headmaster on last morning’, ‘the wasp jersey of our house’ as
well as the aforementioned boys.
It is interesting to note that W estcott’s son and biographer

included few pieces of
correspondence from the time
of Vaughan’s letter of
resignation on September 16th
to Vaughan’s departure in
December 1859. The only
mention of Vaughan’s
departure was made by
W estcott’s son in referring to
a letter o f W estcott’s, but the
letter in question was not
included in the biography.
Westcott did respond to a
letter from none other than
Charles Dalrymple on 28th
January 1860, but his letter
dealt only with his observations and feelings regarding the new
Head Master’s performance in the first days of his tenure.
Dalrymple was one of Symonds’ classmates and close friends in
Vaughan’s and W estcott’s Sixth Form, and ‘in the know’
regarding the true reason for Vaughan’s resignation. It would
be interesting to see Dalrymple’s initial letter to Westcott!
As has already been shown, there was a close affinity

between Harrow School and Trinity College, Cambridge, and
particularly with the Cambridge Apostles. This affinity
extended to Westcott as well.
He (B. F. Westcott) had the most complete

confidence in his Head, Dr. Vaughan, and found
congenial friends among his colleagues on the
staff. The Harrow masters at this time were
indeed a distinguished body. My father’s most
intimate Harrow friends were probably the Rev.
F. Rendall, also an old Birmingham boy; the
Rev. F. W. Farrar, the present Dean o f
Canterbury; and the Rev. H. W. Watson (Rector
o f Berkswell, Coventry and well-known
mathematician and physicist, as per the
footnote). (Life and Letters o f Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1,
p. 174).
This means that two out o f three o f W estcott’s ‘most

intimate Harrow friends’ were ‘graduate’ members (known as
‘angels’) of the Cambridge Apostles. Frederick W. Farrar, as
mentioned previously, was elected to the Apostles in 1852.
Henry William Watson was elected in 1848. We will recall that
one of W estcott’s former tutorial students at Cambridge (the
man who was soon to become his closest friend and confidant
for the rest of his life) was Fenton John Anthony Hort, elected
to the Apostles in 1851. Hort was also tutored in classics in his
freshman’s year (1846) at Trinity College, Cambridge by none
other than W estcott’s third ‘intimate friend’ at Harrow, the Rev.
F. Rendall. Rendall ‘reported’ on Hort’s ‘clearness o f thought
and refinement o f taste’.
One further point about Harrow that deserves mention is the

incongruity between B. F. W estcott’s (meagre) account o f
school life and the (detailed) account o f his pupil John
Addington Symonds. Westcott married on 23rd December
1852, the year he began his duties with composition for, and
occasional teaching of, the Sixth Form under Vaughan.
Westcott and his wife lived in a residence at
Harrow known as ‘The Butts’. Symonds
was a pupil at Harrow and resident at Grove
Hill house from 1854 until 1858. His sixth
form master during the 1857-58 school year
was C. J. Vaughan, assisted by B. F.
Westcott. His housemaster each year was
Rev. Frederic Rendall (known to his pupils
as ‘M onkey’).
Two illustrations from Symonds’ Memoirs on school life

and dormitory life are noteworthy.
The sixth form were competing for a scholarship

given by the headmaster. Henry Yates
Thompson (elected as an Apostle in I860) was
head (student) o f the school. Alfred Pretor and I
sat as junior members on the bench o f monitors.
As luck would have it, I came out far away first
in the examinations, and Pretor
s e c o n d . . . Thompson
was naturally mortified.
But instead o f stomaching the disappointment,
he lost his temper. Rushing from the sixth-form
room, after the lists had been read out (in the
presence o f the Examiner, Vaughan and
Westcott), he seized Pretor and m yself by the
collar o f our coats and half hurled, half kicked us
down the steep steps which lead from Great
School to the gravel yard below .. .before the eyes
o f a whole crowd o f boys, senior and
ju n io r.. .Picking myself out o f the mud, I said to
Pretor, ‘We shall go at once to Vaughan, and ask
for redress’... Vaughan o f course acceded to
my demand. That afternoon Thompson read out
an apology before the whole sixth. That
happened in November 1857. (Memoirs, pp. 87-88).
One thing at Harrow very soon arrested my

attention. It was the moral state of the school.
Every boy o f good looks had a female name, and
was recognized either as a public prostitute or as
some bigger fellow’s b—h. B—h was the word
in common usage to indicate a boy who yielded
his person to a lover. The talk in the dormitories
and studies was incredibly obscene. Here and
there one could not avoid seeing acts of...the
sports of naked boys in bed together.
(Memoirs, p. 94).
Contrast Symonds’ images o f Harrow life with examples from

Westcott in his Life and Letters:
Letter from the Hon. A. Gordon (future Lord Stanmore) to Mr.

Benson (Edward White Benson, future Archbishop of
Canterbury and W estcott’s friend from Cambridge days)...
Just before we left London (in July 1852) 1 went to spend a
day with Westcott. We had a delightful long walk and talk, in
the course o f which we discussed all sorts o f things. 1 was
amused to see how Harrow had changed him. He says he has
given up all theories o f education after having tried his own for
a fortnight! He seems heart and soul devoted to Harrow, which
he pronounces the best school in the world!
Letter sent 11th September 1852 from B. F. Westcott to J. B.

Lightfoot, his former tutorial student at Cambridge, soon-to-be
close friend, and future fellow member o f the ERV revision
committee.
...M y feelings with regard to Harrow remain still unchanged.
I do not fancy that any school offers so good a field for training.
I can enter into the system heartily, and with the most perfect
confidence in our head. Vaughan is almost too kind, and yet
withal clear and very decided in his views.
Letter sent 3rd January 1859 from B. F. Westcott to J. B.

Lightfoot...
He (Hort) spoke very kindly and frankly o f my supposed
chances (of a Professorship) at Cambridge. I see clearly the
difficulties there, and, with its many heavy drawbacks, I see the
advantages o f Harrow.
The dearth o f correspondence from Harrow in W estcott’s

Life and Letters from 1852 (his arrival at Harrow) through to
1859 (Vaughan’s departure from Harrow) is quite obvious.
W estcott’s son Arthur has filled this section o f the biography
mainly with his father’s August 1854 trip to France, 1856
Easter holiday ‘geologizing’ trip in England, 1856 summer

holiday trip to Germany, and a series of ‘testimonial’ letters
from ‘old Harrow boys’ o f their experiences, from decades
back, with Westcott.
In addition to the disparity between Symonds’ and W estcott’s

views o f life at Harrow, W estcott’s few innocuous recorded
comments during his time under Vaughan just don’t line up
with Tyerman’s thoroughly documented history o f Harrow
School during this period.
While acknowledging and documenting the undoubted benefits

that life at Harrow brought to both faculty and students, it is
unfortunate that many chose to turn a blind eye to the serious
problems that plagued not only Harrow, but other public
schools o f that period.
It is sad and telling that Westcott wrote to F. J. A. Hort on

12th October 1853 from Harrow that he was ‘most keenly’
(concerned with) ‘the disgrace o f circulating what I feel to be
falsified copies o f Holy Scripture (the Authorized Version), and
am most anxious to provide something to replace them ’. This
‘keen’ concern obviously did not extend to the moral and
religious disgrace o f certain events o f Harrow School life,
which were to include the Vaughan scandal.
Fenton John Anthony Hort
Fenton Hort’s long, close relationship with Westcott began

in January 1850 when Westcott was Hort’s classical ‘coach’
while he was an undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge.
With F. D. M aurice’s encouragement Hort, in June 1851, agreed

to join the secretive, exclusive club o f students at Cambridge
nicknamed the ‘Apostles’. This name came from the fact that, at
any one time, there were approximately twelve undergraduate
and graduate members that met every Saturday evening in one
o f the members dorms in ‘free and open discussion and debate’
on a wide range o f topics. Angels (Apostles who had moved up
to join the ‘Phenomenal world o f politics, the civil service, the
law, and letters’) and
Apostles met together at the
annual dinner in London, but
many also kept in touch
during the course o f the year,
either personally or through
correspondence. The
Apostles were actually
founded as the Cambridge
Conversazione Society in
1820 by George Tomlinson,
but soon transformed into its
more secretive, elitist
structure when F. D. Maurice
and John Sterling became
members in 1823 and 1825
respectively.
Guided by the idea o f the liberal man, the

Apostles were free and independent but never
alone or isolated. Comradeship led them to ideas
o f earnest duty and obligation. The Apostles
were anti-authoritarian and skeptical. They
taught themselves that knowledge was always
fallible and limited, always subject to
questioning. The Apostles’ characteristic
features - their secrecy, their distinction between
the Real (their world) and the Phenomenal (the

outside world), their methods o f recruitment, the
papers on the hearth-rug, the annual dinner -
were all designed to produce an environment
where skepticism was possible. As a
consequence, the Apostles were intellectually
vulnerable. Since only some of them could rely
on wealth or birth or privilege, the Apostles had
to rely on friendship. (W . C. L ubenow , The Cambridge
Apostles 1820-1914, C am bridge U niversity Press. 1998, p. 29).
This ‘skepticism’ and belief that ‘knowledge was always

fallible and limited, always subject to questioning’ would bring
Hort quickly into agreement with W estcott’s objective to
replace what he felt to be ‘falsified copies o f Holy Scripture’
(the Authorized Version) with ‘something’ (the 1881 Revised
Version o f the New Testament based on their own Greek Text).
This new belief system based on skepticism was imbibed by

Charles Gore, one o f W estcott’s proteges at Cambridge, and
expressed throughout Gore’s book The Reconstruction o f Belief,
Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1921. The following
example should suffice.
I think we shall probably agree with Huxley

(T. H. Huxley, euphemistically known as
‘Darwin’s bulldog’) that the foundations of
things are always mysterious and the doctrine of
the Trinity not more mysterious than the ultimate
principles o f physics and biology. To feel that a
belief is rational we must feel - not that we could
demonstrate it a priori - but that it is grounded
in experience and that it interprets experience. It
was a true saying of Dr. Hort, who was certainly
one o f the greatest men of the last generation,

that the evidence for the truth o f the Christian
revelation is shown, not so much in any light
which it receives, as in the light it gives. What
commends the doctrine o f the Trinity is the light
it throws on some otherwise dark problems, (p.
545).
John Sterling, in recollecting his time with the Apostles, had

this to say:
To my education in that Society I feel I owe

every power 1 possess, and the rescuing myself
from a ridiculous state o f prejudice and
prepossessions with which I came armed to
Cambridge. From the ‘Apostles’ I, at least,
learned to think as a free man.’ (L etter dated n
N ovem ber, 1834, in the H oughton M SS as cited in R ichard
D eacon, The Cambridge Apostles, p. 19).
This intellectual freedom so valued by the Apostles led them

into a state o f ambivalence regarding many scriptural and social
taboos.
(Arthur) Hallam wrote an essay on ‘Platonic

Love’ for the Society in 1829, though this was
said to have been curiously disguised as an
appreciation of Cicero and his friendship for
Atticus. He was in some respects very much the
brilliant, but mixed up kid o f his generation,
flirting with atheism while wishing for a stronger
faith, and excusing his latent homosexual
tendencies by saying that only through human
relationships could one understand the love of

God. (D eacon, The Cambridge Apostles, p. 18).
Richard Monckton Milnes (later Lord Houghton) was

another early influential member o f the Cambridge Apostles
(elected 1829).
Monckton Milnes entered parliament for

Pontefract as an anti-utilitarian, and immediately
attached himself to Sir Robert P eel.. .Based upon
loyalty and what he considered to be his gifts in
matters of foreign policy, Monckton Milnes
expected a junior office when Peel formed his
governments in 1841 and 1846. In his rather
austere way Peel admired Monckton M ilnes’
literary abilities but distrusted the somewhat
louche* circles in which he moved. Peel did not
think a man o f letters could be a man o f affairs.
(L ubenow , The Cambridge Apostles, p. 153).
* disreputable, indecent, dubious, shady, im m oral
Milnes was bitterly disappointed by Peel’s rejection and

joined the Liberal Party, but faring no better there, soon retired
from active politics.
Milnes used his political and social connections, as well as
his influence as a man of letters, to cultivate an ever-widening
circle o f friends and acquaintances who he invited to breakfast
and dinner parties at his Fryston Hall estate in Yorkshire or his
London residence in Brook Street.
Part o f M ilnes’ attraction lay in what has been termed ‘a
collection o f erotica perhaps surpassed only by that o f his friend
(Henry Spencer) Ashbee’. This collection is now housed in the
British Library. He also...
shared with (William) Thackeray, with (Richard)

Burton, with (Algernon) Swinburne, the specially
English interest in flagellation’...The story o f
Lord Houghton’s genially pointing out the
choicest comer o f the erotic library to his guests
before setting out with Lady Houghton for Ferry
Fryston church on Sunday morning has an
authentic ring about it. There was the same
casual, beneficent atmosphere about the two
actions o f Monckton Milnes for which he has
chiefly been condemned - his introduction o f
Swinburne to Burton in the summer o f 1861 and
to the writings of the Marquis de Sade the year
after. (Jam es P ope-H ennessy, Monckton Milnes: Vol. 2, The
Flight o f Youth 1851-1885, Farrar, Straus & C udahy, N ew Y ork,
1951, pp. 133-134).
Milnes was rumoured to be engaged in smuggling his books

into England from Paris and Amsterdam, sometimes in
diplomatic pouches, after the Obscene Publications Act o f 1857
drove the trade underground.
After the annual Apostles dinner in London in 1852,
Monckton Milnes hosted Fenton Hort at one o f his breakfast
meetings. Hort was obviously favourably impressed with the
‘Angel’ Milnes because, in a letter to his friend the Rev. Gerald
Blunt, he lamented the fact that Monckton Milnes was not
present at the annual dinner in June of the following year.
Next morning I got to early service (eight) at

Lincoln’s Inn, waited for Maurice, and went to
breakfast with him. He was in excellent spirits,
and I had a very delightful talk on many subjects,
which I prolonged by walking with him to
Somerset House...A t last we got to dinner (the

‘Apostles’), but it was a rather dull affair, our
numbers being small, and our best members
wanting. Maurice had to preach at the opening
of the church o f some High Church friend;
Thompson was at Ely, being made a canon o f (ie.
being ‘bored,’ as somebody explained it);
Stephen was ill; Monckton Milnes was at the
Queen’s state ball; and Trench, Alford,
Blakesley, and others were away on different
accounts. (Life and Letters o f Fenton J. A. Hort by his son
Arthur Fenton Hort, M acM illan and C o., London, 1896, vol. 1, p.
254).
The supposedly ‘latent’ variety o f homosexuality practiced

by Arthur Hallam gave way at times to the overt, lecherous
variety practiced by Arthur Buller (elected to the Apostles in
1828).
Buller, who later became a barrister, then a judge

in Calcutta and ultimately a Member of
Parliament with a knighthood, was a notorious
lecher in this period as well as being a practical
joker o f an original turn. His lechery in his
Cambridge days was of a homosexual nature...
(D eacon, The Cambridge Apostles, p .l 1).
From the 1830s onwards there had always been

distinct undercurrents of homosexuality in the
Society, though... these were for the most part
sublimated and platonic rather than physical.
But from the turn of the century the sublimated
turned into the consummated and homosexuality
became almost a creed.
Indeed, another factor in the clamour for secrecy

in the late 1850s may well have been a feeling
among a number of members that they were in
danger o f exposing the freedom o f their thoughts
on sexual matters to a wider public. By this time
the aggressive homosexuality o f William
Johnson had become a byword outside the
Society, and some felt that this called for a
closing of the ranks.
Johnson, who had come to King’s (College,

Cambridge) from Eton, became a Fellow in
1845, and for more than a quarter o f a century
functioned at the same time as both a Fellow at
King’s and a master at Eton. From these vantage
points he was one o f the first Apostles to
encourage the recruitment o f homosexual
favourites.
(D eacon, The Cambridge Apostles, p. 55).
We recall here that Johnson was one o f Charles Vaughan’s

first visitors at the vicarage o f Doncaster, subsequent to his
resignation from Harrow in 1859.
We also recall the close affinity between Harrow School and
Trinity College, Cambridge, and particularly with the Apostles,
and that Vaughan’s successor was Henry Montagu Butler,
former student at Harrow, graduate o f Trinity College,
Cambridge and member o f the Apostles. Butler was elected to
the Apostles in 1853, two years after Hort, and under Hort’s
intimidating presence and control. It is virtually inconceivable
that Hort would not have immediately known the reason for
Vaughan’s resignation from the Headmaster’s position at
Harrow, as both Butler and Westcott had to know, and would

have told their intimate friend.
Thus, A. P. Stanley’s recently reinstated brother-in-law
would join him, Ellicott, Westcott, Hort, and the many members
o f the Cambridge Apostles** and others on the Revision
Committee to accomplish what they had collectively craved for
so long - replace the Authorized Version o f the Holy Bible and
the Greek Text which supported the New Testament with
‘something’ new. The secret o f Vaughan’s pederasty had been
successfully contained to members o f ‘knowledge groups’ such
as the Apostles, the Eranus (founded by Westcott and Hort,
which included J. B. Lightfoot and Robertson Smith, two other
Revision Committee members) and the Metaphysical Society
(so named by one o f its founding members, Dean A. P. Stanley,
which included Connop Thirlwall, chairman of the Old
Testament Revision Committee, ‘Apostle’ and chairman o f the
New Testament Revision Committee, Henry Alford, and Prime
Minister W. E. Gladstone).
* * H enry A lford, B enjam in H all K ennedy, R ichard C henevix T rench,

C harles M erivale, Joseph B lakesley.
Following are some additional excerpts from Richard Deacon’s

The Cambridge Apostles to show just how powerful and
intimidating Hort was. This same presence would have carried
over, to a large degree, into the Revision Committee. Could it
be said that Hort was ‘W estcott’s bulldog’?
Yet the man who seems to have exercised an

unusual degree o f control over the Society at this
time was Fenton John Anthony Hort, elected in
1851. He was somewhat doubtful about joining
the Apostles when it was first mentioned to him
- a doubt which subsequently he found to be
wholly reprehensible in a later member. Hort

was the self-appointed guardian o f the Apostolic
principles, the devout watch-dog o f the Society,
but he was regarded with awe as one o f the
outstanding undergraduates o f his time. (p. 34)
He (Hort) quickly established himself as a

key member o f the Society and became its
secretary in 1855. A diligent student o f the
Society’s records, it was partly at his instigation
that Tennyson was made honorary member the
following year. (p. 34)
It would seem, however, that it was Hort who

did much to change all this (the lack o f a binding
requirement for secrecy) and that his influence in
the Society was formidable. Hort may have had
a sense o f humour o f a kind, but he was easily
outraged for no apparent reason. Nevertheless,
what Hort propounded became in effect Society
law, and indeed the Hort influence still remains
at Cambridge today... (pp. 35-36)
In 1855, an incident occurred which for some

extraordinary reason seems to have aroused the
wrath o f the Apostles and o f Hort in particular.
Henry John Roby, the son o f a Tamworth
solicitor, who had been educated at Bridgnorth
Grammar School, from which he won a
scholarship to St. John’s College, was elected to
the Society in February o f that year. Shortly
afterwards, having been asked to attend meetings
in the usual way, he resigned from the Society
VERY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
with the excuse that he really did not have the

time for such things, (p. 36)
Whatever the facts may be, the incident

reflects no credit on Hort. For it was Hort who
was the principal instigator o f the ritualistic
cursing o f Roby and it was this sanctimonious
theologian who devised the actual curse and its
wording, (p. 37)
It was from the time o f the expulsion of

Roby following his resignation that an air of
mystery began to envelop the Society, and so it
has remained ever since... The so-called
ceremony of the curse on Roby has been kept up
with the election o f each new member. The
curse has been read to him, and he has been
bound to secrecy, (p. 37)
Michael Straight, who was enrolled a

member o f the Society in 1936, tells o f his first
meeting in Maynard Keynes’ (elected 1903)
room at King’s:
‘I held up my right hand and repeated a
fearful oath, praying that my soul would writhe
in unendurable pain for the rest of eternity if I so
much as breathed a word about the Society to
anyone who was not a member. It seemed a bit
harsh, but Sheppard, who carried a cushion with
him wherever he went, patted me with his free
hand and told me not to be alarmed.
‘“You see,” he explained, “our oath was
written at a time when it was thought to be most
unlikely that a member o f the society would

speak to anyone who was not Apostolic.'’'’ I
asked Sheppard how he would define the term
Apostolic. He beamed at me in his childish way.
“One must be very brilliant and extremely nice!”
he said.’ (p. 38)
It is ironic that Hort, an early disciple o f F. D. Maurice,

would be the author in 1855 o f the Apostles’ ceremonial curse
o f ‘unendurable pain for all eternity’ for breaking the oath of
secrecy. Two years earlier Maurice had been expelled from his
position as Professor o f Theology at King’s College, London
for expressing his disbelief in, and thus heretical position on,
eternal punishment. Hort, at age 21 while an undergraduate at
Cambridge, had written a very lengthy letter to Maurice
agonizing over the doctrine of eternal punishment. Hort
received M aurice’s lengthy reply a week later, which soon led
Hort to the same position.
And thus we have come full circle - from the moral hazard
o f a pederast on the Revision Committee (protected in part by
the Cambridge Apostles’ oath o f secrecy) to the moral hazard
o f a broken financial system based on the failed theories o f the
aforementioned Apostle, John Maynard Keynes, another
practitioner of the ‘Higher Sodomy’.
And now also the ax is laid unto the root o f the trees:
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matt. 3:10)
Alfred Pretor
B y k in d p e rm is sio n o f C a m b rid g e A n tiq u a ria n S o cie ty
Postscript
Alfred Pretor, MA, fellow o f St. Catherines College,

Cambridge for thirty-five years, became a classical Greek
scholar. He edited and translated a number o f works including
The Anabasis o f Xenophon, The Letters o f Cicero to Atticus
and The Satirarum o f Persius.
The Classical Review o f 1908, volume 22, page 26,
published in London by David Nutt, edited by W. H. D. Rouse
contains a notice o f the death o f Alfred Pretor which says in
part ‘Among the instructors o f his youth may be mentioned the
names of C. J. Vaughan, B. F. Westcott, J. B. Lightfoot, and F.
A. Paley, with all o f whom he maintained to the last an
unbroken friendship’. ***
If thiscomment is to be taken at face value, it would

appear that Pretor came to some understanding with Vaughan
regarding their Harrow ‘love affair’.
*** I am grateful to Dr. James Sightler for bringing this information to my

attention.
Charles Dalrymple, in 1887,

became Sir Charles Dalrymple, 1st
Baronet o f New Hailes in the
County o f Midlothian, Scotland,
and was sworn a member o f the
Privy Council in 1905. He was
bom Charles Fergusson, the
second son o f Sir Charles
Dalrymple Ferguson, but assumed
the surname o f Dalrymple.
He held a seat in parliament almost continuously from 1868

until 1906 as a Scottish Conservative.
The exchange o f letters between Dalrymple and Westcott
began soon after Dalrymple’s departure from Harrow and
continued, along with visits, until W estcott’s death. No reason
for Vaughan’s departure from Harrow is ever mentioned in the
correspondence with Dalrymple included in W estcott’s
biography.
Other correspondence between Westcott and Dalrymple is
in the manuscript collections at the National Library of
Scotland.
As it turns out, Dalrymple, like the members o f the
Revision Committee who were also members o f the secretive
Cambridge ‘Apostles’, was an ‘adept’ himself when it came to
oaths o f secrecy.
We find that as Provincial Grand Master o f Scottish Rite
Freemasonry he consecrated Lodge Loch Fyne No. 754 in New
Hailes on August 9, 1888.
In addition to Westcott, Dalrymple (Pretor’s close friend at
Harrow) was a life long intimate friend of Cambridge Apostle
Henry Montagu Butler, who successively served as Harrow
School Head Master and Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
Although Butler was Vaughan’s favourite pupil and life
long friend, he apparently w asn’t the recipient o f inappropriate
expressions of intimacy from Vaughan, unlike Pretor, Symonds
and Edward Latham, Vaughan’s monitor from 1845-52.
Tyerman, in A History o f Harrow School, p. 280, describes a
number o f letters extant from Vaughan to Latham which, even
allowing for the expressions o f the day, show his infatuation
with yet another Harrow student.
Part IV
Hebrew
Old Testament Lexicons
■ Gesenius
- Brown, Driver, & Briggs
and all Hebrew Lexicons
nto them were committed the oracles of God ( Rom. 3:2).

U Unto whom? They were committed unto the Jews, not the
Germans or unbelieving American heretics. God gave the Old
Testament in Hebrew, the language he chose for Abraham and
his descendents. The wonders of this language, the pictorial
elements in its letters (just like Chinese), and its impact on other
languages (such as English) have generated much deserving
study. However - The Old Testament in Hebrew, is a book o f
the Jews a n d /o r the Jews. Its Old Testament contains its own
built-in dictionary, just as the New Testament does (whether in
Greek, English, or any language). The context defines all words.
The English Holy Bible’s Old Testament is for those who

speak English, just as the Spanish Holy Bible s Old Testament
is for those who speak Spanish. God speaks in Holy Bibles, not
in man-made dictionaries. Bibles are called “the word of God,”
that is, they are his words, not man’s. On the other hand, man’s
words make up lexicons. Who would think that God would
have ‘inspired’ (yet conflicting) lexicons, written by
unbelievers, and not have inspired Holy Bibles for believers?
Many are pursuing a study of Hebrew in hopes of
understanding the Old Testament better. However there are no
Hebrew-English lexicons that give word meanings that are
either ‘holy,’ as a Bible is, or even in any sense accurate. Even
those who are ‘messianic’ Jews have no other source to access
the Hebrew Old Testament than the lexicons o f unsaved
liberals. Today’s native-speaking Hebrews speak modern
Hebrew, not ancient Hebrew, therefore they have no magical
key to understanding biblical Hebrew. Those who speak English
need to study the Old Testament in English. Why would God
give them an error-filled Bible that needed the interpretation of
unsaved liberals?
GESENIUS HEBREW LEXICON 905
Chapter 24
Gesenius’
Old Testament
Hebrew Lexicon
Hebrew Lexicons & ‘Higher Criticism’
James Strong cites Wilhelm Gesenius (Germany, 1786-

1842) as the source for the Hebrew lexicon in the back of his
Strong’s Concordance. Davidson’s The Analytical Hebrew and
Chaldee Lexicon says, “Gesenius has been chiefly relied on for
definitions” (Benjam in Davidson, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, p. 7).
Gesenius is THE foundation o f ALL Hebrew study. The
standard Hebrew-English Lexicon o f the Old Testament is based
on the German lexicon o f Gesenius. It was translated and edited
by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907). These four men are among the
Founders o f Old Testament Criticism and paramount among the
“Old Testament critics” (Founders o f Old Testament Criticism by T.K. Cheyne,
London: M ethuen & Co., 1893, p. v). According to the Bible, the only ‘critic’ is the word o f
God! The only tim e the G reek w ord for ‘critic’ appears in the Bible it says that the word o f God
is a discem er (kritikos) o f the thoughts and intents o f the heart.)
When you hear someone say, “That Hebrew word really

m eans...” know that they are citing a reference work that is
based wholly on definitions from Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and
Briggs. The liberal boasts, “ [N]o subsequent Hebrew grammars
or dictionaries can fail to be indebted to them, as has been
sufficiently shown, from a lexicographical point of view, in the
preface...” to all lexicons (Cheyne, p. 6 i) . Each generation of
lexicons gets progressively worse, “constantly widening their
range,” as they admit (Cheyne, p. 236). “ ...[E]very ten years has
shown an increase o f this spirit,” of Bible criticism (Cheyne, p. 234).
History of Bible Criticism
The serpent, under the tree o f knowledge, was the first

critic of God’s word. He said, “Yea, hath God said...? (Gen.
3). After God gave his word, unbelieving Jews tried to add
marginal notes and commentary that would question the text.
Then they switched the text and the margin. They questioned
the vowel points and created different words using different

vowels. (Many new version changes are based on these ancient
corruptions.)
Modem criticism (or ‘higher criticism’) o f the Old

Testament is a denial that God gave and preserved the words of
the Old Testament. Deism (a denial o f the inspiration o f the
Bible, the Trinity, etc.) “prepared the way for a reconstruction
o f theology from the very depths o f the heart’s beliefs...” (Cheyne,
p. i). Criticism o f the Old Testament began with Roman Catholic
priest Richard Simon (Cheyne, P. vii.). In the 1700s, Simon’s
heretical beliefs about the Bible were brought forward by a
second Catholic priest, Father Alexander Geddes. “[His] liberal
views...brought Geddes into suspicion o f heterodoxy...He was
suspended from his ecclesiastical functions...” (Cheyne, pp. 3-6, 11).
These Catholics were followed by many cynical scholars who
were characterized by heresy and a “love o f the
E ast... .Mohammedan history” (Cheyne, p. 14).
The ‘higher critics’ write about the “grave historical problem

o f the origin o f our religion” (cheyne, P. 372). (Unbelievers have
always had problems ‘believing.’)
Higher critical views can be summarized as follows:
1.) Critics believe that the Bible is not the words o f God,
but a book o f “folk-tale,” “popular legend,” “primitive
spiritual forces,” “mythology,” and “Biblical myths,”
some o f which were adapted from neighboring pagan
nations (Cheyne, pp. 368, 87, 10, 36, 8).
2.) Critics teach that many, if not most o f the ‘heroes’ o f the
Bible, such as David, Jonah, etc. never really existed.
3.) Critics state that the miracles of the Bible are not
historical facts and that many o f the stories in the Bible
are not historical facts. The higher critic’s “treatment of

the miracles has shocked some religious minds” (Cheyne, P.
i o 9). “[S]upematuralism was untenable, and the canons
o f critical exegesis are independent o f theological

dogma,” noted one critic (Cheyne, P. 189).
4.) Critics pretend that the books o f the Bible were not
authored by the men whose names are ascribed to them,
nor were they written at the times previously believed.
(See The Founders o f Old Testament Criticism for a
detailed listing; i.e. p. 7). They assume the Pentateuch
was written by anonymous authors identified by their
division letters J, E, P, and D. They think each author of
the Pentateuch “may have drawn the whole or a part of
his cosmogony and general history, both before and after
the deluge, from the archives of Egypt...collected from
such documents as he could find...” (C h ey n e,P . 8). The idea
that Moses did not write the Pentateuch originated with
the heretic Spinoza and was brought into the ‘church’ by
Hobbes (Cheyne, P. 11).
5.) Critics and lexicon authors think that the languages and
word-meanings of the pagans are the ‘key to
understanding the words in the Bible. Therefore the
study o f the languages of the Canaanites, the Hindu
Sanskrit, the Muslim, and the “the Q ur’an” (Koran) are
the door to understanding the Bible (Cheyne, PP. 79, 8 6 , 122).
6.) Those who believe the Bible is the word of God are
called “narrow-minded,” “old-fashioned readers’ and
“weak brethren” by the Higher Critics (Cheyne, PP. 356, 42,
249).
7.) On one hand, these unbelievers have a low view ot the
Bible; but one higher critic (Cheyne) calls the ideas of
an occult “theosophist —too high a view ( Theosophy
is the term coined by Luciferian Madame Blavatsky,
editor o f the blasphemous magazine entitled, Lucifer
The critics “Yea, hath God said” viewpoint

(Cheyne, p. 8 i) .
may be prompted by their low serpentine viewpoint.

8.) When “he had mastered Hegel’s system [of relativism
and subjectivism] (1770-1831), the Old Testament
began to appear to him in a new light,” observed
Cheyne, regarding one o f the Higher Critics (Cheyne, PP. 133,
137).
9.) “ [TJoleration” for “polygamists” characterized one

higher critic, as did heresy trials, for most o f them. One
such “scholar was charged with serious offences against
sound doctrine with regard to the Scriptures” (Cheyne, pp.
1 9 8 ,2 1 5 ,2 1 6 ).
The cynical Higher Critics believed “Biblical criticism was

a great reforming agency for theology and for the Church”
(ch ey n e, p. 182). The goal o f these cynics was “the recovery o f the
true meaning o f the Bible” (Cheyne, p. 71). They mocked the

“uncritical form o f traditional theology,” calling it “that
unfortunate error o f conservative theologians” (cheyne, P. 233).
The rhythm God placed within the Bibles proved its

miraculous nature. Happily, the “metrical ‘discoveries’...
recognized at every hand...brought about a ‘complete turn of
the tide against the views o f the higher critics’” (Cheyne, P. 232; se e in
Awe o f Thy Word also).
The Hebrew Lexicon
The standard A Hebrew-English Lexicon o f the Old

Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs (often called, BDB, or
GBDB) is used for virtually all Old Testament Hebrew study by
many naive Christians. It began as Gesenius’s Hebrew-German
Lexicon, which soon was translated into a Hebrew-Latin
Lexicon. The Latin edition was translated into English by
Edward Robinson (A Hebrew and English Lexicon o f the Old
Testament...From the Latin o f William Gesenius, 1836), and

finished and thoroughly edited anew in English by Brown,
Driver and Briggs (1907). How is moving from Hebrew,
through German, then through Latin, and finally into English
(all through unbelievers) getting closer to the ‘original’
meaning? (None of these lexicons would knowingly be used by
Holocaust-sensitive Jews who would wisely steer clear o f a
German interpretation of what the Hebrew Bible supposedly
‘really’ said. Unfortunately few Messianic or modem Jews are
aware o f these facts).
Many of the following direct quotes come from the

Columbia University book, The Influence o f Gesenius on
Hebrew Lexicography, by Edward Frederick Miller (Columbia
University Press, 1927, reprinted NY: AMS Press Inc., 1966). This Secular but
objective analysis exposes Gesenius’ bias against Christianity

and the Holy Bible. Even Driver confesses that “ ...Gesenius, in
the early years o f this century, inaugurated a new epoch in the
study of Hebrew” (Driver, Introduction to the Literature o f the Old Testament, p. vii).
His was not the pure Hebrew text o f the KJV translators. He
availed himself of all o f the variant readings to the Hebrew text
supplied by unbelieving Jews. His new definitions and
grammar were taken, not from Hebrew, but from the conjecture
about usages in the surrounding pagan nations.
Wilhelm Gesenius Early Years
Proud college professors have always been able to enter

a hard heart with their critical key. Young Gesenius’ heart fit
their mold. Gesenius was influenced by a professor into belief
in “subjective rationalism” (i.e. a m an’s own ideas, without spiritual revelation
from God).
“Cheyne, no doubt correctly, considered it

unfortunate that Gesenius should come into
contact with Henk” (M iller, p. 12).
He said, “This was the more unfortunate because

Gesenius’ nature was a less devout one than
his teacher’s, and the young student instinctively
fastened on the colder and more negative side o f
rationalistic thought” (Cheyne, p. 54).
“In 1809 he [Gesenius] accepted a position in the

Roman Catholic gymnasium (school)...” (The N ew S c h a ff H erzog
Encyclopedia, NY: Funk and W agnalls Co.,Vol. IV, 1909, p. 477).
Others Document Gesenius’ Unbelief
One English editor wanted to challenge Gesenius for every

statement “ in which doubt is cast upon Scripture
inspiration, or in which the New and Old Testament are
spoken o f as discrepant, or in which mistakes and ignorance
are charged upon the ‘Holy men o f God who wrote as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost’” (M iller, P . 97). This English
editor cited Gesenius’ blasphemous and supposed Hebrew
‘meaning’ for the prophetic verses about Jesus Christ and
the virgin birth (i.e. Isa. 7:14) (M iller, PP. 97,9 8 ).
O f his Commentary on Isaiah, Cheyne said, “Its Biblical
theology, it is true, cannot receive high praise” (cheyne, p. 62).
“His commentary [on Isaiah] lacks the religious fervor and
p iety ...” (M iller, p. 17).
“[P]ositions taken by Gesenius as to the origin o f this book
[Isaiah] and its prophetic character can not be accepted by
conservative Biblical scholars...denying the authenticity of
the Isaiah 40-66 [Jesus C hrist],..” (M iller,PP. 17, 18).
“We are not in agreement with Gesenius in his liberal
theological view s...” (M iller,PP. 17,1 8 ).
. “ [H]is creed, perhaps, so far as he had any, approached most

nearly to a pure deism [the belief that there is a God, but he
has not revealed himself through Jesus Christ and the
Bible]” (M iller, p. 19).
. “He was indifferent toward theological dogma. He pursued
the study and illustration o f the Old Testament not as an
inspired book, but as an ancient book of graphic history and
sublime poetry” (M iller, p. 19).
■ Gesenius was called “dangerous” by Christians (Cheyne, P. 56).
“While at Halle, charges were preferred against Gesenius
and his colleague, Wegscheider, for speaking lightly o f the
miracles of the Bible in their class-rooms. The fact that
Gesenius did this is well founded. The result was that Otto
von Gerlach and Ernst Hengstenberg, of the orthodox party,
published an article: Der Rationalismus a u f der Universitaet
Halle, 1830, in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, in which
they aimed at the deposition of the two teachers from
Office” (M iller, p. 19).
Gesenius: Destroying Students Today
Lexicon authors Gesenius, Brown, Driver and Briggs were

chief among those who gave cynical students what they wanted
to hear. (Aren’t most young people looking for an excuse to
deny the Bible’s authority?) What “students o f that generation
craved was, not a mere revived orthodoxy, but a theology which
could adjust itself to a more rational and critical view of the
Bible” (Cheyne, p. 58).
Higher Critics say that they want “to cultivate the critical
spirit in young students...” (Cheyne, p. 338). “That he was
disrespectful to orthodox explanations o f Old Testament
problems, and that he indulged in mirth-provoking sallies in his
lectures on Church history, is certain,” reports Cheyne. One
fellow higher critic said, “The peals of laughter with which his
rationalistic sallies were greeted were therefore no proof that

Gesenius was injuring the faith of his students, or hurting their
religious feelings. Exceptions o f course there may have been.
Harless appears to have been one o f those who were painfully
shocked by Gesenius; Krummacher was another; and the
American student H odge...was a third...In fact, the theological
and philosophical superficiality of the lively little m an...w as
only too obvious” (Cheyne, pp. 57, 58).
That lightness o f tone which had the appearance of

frivolity in a Church history lecture” would make students
conclude, with other higher critics that “Gesenius was not too
deVOUt (Cheyne, p. 59).
Gesenius’ Work Critiqued by Leading Hebraists:
■ The world’s other leading Hebrew lexicographer, at the

time, Heinrich Ewald, said o f Gesenius’ works, “[H]is
grammar is still altogether unscientific, useless, superficial,
unsatisfactory, and m isleading...” (M iiier, p. 20). (Ewald was a
Bible critic also.) (Later editions o f G esenius’ Hebrew
Grammar access the corrupt notes in “R. Kittel’s Biblia
Hebraica, as well as false etymologies (Oxford University Press,
1980 reprint, pp. v, 2-5).)
■ Another reviewer, Johann “Faesi also found many instances

in which Gesenius did not approach the correct fundamental
meaning o f the root” (M iiier, p. 42). “The work, as Faesi shows,
abounded in all kinds o f mistakes in citations, quotations,
and references” (Miiier, P. 43).
Regarding the ‘L ’ sound, Gesenius was found to “give to
the Hebrew what it is not known to possess” in some cases
(M iller, p. 48).
Gesenius’ Lexicon’s Corrupt Sources — especially Arabic!
■ Drawing ideas from pagan nations, “Gesenius warns against

the exclusive use o f the Hebrew o f the Old Testament for
meanings o f words. Stock and Gousset had tried to explain
Hebrew from its manifestations in the Old Testament
only...,” which is the correct and historical method (M iller, p.
23).
■ Gesenius thought that “The Alexandrian Version often gives
a meaning to a Hebrew word which has been lost in later
Hebrew, but is still found in the Arabic” (M iller, p. 23).
Gesenius also referred to the Syriac Version and Jerome’s
Latin (M iller, P. 24). He subscribed to the idea that there were
cognate languages, from nations such as Syria, Babylon, and
the Samaritans. These languages included, among others,
Canaanitic, Chaldaic, Aramaic, Sabaean, and Arabic. Bible
students will take note that these were THE pagans whose
‘w ays’ and means were forbidden to the Hebrews. Therefore
their usages o f certain words cannot be applied to the Holy
Bible (M iller, p. 26). Gesenius used these “dialects” “to
determine and illustrate the meanings” o f words (M iller, p. 27).
Should we ask a pagan what ‘love’ means?
■ Gesenius believed that “A lexicographer must also
study...m ythology, all must be taken into account in
Hebrew word-study”; the Bible warns against consulting
“cunningly devised fables” (M iller, P. 28).
■ “Some o f Gesenius’ primary meanings were not the result of
a careful comparison o f the Hebrew, but were taken over
directly from the cognate tongues...he simply took over an
Arabic meaning and tried to develop the Hebrew meaning
from it...Som e of his primary meanings are, o f course, little
more than guesses.. . ” (M iller, P. 50).
■ “The fact that Gesenius’ Lexicon was in German,” then
translated into Latin and later into English allows a further
distortion o f the meanings (M iller, pp. 52, 95, 97). “Caspari also
called attention to the fact that the German equivalent for
Hebrew words were often not so exact as they should be”
(M iller, p. 88).
■ Gesenius’ Lexicon was later edited by others. “Dietrich

quite often went too far in the use o f the Arabic, and took
from it some very uncertain primary meanings for the
Hebrew” (M iller, P. 60).
■ ““Hebrew lexicography,” said Delitzsch, “has been made
the slave o f the Arabic”” (Miiier, P. 9 i).
■ Gesenius is known for his “correction o f the [Hebrew]
text” (read ‘corruption’ ) (Cheyne, P.6 3 - 64).
■ Dietrich and Gesenius often had “two opposing views,”
showing that ‘meaning’ is not scientific (M iller, P.6i).
Gesenius’ Later Editions Worsen
Various editors have altered the original Gesenius lexicon.

“The Biblical theology o f this lexicon was strongly influenced
by the unsound theories o f these men” Edward Frederick Miller, The
Influence o f Gesenius on H ebrew Lexicography, N Y : AM S Press, 1966, p. 81).
* Later editors, Muehlau and Volck further “disagreed” (Miiier,

P. 62). Some words were given “a new fundamental meaning”
(M iiier, p. 66). Scholars “severely criticized” subsequent editions
in “scathing terms” (M iiier, P. 68). The American Journal o f

Philology “did not fail to state the demerits o f the lexicon”
(1883, 343 ff). The lexicon “made no distinction between
doubtful and ascertained cases, even listing words that do
not exist at all.” “The result o f this wrong method was that
many words received a primary meaning that was utterly
false...Fanciful etymologies were given with great
assurance” (M iller, P. 70). Siegfried noted where it was
“overwhelmed by this mass o f speculation...”, “The editors
gave to a root a primary meaning, and then developed
almost any meaning they pleased from it.” “By developing

the meanings in this haphazard fashion” later editors
corrupted it even further (M iller, p. 7 i) .
■ The editions sound like the Muslim Koran, not the Holy
Bible. “The editors continued to overstress the Arabic by
giving to Hebrew roots untenable primary meanings” (Miller, p.
73).
■ “Much o f the old untenable material was therefore retained

together with the new explanation from the Assyrian” (Miller,
P. 74). Even Delitzsch said the new editors “hindered sound
etymology by their unscientific m ethod... hasty and

haphazard fashion...[T]hey had inherited many wrong
primaries and developed meanings from Gesenius and
Dietrich.” “Although the lexicon left the hands o f Muehlau
and Volck in a most imperfect state, its popularity did not
wane disastrously” (M iller, p. 76).
■ Frants Buhl edited the next six editions. He “dropped many
of the primary meanings that are found in the preceding
edition” (M iller, P. 79). “He introduced the critical views of
scholars on the text. He called attention to many o f the
words of the Masoretic text whose soundness had been
questioned...” (M iller, P. 80). “Not only were the true meanings
clouded by the use of synonyms, but in Gen. Ed 16
[Gesenius Edition 16] wrong meanings were often added to
correct ones...Som e o f these inexact and wrong meanings
were due to a careless use of the G erm an. . . ” (M iller, pp. 90-91).
“Quite naturally a wrong primary meaning upset all o f the
developed meaning” (M iller, p. 91).
■ “The suggestion had been offered to include words that had
been arrived at by conjecture [guessing], in the Lexicon. But
the editor felt that this should not be done in the lexicon
proper. The difficulty in selecting those words which should
be included and those which should be excluded would be
too great” (M iller, p. 85). “The list o f words arrived at by

conjecture, given at the end o f the lexicon, was almost
doubled in this edition” (M iller, P. 86).
■ Delitzsch observed that “many roots were given in the
lexicon which cannot actually be proved to exist in the
Hebrew” (Miller, p. 89).
■ When W. Max Muller (Mr. New Age) put his thoughts in
the 15th edition, the serpent slipped in even further (see chapter 8
for details; M iller, p. 77).
Gesenius’ Corrupt Hebrew Text
■ Gesenius believed that sometimes, “The lexicographer must

decide the correct reading o f a corruption in the [Hebrew]
te x t...” (M iller, pp. 27-28).
■ Gesenius believed that the Hebrew text itself was only
carefully transcribed “at a later period only” (Miller, P. 28).
■ Faesi showed that Gesenius “ ...did not give...all the
variants o f the ketib and the keri” [differences in Hebrew
editions wherein the margin and the text were variously
switched] (M iller, p. 42). Such omissions give his reader the false
impression that the KJV is in error.
The following chapter, about Gesenius’ subsequent English

editors, Brown, Driver, and Briggs, exposes the heretical hands
into which his already deviant lexicon fell. His unbelieving
German words waxed even worse, when molded by these
English-speaking heretics.
Hebrew Lexicon by Member
of the Corrupt Westcott-Hort
Revised Version Committee of 1881:
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS
Hebrew-English Lexicon
T h e Faculty at th e tim e o f th e Briggs trials: 1. to r: T h o m a s S. Hastings, ,

Francis B row n, P hilip Schaff, C h arles A. Briggs, W . G . T , S hedd, M a rv in
R. V in cen t, G eorge L Prentiss.
From A H isto ry o f U nion T heological S em in a ry in N ew York,

by R o b ert T. H andy
C o p y rig h t <D 1987 C o lu m b ia U n iv ersity Press
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENGLISH LEXICON 919
Chapter 25
Brown, Driver, and Briggs
Hebrew-English Lexicon
Based Upon Gesenius
C h arles A. Briggs in 1886.
From A History of Union Theological Seminary in New York,

by Robert T. Handy
Copyright ©1987 Columbia University Press
Reprinted with permission of the Publisher
Sum m ary
Brown, Driver, & Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon
■ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles Augustus

Briggs edited the Robinson-Gesenius Lexicon for
the English reader. It is called, A Hebrew and
English Lexicon o f the Old Testament or the BDB
Or GBDB (London: Oxford U niversity Press, 1907).
■ It is the lexicon behind ALL Hebrew Bible study,

lexicons, software, and new versions (Vine, NIV etc).
■ When you hear, “That word in Hebrew m eans...”,

the meaning comes from Brown, Driver, and
Briggs, or a volume that is based upon it.
■ All three men were higher critics and denied the

inspiration o f the Bible.
■ S.R. Driver was a member of the 1881 Westcott

and Hort Revised Version Committee.
■ Briggs delivered a speech entitled, “How May We

Become More Truly Catholic?” . Mark Massa says,
“Rome, Briggs assured his listeners, “can teach us
many things we ought to learn”” (M assa, Charles, p. 132).
■ Harvard University has published the Jesuit

expose revealing that Briggs and Driver were a
part o f a “Plot” in connection with the Pope.
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENG LISH LEXICO N 921
Charles Augustus Briggs
he Battle fo r the Bible warns,
T “Briggs labors were to produce results

for evil that exceeded his wildest
e x p e c ta tio n s ”
Zondervan, 1976, p. 186).
(H arold Lindsell, Grand Rapids, MI:
The NIV editor, Kenneth Barker, cites the Brown,

Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon as one o f the
“works referred to” to support his NIV. When this lexicon is
used to find ‘so-called ‘definitions’ o f Bible words, one merely
unearths the words from the old RV and today’s NIV.
Lexicographer Frederick Danker says o f the Brown, Driver, and
Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, “BDB” “relies too much on
word meanings of the RV,” which sprung from the dark heart of
child molester C.J. Vaughan and other RV committee libertines
(Kenneth Barker, The Accuracy o f the NIV., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996, pp. 7, 22,
93, 112 et al.; Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools fo r Bible Study, Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993, p. 106).
As one o f the Founders o f Old Testament Criticism, Briggs

did “promote the cause o f international Bible-criticism” ( t . k .
Cheyne, Founders o f Old Testament Criticism, London: M ethuen & Co., 1893, p. 229).
“[T]he English Gesenius by Brown, Driver, and Briggs”
received criticism from Delitzsch who said, “many roots were
given in the lexicon which cannot actually be proved to exist in
the Hebrew” (Edward Frederick Miller, The Influence o f Gesenius on Hebrew
Lexicography, Colum bia U niversity Press, 1927, reprinted NY: AM S Press Inc., 1966, p. 89).
“Not only were true meanings clouded,” but “wrong meanings
were often added to correct ones.” “[T]he entire root, as well as
a hundred others, were dealt with in a wrong manner...Quite
naturally a wrong primary meaning upset all the developed
meanings” (M iller, PP. 90, 91, 100, etc.). The Jesuit priest, Mark Massa
S.J., boasts that the Brown, Driver, and Briggs “lexicon
represents Briggs’s biblical critical abilities...” (M ark Stephen Massa,
S.J., Charles A ugustus Briggs and the Crisis o f H istorical Criticism, M inneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990, p. 126).
Muslim Koran or Holy Bible
Should we trust the English Holy Bible or the Muslim

Arabic Koran? Brown, Driver, and Briggs opt for the Koran.
“The editors were influenced by the Arabic in the determination
o f primary meanings and their developments... Delitzsch said
they had become a “slave of the Arabic” and he noted places
where “the Arabic had been wrongly applied” (M iller, pp. 100, 91).
Briggs Says Christ Was “Not Informed”
The Holy Bible states that David penned the Psalms;

Jesus Christ said that David penned the Psalms. Briggs believes
that both are wrong. According to Briggs, David did not write
the Psalms ascribed to him. When confronted with verses where
the Bible explicitly states, “And Jesus answ ered...For David
himself said by the Holy G host...” (Mark 12:36), Briggs
responded saying Jesus was wrong and did not have access to
today’s Higher Criticisms. Briggs says,
“There was no reason why Jesus as a teacher

should have come to any other opinion on this
subject than his contemporaries held...H e was
doubtless not informed as to matters o f criticism
which did not confront him in his day. We
cannot, therefore, regard this single statement of
Jesus as decisive o f the authorship o f Ps.
110...With the rise o f the Higher Criticism, the
traditional opinion as to the Davidic authorship
of the Psalter was questioned, and soon
abandoned by all critics” (Charles A. Briggs, The
International Critical Commentary, The B ook o f Psalms, NY: Scribners
Sons, 1914, pp. lv., lvi, lvii).
Imagine someone this theologically mixed-up

contributing, as he states, “my work on the theological terms
o f the new edition o f Robinson’s Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon,
BDB” (Briggs, Critical Commentary: Psalms, p. vii). The BDB Lexicon’s
preface states that “Professor Briggs” prepared the articles on
“terms important to Old Testament Religion, Theology, and
Psychology, and words related to these” (A H ebrew and English Lexicon o f
the O ld Testament, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, London: Oxford
As this chapter will document, Charles
u n iv ersity Press, 1907, p. ix).
Briggs was less qualified to write on theology than a Sunday

school child, far less to be the final authority for Bible believers.
In 1889 Briggs wrote, Whither? A Theological Question

fo r the Times. “In it he went hammer and tongs against biblical
inerrancy.” In it he castigated Evangelist D.L. Moody, calling
him and his followers “crude in their theology.” Briggs said
“There can be no doubt that recent criticisms have considerably
weakened the evidence from miracles and predictive prophecy.”
Echoing the motto o f Luciferian, Madame Blavatsky (“There is
no religion higher than truth”), he said “Truth is the most
precious possession.” Conversely, the Bible says, “Thy word is
truth ’ (John 17; 17) (Lindsell, pp. 186, 187; Charles A ugustus Briggs, Whither? A
Theological Question f o r the Times, New York: Scribner’s, 1889, pp. 3, 279). Briggs’s
definition o f ‘truth’ is exposed in the following pages.
Briggs’s Corrupt Hebrew Text Omits “the Son”
Briggs preferred a Hebrew text that was “not so slavish

in its adherence to the Masoretic text” (Critical Commentary: Psalms, p.
viii). He said, “ ...I have made a complete lexicon o f the Psalter,
based on a revised Hebrew tex t.. (Briggs, Critical Commentary: Psalms, p.

vii). He added in reference to currently printed Bibles, “I have
not hesitated to forsake them in order to conform to that original

which I have determined by the principles o f textual criticism”
(Briggs, Critical Commentary: Psalms, p. viii).
An example o f ‘his’ ideas about the Hebrew text and its

translation can be seen in Psalm 2:12. Here he would omit the
Son of God completely. The King James Bible says, “Kiss the
Son...”; BriggS says, “Kiss sincerely...” (Briggs, Critical Commentary:
P salm s, p. 17). His Critical Commentary states that in the KJB
reading, ““kiss the son,” the Messiah, cannot be justified by

usage or context, and is based on a misinterpretation due to
SyriaC and Aramaic influence” (Briggs, Critical Commentary: Psalms, p. 17).
Briggs’s Bridge to pre-Nazi Germany
How did such heretical views about Christ come to bruise

the soul o f this once peach-faced young man, who at one time
professed to be a Christian? Massa shows that Briggs lost his
youthful faith in the Bible, when “he spent the year “cramming
his theological belly” with Greek.” The corrupt lexicons of
that day and today always diminish their reader’s view o f the
Holy Bible. (The slight o f hand, wherein “biblical languages”
are switched for the vernacular private interpretation seen in
lexicons, deceived Briggs, as it has many others.)
Briggs later studied for a doctorate at the University of

Berlin, working with A.E. Domer, the professor o f Higher
Criticism. Carrying a “letter o f introduction from Philip
Schaff,” Briggs went to Germany to study under the higher
critics. In Germany, “ ...Briggs simply switched methodological
allegiance to the new critical w ay...” There he received what he
called “a new divine light.” He said, “here is the center o f my
studies and my thought: to study the human nature o f Jesus...”
(M assa, Charles, pp. 28, 36, 37, 39, 42).
Briggs’s contemporary promoter, Jesuit Mark Massa, says

that “his later commitment to the ecumenical cause was far
more decisively shaped by his studies in Germany.” When he
returned home from Germany, Briggs said, “What the Church
needs today is the strong meat o f Calvinist, Augustinian”

doctrine. Even Strong’s encyclopedia says, “Calvin professes to
be only a borrower from St. Augustine” a Catholic. “Jesuits
were dispatched with all haste to serve, in the garb of Puritans,
the cause o f Rome” (M cClintock and Strong, vol. 2, p. 42; vol. 4, p. 761). The
Jesuits put on the robes o f Calvinists, as Augustine’s theology
squeezed into ‘Protestant’ circles. “From the first, Briggs made
no secret of his disdain for the millenarian cause...” Briggs
wrote “attacking” the Biblical teaching that Christ will reign on
the earth for one-thousand years (M assa, Charles, pp. 43,4 8 ). In Briggs’s
mind, the Augustinian Catholics and the Augustinian Calvinists
will join ranks in Augustine’s City o f God, to bring in their own
kingdom, without Christ.
“But most decisive in shaping Brigg’s mature ecumenical

thinking was his introduction in Berlin to the historico-critical
world view” (M assa, Charles, p. 113). “[A]s a result o f his studies in
Germany, he was already moving away from biblical
orthodoxy” (U ndseii, p. 185). The anti-Semitic distain for the Old
Testament, which flourished under Hitler, was seeded and
taught in the seminaries o f Germany when Briggs was there. (See
Theologians Under H itler by Robert Erickson and New A ge Bible Versions by Gail Ripiinger).
Imagine traveling to Germany to study the Old Testament under

Germans who hated both the Old Testament and the Hebrew
people! These schools had an ulterior motive — to discredit the
holy book o f the Jewish people and divorce it from its God-
inspired moorings.
Free the Masons
Philip Schaff, chairman o f the American branch o f the

Westcott and Hort Revised Version committee and chairman of
the American Standard Version committee, saw in Briggs a
fellow ecumenist. Mark Massa, describes Schaff and Briggs as
the “most” important proponents of the “incorporation” of
“Protestants” into “the Church Catholic” (M assa, Charles, pp. 44, 112; see
New A ge Bible Versions, chapter on Philip Schaff).
Chapters twenty-two and twenty three, on C.J. Vaughan,

Temple Master, child molester, and RV committee member
with Philip Schaff, attests to the involvement o f Freemasons in
changing the Bible. The Freemasons in London hosted and
worked toward an ecumenical “alliance” o f all religions, of
which Briggs and Schaff were members.
“Since its founding in August 1846, at London’s

Freemason’s Hall...Briggs had been impressed
and encouraged at the 1873 alliance meeting in
New York, and in August 1879, as a delegate to
the Seventh General Conference in Basel, he
wrote to his Union colleague and fellow
delegate, Philip Schaff, that the need for the
unified and certain voice o f the alliance had
never been more urgent than at that m om ent...”
(M assa, Charles, p. 49).
Briggs Infiltrates Seminary
The Charles A. Briggs Heresy Trial, by Carl E. Hatch,

states that Berlin “turned the New Yorker into a fiery apostle of
German theology...H e caustically remarked that...his mission
in life was to return to America and modernize theological
studies in his own country. This he would attempt to do by
disseminating German critical methods through American
s e m i n a r i e s ” (Carl E. Hatch, The Charles A. Briggs H eresy Trial, N ew York: Exposition
Press,1969, p. 23; Lindsell, p. 187). “ ...Schaff pushed for Briggs’s

appointment to the faculty” at the Unitarian led Union
Theological Seminary. “Schaff approached Briggs in 1872 to
translate and edit Karl M oll’s Commentary on the Psalms...”
(M assa, Charles, p. 44).
As a professor at Union Seminary in New York City,

Briggs used his podium to declare war on the Bible. When
Briggs lectured, “the positive response he got from the students
indicated that he and others like him had been successful in
imposing their views on the students” (Lindseii, p. 190). Harold
Lindsell in his book, The Battle fo r the Bible said, “Briggs’
labors were to produce results for evil that exceeded his wildest
e x p e c t a t i o n s ” (Lindsell, p. 186).
Briggs said at the end o f his life, “I have lived to see a

large proportion o f American scholars adopt essentially the
v i e W S w h i c h I r e p r e s e n t (Briggs, Critical Commentary: Psalms, p. viii). Sadly,
no doubt, most media preachers, local pastors, and seminaries

use Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon today. His unbelieving views
about the Old Testament saturate his Lexicon. If teachers do not
use the lexicon itself, they use a commentary or Hebrew
reference book that cites his Lexicon. His corrupt lexicon
saturates all Old Testament Hebrew study. The fact that all
Hebrew lexicons and commentaries follow BDB entirely can be
seen in their prefatory material. All cite Brown, Driver, and
Briggs as their foundation and their constant and only reference.
Massa states, “Briggs argued in “The Theological Crisis”

that he had sought to elucidate a religious and cultural crisis that
was essentially neither biblical nor creedal, but far more
troubling. This crisis involved the recognition that traditional
religious ways of conceiving the universe were no longer
viable, and that an entirely new theological world view was
called for” (M assa, Charles, p. 91). Briggs’s “call to arms,” said, “We
are at the beginning o f a theological reformation that can no
more be resisted than the flood of a great river. It is one o f those
movements that are long in preparing, but suddenly burst forth
with irresistible might” (M assa, Charles, p. 82).
Briggs said Bible “Criticism is at work with knife and

fire...and the springtime of a new age is about to come upon
U S ” (as cited in Massa, Charles, p. 89).
Briggs - New Age Parliament of Religion: A Call Like 9/11
On September 11, a deathblow hit America’s soul with

the convening o f the 1893 New Age World Parliament of
Religions. The Luciferian led parliament was joined by Philip
Schaff and Charles Briggs on the podium (N e e ly ’s H istory o f the
Parliam ent o f Religions, W alter K. Houghton, ed., Chicago: F.T. Neely, 3rd edition, 1893, p. 22;
the titles o f the speeches given by Luciferians w ere the only ones in all CAPS in the printed
program! See New Age Bible Versions for details).
It was here that Briggs gave one o f his heretical speeches.

The official history o f the Parliament described its leaders:
“ ...arm in arm, were President Bonney and [RC] Cardinal
G ibbons...” They joined other Catholic, Buddhist and Hindu
leadership. “In the center o f the company, and seated in the
huge chair o f curiously wrought iron, was His Eminence James
(Cardinal) Gibbons, magnificent in his robes o f red...the high
priest o f the state religion o f Japan was arrayed in flowing
robes...Buddhist monks were attired in garments o f white and
yellow; an orange turban and robe made the [Hindu] Brahman
conspicuous” (N eely’s, p. 34).
These men, along with Briggs, joined Hindu Swami

Vivekananda, Unitarians, such as Jenkin Lloyd Jones,
Universalists, such as A.J. Canfield, Swedenborgian
[Luciferian] L.P. Mercer, Theosophist [Luciferian] Annie
Besant [editor o f Lucifer magazine, who played the piano for
B.F. Westcott at his Harrow boys’ school sing-a-longs, under
the direction o f child molester and RV translator, C.J. Vaughan]
and many others in what they called “the wondrously friendly
Babel o f our day” (N eely’s, pp. 22-26,3 6 ) . Its goal was “The grounds
for fraternal union in the religions o f different people.” “ [G]reat
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENGLISH LEXICO N 929
themes to be considered in this congress [include]

...Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism,
Confucianism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism,
Catholicism ...evolution...and many other themes o f absorbing
interest.” “ [W ]e seek in this congress to unite all religion...”
(N eely’s, pp. 38, 39, 40).
The Parliament’s welcoming address exalted “Professor

Max Muller o f Oxford, who has been a friend o f our movement
and has sent a contribution to this parliam ent...” (N eely’s, p. 42).
Max Muller was a major contributor to the Brown, Driver and
Briggs Lexicon (BDB), and was “added to the staff’ for the 14th
and 15th editions o f the BDB Hebrew Lexicon. “The content
and text o f the lexicon underwent considerable change” under
the evil eye o f this new age syncretist, W. Max Muller (M iller, pp.
84, 78, 86; see chapters on Liddell and Dodgson for more inform ation on Muller).
Briggs’s Blasphemous Speech
I own the 1,000 page book which gives all o f th

speeches given at this new age Parliament o f Religions. (More
details about the Parliament are given in New Age Bible
Versions in chapter 33.) Briggs’s speech includes the following
jabs at the Holy Bible,
“We are obliged to admit that there are

scientific errors in the Bible...W hy should they
be kept from misstatements, misconceptions, and
errors in such respects?...There are historical
mistakes in the Bible, mistakes o f chronology
and geography, discrepancies, and
inconsistencies which can not be removed by any
proper method o f interpretation...There is no
evidence that the writers o f the scriptures
received any o f their history by revelation from
God. There is no evidence that the Divine Spirit

corrected these narratives.”
“Higher criticism recognizes faults of
grammar, of rhetoric, and logic in the Hebrew
and Greek scriptures...Higher criticism shows
that most o f the books were composed by
unknown authors; that they passed through the
hands of a considerable number of unknown
editors. In this process of editing, arranging,
subtraction, and reconstruction, extending
through so many centuries, what evidence have
we that these unknown editors were kept from
error in all their work?” .
“God did not speak Himself in the Bible
except a few words recorded here and
there...D id the human minds and pens always
deliver the inerrant word?... How can an
imperfect word, an imperfect sentence express
the divine truth?...They received them by
intuition, and framed them in imagination and
fancy...Did the human mind receive it fully
without any fault or shadow o f error? Did the
human mind add anything to it or color it?
...How can we be sure of this when we see the
same doctrine in such a variety of forms, all
partial and all inadequate?”
“The religion of the Old Testament is a
religion which includes some things hard to
reconcile in an inerrant revelation....How could
the true God prescribe such puerilities?...We
cannot defend the morals o f the Old Testament at
all points...It does not harm the Christian to see
the many imperfections, crudities, and errors of
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW-ENGLISH LEXICON 931
the more elementary instructions o f the Old

Testam ent.. (N eeiy’s, pp. 292-297).
Briggs Denies Bible Inspiration
Belief in the inspiration o f the scriptures is “positively

dangerous,” according to Briggs. Those who believe in
inspiration, he charges, must not disturb the critics. Briggs said
that if one can “find any comfort in verbal inspiration and the
inerrancy of the Scriptures, we have no desire to disturb him,
provided he holds these errors as private opinions and does not
seek to impose them upon others...” (Briggs, whither, p. 90). Briggs
thought that any “inspiration” extended only to the Bible’s
spirit, “not to its external words and meanings” (M assa, Charles, p. 63).
Today, students and church members, who believe that their
Holy Bible is inspired, are likewise charged to keep such
‘ignorant’ and “dangerous” ideas “private.”
Briggs said to his students in chapel the year before his

Hebrew Lexicon was released to the public,
“The Bible...has no magical value in it, and

there is no halo enclosing it...It will not guard a
home from fire half as well as holy water. The
Bible, as a book, is paper, print, and binding -
nothing m ore...There is nothing divine in the
tex t...” (Hatch, p. 33).
Briggs said the Bible should not become an “idol” (M assa, Charles,
pp. 633; see Which Bible Is G o d ’s Word by Gail Riplinger for an answer to this charge.).
Who is echoing Briggs’s words today?
He said further,
“I shall venture to affirm that there are errors in

the Scriptures that no one has been able to
932 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS_______________________ _
explain away; and even the idea and theory that

they were not in the original texts is sheer
assumption! If such errors destroy the authority
of the Bible, it is already destroyed for
historians. Men cannot shut their eyes to truth
and fact. The Bible itself nowhere makes the
claim that it is inerrant. Nor do the creeds o f the
Church sanction such a theory. Indeed, the
theory that the Bible is inerrant is the ghost of
modern evangelicalism to frighten children”
(Hatch, p. 33).
Briggs’s chapel speech to students denied that Moses,

David, Ezra, Jeremiah, Solomon, and Isaiah were God’s
penmen. Briggs chided;
“Moses and David were not more inspired than

Confucius and Sakya M u n i . . . Traditionalists are
crying out that it [“Higher Criticism”] is
destroying the Bible, because it is exposing their
fallacies and follies...It may be regarded as the
certain result of the science of Higher Criticism
that Moses did not write the Pentateuch or Job;
Ezra did not write Chronicles, Ezra or
Nehemiah; Jeremiah did not write the Kings or
Lamentations; David did not write the
Psalter...Solomon did not write the Song of
Songs or Ecclesiastes, and only a portion o f the
Proverbs; Isaiah did not write half o f the book
that bears his name. The great mass of the Old
Testament was written by authors whose names
or connection with their writings are lost in
oblivion” (Hatch, pp. 34, 35).
Briggs ended his Chapel message charging,

BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS H EBREW -ENGLISHLEXICO N 933
“We have undermined the breastworks of

Traditionalism; let us blow them to atoms. We
have forged our way through obstructions; let us
remove them now from the face of the
earth...Criticism is at work everywhere with
knife and fire! Let us cut down everything...the
spring time o f a new age is about to come upon
U S ” (Hatch, pp. 34, 35 et. al).
The students had been well brainwashed and they gave

him a great ovation. Briggs said, “the war had begun.” Today,
with the Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon in
every pastor’s office, it is clear that Briggs has won (Lindseii, P. 190).
The inaugural address given by Briggs at his induction

to his new professorship at Union Seminary was his call to
arms. “ [I]mmediately after Briggs’s inaugural address, liberal
ministers and professors organized a secret fraternity called Chi
Alpha. The sole purpose o f this intellectual club was to ‘convert
young, orthodox ministers’ newly arrived in the area to liberal
theology.” The New York Sun observed that “an ever increasing
number o f young orthodox ministers are becoming infected...”
Bible Criticism is responsible for “capturing all but a few
bastions o f fundamentalist resistance...” This was written in
1969. The ‘fundamentalist resistance’ now uses the Brown
Driver, and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. “If the foundations be
destroyed, what can the righteous do” (Hatch, P. 32; Lindseii, pp. 188,1 8 9 ,
190, 194, 195). Even the babes in the pews now naively want to
know ‘what the Hebrew says,’ [really, ‘what Briggs said’].
Briggs’s Heresy Trials
It was not long before Briggs was tried and convicted of

heresy by his own liberal denomination. The Presbyterian
church tried Briggs for heresy and “refused his appointment at
the seminary” (Lindsell, p. 192). “The committee found Briggs s

inaugural address to be theologically unsound on a number of
crucial points.” “In its meeting in 1893 in Washington D.C., the
General Assembly excommunicated Briggs from the
church...Six years later Briggs was ordained a priest in the
Protestant Episcopal Church” (Lindsell, pp. 194- 195).
The encyclopedia, written by Schaff himself, concurs

saying, “In 1892 he was tried for heresy by the Presbytery of
New Y ork...[t]he following year he was suspended by the
General Assembly. In 1899 he was ordained to the priesthood
by the Protestant Episcopal Church” (The Schaff-H erzog Encyclopedia, voi,
11, pp. 270, 271). “[H]e became known as a vigorous exponent of
Higher Criticism o f the O T ...” (See s.v. Oxford D ictionary o f the Christian
Church, 2nd ed.). “Conservative Presbyterians objected to his
scholarly work in Old Testament criticism;” (see his citation in

D ictionaiy o f Am erican Religious Biography, Henry W arner Bowden, W estport, CT:
G reenw ood Press, 1977).
At first, “The “legal casuistry” utilized by Briggs to get his

obviously heterodox positions dismissed by the presbytery had
convinced both Birch and Shedd that a vast conspiracy to
subvert the life and belief of their church was being waged
under the crafty hands o f Briggs him self’ (M assa, Charles, P. too).
However, the board of directors o f Union Seminary defied

this verdict and continued his professorship. Briggs was again
tried by the New York Presbytery for heresy. He refused to
attend the hearings.
The Dictionary o f Heresy Trials in Am erican History is

written with the collaboration o f historians from the
Universities o f Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, and Duke, as
well as the University of Chicago, the University o f Maryland,
the University o f California, the University o f Pennsylvania,
and other highly respected universities. Charles Augustus

Briggs is paramount among the mere fifty ‘heretics’ whose
beliefs shocked their contemporaries enough to bring them to
trial and thereby merit inclusion in this hall o f shame. The
following excerpts from that book recount the secular record o f
Briggs’s trial for heresy:
“The man most closely associated with the critical

method of biblical study was Charles Augustus Briggs”
(D ictionary o f H eresy Trials in America, George H. Shriver, ed..
W estport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997, p. 46).
“Briggs in the second article [for the Presbyterian
Review] dismissed both the doctrine of verbal inspiration
and the notion of original autographs. Instead, he
acknowledged the presence of errors and inconsistencies in
the biblical text” (p. 47).
“During the 1880s Briggs had gained recognition for
both his support o f biblical criticism and his views
favoring the revision [of the Confession of Faith]
movement. This had increasingly aroused the suspicion of
the conservative faction of the Presbyterian Church” (p. 48).
“He [Briggs] then posed six barriers that had
restricted the human approach to the Scriptures. These
included superstition, verbal inspiration, authenticity of
the Scriptures, inerrancy, violation of the laws of nature
(required for all miracles), and minute prediction...” (p. 48).
“A seven-member committee...specified three areas
in which the inaugural [Briggs’s speech] ran counter to the
Confession of Faith. These were (1) equating the Bible, the
church, and the reason as coordinate [equal] fountains of
divine authority; (2) rejecting the inerrancy of the original
autographs of Holy Scripture; and (3) holding that
progressive sanctification after death was both biblical
and church doctrine” (p. 49).
“On 5 October 1892 the New York Presbytery’s
Committee charged with preparing the case against Briggs
returned two charges of heresy: (1) with teaching
doctrines that conflict irreconcilably with and are contrary
to the cardinal doctrines taught in the Holy
Scriptures...that the Scriptures of the Old and New

Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice;
with teaching a doctrine of the character, state, and
sanctification of believers after death, which irreconcilably
conflicts with and is contrary with the Holy Scriptures...”
(p. 50).
“On November 9, the Presbytery of New York assembled

to consider the logistics of the forthcoming trial and to
receive the amended charges and specifications of the
prosecuting committee. The two original charges were
now expanded to eight:
1.) With teaching that Reason is the fountain of divine

authority which may and does savingly enlighten men,
even such men as reject the Scriptures as the authoritative
proclamation of the will of God and reject also the way of
salvation through the mediation and sacrifice of the Son of
God as revealed therein....
2.) With teaching that the Church is a fountain of divine
authority which, apart from the Holy Scripture, may and
does savingly enlighten m en....
3.) With teaching that errors have existed in the original
text of the Holy Scripture, as it came from its authors....
4.) With teaching that many of the Old Testament
predictions have been reversed by history, and that the
great body of Messianic prediction has not been and
cannot be fulfilled....
5.) With teaching that Moses is not the author of the
Pentateuch....
6.) With teaching that Isaiah is not the author of half of the
book that bears his nam e....
7.) With teaching that the processes of redemption extend
to the world to come in the case of many who die in sin....
8.) W ith te a c h in g th a t S a n c tif ic a tio n is n o t c o m p le te a t
d e a t h . . . . ” (pp. 51-52).
“The trial began on November 28, with Briggs’s

evaluation of the amended charges before the court.”
“He [Briggs] insisted, “You cannot exact of me that I shall

say there are no errors in Holy Scripture...”
“The chairman of the prosecution committee had

argued in his opening statement regarding Scripture:
“God is the arranger of its clauses, the chooser of its
terms, and the speller of its words so that the text in its
letters, words, or clauses is just as divine as the
thought” (p. 52).
“Briggs contended that the church had never held that

Moses was the author of the Pentateuch” (p. 53).
“Briggs held that at death the souls of believers entered the

middle state in which each soul was made perfect in
holiness over a period of time through progressive
sanctification” (p. 53).
“When this committee interviewed Briggs, he refused to

retract any of his views...”
In the end Briggs lost the case, which concluded,
“ this General Assembly finds that Charles A.

Briggs has uttered, taught and propagated views,
doctrines and teachings as set forth in the said
charges contrary to the essential doctrine o f Holy
Scripture and the Standards, and in violation of
his ordination vow .... where fore this General
Assembly does hereby suspend Charles A.
Briggs, the said Appellee, from the office of
minister in the Presbyterian Church in the United
States o f America, until such time as he shall
give satisfactory evidence o f repentance to the
General Assembly o f the violation by him o f the
said ordination vow” (as cited in M assa, Charles, p. 109).
“The Assembly also adopted a report pertaining to Union

Seminary that deplored Union’s action in retaining Briggs
o n th e f a c u lty a fte r th e A s s e m b ly h a d d is a p p r o v e d h is
appointment.. (p. 56).
His case was “one of the most important in the history of the
church, by reason o f its great and dangerous errors” (M assa, Charles,
p. 99).
“Everyone on the committee appointed by the

presbytery had agreed that basic evangelical
values had been assaulted by Briggs’s inaugural
address, assaulted so violently that the word
“heresy” seemed the only one strong enough to
designate the views that caused such disquiet.
Mcllvaine likewise reported that it was Briggs’s
statements about Scripture and its authority that
were particularly offensive to everyone on the
committee” (M assa, Charles, p. 93).
Briggs’s uncle, Marvin Briggs, told his nephew,
“Let the mocking be all done by the chief priests

and scribes of the Washington Assembly. They
will stone you if they can;
But their children will build your sepulcher

(B riggs’s Transcript, IX, 3, #4821, 20 M ay 1893; Shriver, p. 56).
His uncle was right. Today men have forgotten his heresies
and search his Hebrew-English Lexicon, only to unearth
Briggs’s century-old heresies.
The Dictionary o f Heresy Trials concludes their discourse

on Briggs by saying, “He was received into the priesthood of
the Episcopal Church in 1899...The heresy trial had done more
in two years to spread Briggs’s views on higher criticism than
he could have accomplished in a lifetime. Undoubtedly, much
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENGLISHLEXICON 939
o f the ecumenical concern that has remained the hallmark of

Union Seminary can be traced to his influence” (shriver, PP. 56- 57).
The Briggs-Catholic “Plot” Revealed by a Jesuit in the

Harvard Theological Review
Jesuit priest Mark S. Massa, S.J., writing for the

Harvard Theological Review, exposes Briggs’s “Plot” in
conjunction with the Pope. The 1988 article was entitled,
“Mediating Modernism Charles Briggs, Catholic Modernism
and an Ecumenical “P lot.” The Jesuit theologian and the
Harvard Theological Review called it a “Plot.” Briggs incited
great alarm among true Christians at that time. Massa reveals,
“These fears, however, were built on far more

solid foundations, for Briggs was indeed
involved in the kind of conspiracy with
members of the Roman church that appeared
to justify the darkest fears o f his and his
methods’ detractors (M assa, Charles, P. 135).
The Jesuit began his revealing article telling readers o f the

famous “Briggs Case,” as an event for marking that cultural
moment when American mainline Protestants, mostly kicking
and screaming, began to confront officially the higher criticism
o f the Bible.” The Jesuit called the “heresy trial” ...“the most
notorious event in 19th century American church history...” He
added,
“This vote was o f some historical moment, as it

adumbrated the range o f issues between
Protestant “fundamentalists” and “modernists”
over biblical interpretation that would define
much o f American religious history in the
decades ahead.. .the older “two-story”*
evangelical world view that underlay so much of

American culture confronted the
...developmental model of reality advanced by
historical criticism.”
Briggs, with his criticism o f the Bible, battled the

“fundamentalists” and “evangelical” Christians. Today BDB
Hebrew Lexicon users are unaware o f Briggs’s reputation.
However, his trial was “featured on the front page of almost
every American newspaper of the day” (M ark s. Massa, s.j., ““M ediating
M odernism ": Charles Briggs, Catholic M odernism and an Ecum enical “ P lot,” " H arvard
Theological Review, 81:4, 1988, pp. 413-414, 414 n3 (*Briggs held to a humanistic
“evolutionary understanding o f revelation” rather that a “two-story m odel,” that is, revelation
from God to m an via the Bible).
The Harvard Review article tells the story behind Briggs’s

“attraction to the ecumenical cause” and reveals, ‘ Briggs s
efforts in the ecumenical cause, where he took part in one o f the
stranger episodes in Protestant-Catholic relations in our
century.” “Briggs believed that he had discovered
incontrovertible scientific proof for the ideal of one holy
church...” (M assa, “M ediating,” pp. 414, 415). The H atvaid Theological
Review tells the story:
“Briggs sought an introduction to the circle of

this Catholic critical movement when he arrived
in Rome on academic sabbatical from Union
Seminary in the fall o f 1901. He immediately
called on Denis O ’Connell, an American
Catholic prelate with considerable political
contacts as well as distinct progressive
leanings...Through O ’Connell Briggs met, on 19
November 1901, the “lay bishop o f the Catholic
modernists” the Baron Friedrich von
Hugel...credited with engineering the entire
Catholic modernist movem ent.. ,[I]f his critical
program proved to be too dangerous for overt

campaigning, then other, less overt methods had
to be brought into play to ensure its eventual
victory within the Church. And it was precisely
here that the baron’s famous American visitor
would eventually prove to be o f special
value...Briggs was euphoric after the meeting:
here was the bridge for reuniting Protestant and
Catholic Christians into one body, a bridge
resting firmly on the sure supports o f historical
criticism ...” (M assa, “M ediating,” pp. 418-419).
“Briggs returned to America from Rome

renewed in his commitment to church union
based on historical criticism, and immediately
penned an essay entitled “Catholic - The Name
and the Thing"...B riggs announced to an
undoubtedly horrified liberal Protestant
readership that there could be no doubt th at...
“The Roman Catholic Church o f our day is the

heir by unbroken descent to the Roman catholic
church o f the second century...”” (M assa, “M ediating,”
p. 419; Massa, Charles, p. 130).
Briggs desired “breaking down all denominational lines” and a

“recatholization” (M assa, “M ediating,” p. 419).
“The response - perhaps “outcry” is a better

word - that greeted Briggs’s article showed how
much anti-Catholic fear lurked just below the
surface o f even so liberal a readership as that of
the University o f Chicago’s American Journal.
But Briggs’s firm belief in the modernist cause
itself as the likeliest bridge for reuniting Christ’s
divided flock remained undiminished, and

provided the motivating force for an ecumenical
campaign that was just beginning” (M assa,
“M ediating,” p. 419).
Wealthy Catholic, Baron Von Hugel, “supported and

sponsored the modernist movement.” Therefore it was no
surprise that Briggs got a new “endowed” position and was
“granted a year’s leave o f absence from Union Seminary to
prepare for his new position, a year that found him in Europe, in
the thick of the theological maelstrom exercising the Roman
Church” ( M a s s a , “M ediating,” pp. 4 1 8 ,4 1 9 ,4 2 0 ). “ [W]ord o f the leave found
Briggs already in Rome. For Briggs had displayed a deepening
interest in a movement gathering strength within the Roman
church at the turn o f the century, a movement o f modernist
scholars committed to the same critical agenda as their liberal
Protestant brethren. Thus began, in the fall o f 1901, one of the
more interesting episodes in the history of Protestant-Catholic
relations.” Briggs recognized “the ecumenical possibilities of
such a movement.” (M assa, C harles, pp. 126- 127, 128). The Harvard
Theological Review continues discussing “his long-held belief
that Catholic and Protestant modernists represented various
divisions o f the same arm y...” (M assa, “M ediating,” P. 420).
Briggs and the Pope
Briggs’s zeal for Catholicism was -
“ ...fueled by a personal audience with Pope Pius

X, an interview that had been arranged by
Roman theologian Giovanni Genocchi. Genocchi
was a Catholic biblical scholar o f decidedly
progressive sentiments with whom Briggs had
carried on a regular correspondence since his
first visit to Rome three years before, a Roman
“insider” who would become Briggs’s informant

on Vatican intrigue in the troubled days ahead.
The papal interview as Briggs reported it to his
daughter, was a “delightful” one in which he and
the pontiff talked “in a most friendly way and in
the frankest manner about...Reunion, etc...”
“Christians “outside the walls” would be forced
to reevaluate their “schismatic” stance toward
the Chair o f Peter” (M assa, pp. 420, 421; also see “ D r. B riggs
Sees P ope,” N e w York Times, 13 M ay 1905).
“Within a month o f the papal interview, Briggs

published an article for the London
Expositor... Loisy [a Catholic priest and
professor], Briggs argued, had quite correctly
observed that there was not sufficient historical
evidence to prove definitively that Jesus had
taught his own divinity, that he had risen
physically from the dead...Loisy based these
conclusions, Briggs announced, on critical
scholarship above reproach” (M assa, “M ediating,” p. 420).
Massa says, “The coming Christianity would be built

equally by Protestant and Catholic scholars using critical
methods.” (M assa, Charles, pp. 129, 133). He closes saying, “Briggs
promised that the application of critical methods to the most
important institutional question before mainline Protestants
- ecumenicism - would bring about the dissolution of the
boundaries separating Protestants and Catholics” (Massa,
Charles, p. 134).
The Harvard Theological Review article, written by a Jesuit

priest, titles its next section, “A MODERNIST PLOT.” The
plot thickens-
“ ...[0 ]n 28 August, von Hugel had penned the

first o f several dozen long letters to Charles
Briggs (marked “strictly confidential” across
the top) in which he announced that Briggs stood
“in quite an exceptional position to help; indeed,
there is something o f a duty on you to do in the
affair whatever you can.”
Baron von Hugel wrote to B riggs-
“ ,..[I]f we can get, say by October 1-15, some

three or four solid and emphatic non-Roman
Catholic denunciations [of those supporting the
Mosaic authorship o f the Pentateuch]...kept
scrupulously respectful to Rome...this will, my
friend, save us all from the misfortune o f having
such impossibilities solemnly tied upon our
anyhow much-burdened backs.”
“Briggs responded from Italy on 4 September,

offering both his wholehearted support and the
letter requested by von Hugel;”
“He reported that Briggs’s letter would

“suit” ...“but there was one material change that
had to be made:” “I feel that this letter ought to
appear as an inquiry from you to me - you are
amazed and indignant, etc., at this impossible
decision [calling the Pentateuch “genuinely
Mosaic”], and you, a life-long student and
leading authority on the very subject; and though
not a Roman Catholic, yet a man full o f respect
for and sympathy with Rome at her best, wants
to know from me, a Roman Catholic Old
Testament scholar and friend, what on earth the
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENGLISH LEXICO N 945
thing means. But it must not look in any way

as if I began the discussion; it is you who do so.
It is most important that this should appear non

prom pted...” [emphasis mine]
“Briggs letter (after careful editing by von

Hiigel) opened the work as a query about the
recent decree’ (M assa, “M ediating,” pp. 422, 423, 424).
The Harvard Theological Review article concluded that,

“This rather amazing” letter “demands something o f a revision”
in the thinking o f those who “generally overlook this
remarkable sub rosa exchange” and deny any “plan” and “plot”
between Catholic and Protestant leadership (Massa, “M ediating,” p. 424).
“ ...Briggs wrote to von Hiigel reporting on a

secret Paris meeting held with the French
Protestant theologian Auguste Sabatier “and a
number o f liberal Catholics,” where Briggs and
Sabatier “became like brothers.” Briggs
announced that the consensus of all of those
present was that Briggs should attempt to
marshal support for the European modernists
from the heretofore silent American scholarly
world. Briggs himself (as one of the foremost
liberal American scholars) was to issue the call
and arouse the slumbering American Academic
community. On his return to America, however,
Briggs found only one collaborator in his plan:
fellow ecumenical theorist Newman Smyth, who
devoted several sections of Passing
Protestantism and Coming Catholicism to
Briggs’s American “campaign”” (Massa, "M ediating,” p.
426).
Briggs invited New York priest, “James Driscoll, a

progressive Catholic theologian... to speak at Union
Sem inary...” (M assa, “ M ediating,” p. 426).
“Briggs gradually realized that if there were to

be an American outcry on behalf of the European
Catholic Progressives, it would have to come
from Protestant scholars. He therefore published
“The Great Obstacle in the Way of a Reunion of
Christendom” as a call to battle to American
evangelicals. He argued that since the movement
for church unity represented the most important
theological movement of their age, the primary
concern of all Christians should be reunion
with the “Mother of Churches”” (Massa,
"M ediating,” p. 426).
“But Briggs strove to vindicate the true nature of

the papacy in the eyes of fellow Protestants...A
“platform of reconciliation” had to be pressed by
Protestants, especially by Protestant scholars,
Briggs announced, a platform that would
constitute an ineluctable attraction to Rome, as it
would promise the return o f Protestant Christians
to papal jurisdiction” (M assa, “M ediating,” p. 427).
“In June 1909 Briggs published what was,

perhaps, his most cogent article on the battle then
exercising conservatives and liberals of several
communions. “Modernism Mediating the
Coming Catholicism” in the North American
Review represented more an extended reflection
on the ideological battle in which he found
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENGLISHLEXICON 947
himself than a call to arms. Borrowing much of

his argument from friend and fellow ecumenist
Newman Smyth, whose Passing Protestantism
and Coming Catholicism had just been
published, Briggs noted th a t...” (M assa, “M ediating,” pp.
427, 428).
“ ...the Protestant scholastics and the

Roman Curia see eye to eye in this
fight. Progressive Protestants and
Catholic modernists are linked up in the
same ranks. It is no longer a battle
between Protestants and C atholics...”
(Charles Briggs, “M odernism M ediating the Coming
Catholicism ,” North Am ercan Review 187 (1908) 877-889,
879-880.)
Harvard Theological R eview ’s article summarizes

saying,
“The involvement o f Charles Briggs, an

American Protestant modernist, in the European
Catholic modernist affair offers the student o f the
twentieth-century religious history further data in
the well-mined territory o f the history of
theological liberalism... Perhaps even more
surprising for us - habituated as we are to
thinking in “pre-” and “post-Vatican II” terms -
is the amount o f “ecumenical” discussion
engaged in by Catholic scholars in the early
years o f the century: Briggs at Union and
Driscoll at Dunwoodie Seminary...engaged in
friendly (albeit quiet) theological discussions
quite oblivious to denominational lines...The
Briggs-von Hiigel cooperation likewise raises
questions about the juices that fueled the early
ecumenical impulse in our century. For Briggs at

least (one o f the earliest ecumenical theorists,
whose magnum opus, Church Unity, was among
the first scholarly ecumenical works published in
America) the modernist cause was central to the
unitive impulse: Catholic and Protestant
modernist scholars, working with the same
critical principles and dedicated to similar
critical ideals, appeared to embody the best hope
for reuniting the divided churches of
Christendom” (M assa, “ M ediating,” p. 429).
In 1904 Briggs delivered a speech entitled, “How May

We Become More Truly Catholic?” The Jesuit, Mark Massa
concludes, “Rome, Briggs assured his listeners, “can teach us
many things we ought to learn”” (Massa, Charles, p. 132).
A Jesuit’s History of Criticism & Briggs
The Harvard Theological R eview ’s article, by Jesuit, Mark

Massa S.J., was merely an addendum to M assa’s lengthy
Dissertation on Briggs, entitled Charles Augustus Briggs and
the Crisis o f Historical Criticism. This Catholic priest is
enamored with Briggs, because o f Briggs’s promotion of
Catholicism and his criticism o f the Bible. Briggs said in his
speech before the Church Unity Society, “the unity o f the
Christian Church is vastly more important than questions of
theology.” In 1895 Briggs was one o f the ten founding
members and the most sought after speaker for the “league for
Catholic Unity,” a movement whose intention was to
“incorporate all American Christians - Protestant, Catholic, and
Orthodox...” (M assa, C h a rles,pp. in, 121, 122). Protestantism is based on
the Bible and if the Bible can be diminished or destroyed, the
authority o f the Catholic church can be promoted. That is
precisely what a lexicon, such as the one by Brown, Driver, and

Briggs, does.
Massa begins the Dissertation’s Preface thanking friends for

“ ...rounds o f beer...w hile this work was being written” (Massa,
Charles, p. xi). Massa gives a history of efforts to diminish the Bible
and states that, “Briggs played a central role in the theological

and ecclesiastical battles that led to the fragmentation o f the
American Protestant “establishment” into modernist and
fundamentalism camps.” Massa admits that the “critical study
o f the Bible” began with “Johann Semler,” who did not believe
what critics called the “rubbish o f biblical fables and miracle
stories” (M assa, Charles, pp. i, 9). He “became a believer in alchemy.”
Consequently, “Semler’s investigations into the character o f the
Old and New Test, texts likewise contributed to overturn the
traditional idea o f the inspiration of the Scriptures” (M cClintock and
strong, vol. 9, p. 522). Massa cites Benjamin Jowett, Greek professor
and friend o f Liddell, as adding fuel to the Bible-burning fire,

by insisting “that biblical scholars must ascertain what the
authors of scriptural narratives actually meant to convey to
their readers” (em phasis mine, Massa, Charles, p. io). Massa admits, “This
threat to the Bible is generally presented as having received
most dramatic expression in Briggs’s own 1891 inaugural
address at Union Seminary.. .” (M assa, Charles, p. 21).
Jesuitical Writing
Massa says that Briggs swamped “conservatives” with a

“mass o f erudite and arcane details,” so that they could not
“reflect on the radical implications” o f what Briggs said. His
“brilliant rhetorical strategy” resulted in “confusion among his
conservative opponents” and “masked the profound intellectual
dichotomies” between Bible believers and Bible critics. This
Jesuit calls Briggs “skillful and politically astute” (Massa, Charles, PP.
56, 62, 64). The Presbyterian Journal asserted that Briggs used “an
immense fog bank” to “undermine the foundations of
Christianity itself” (M assa, Charles, p. ioi). Massa revealed that
Briggs’s book, like all good ‘Jesuitical’ writings, ““contained
enough truth to make its errors dangerous” among the masses
who read it.” Massa calls Briggs’s speech “the perfect
propaganda tool...Briggs, and the critical methods that he
championed, they averred, had launched a frontal assault on the
foundation of Protestant culture - the Bible itself’ (M assa, Charles,
pp. 80, 90).
Massa admits that ‘scholars’ “incorporate varying amounts

o f criticism into their interpretations of Scripture, interpretations
generally confined to seminary classrooms” (M assa, Charles, p. 74).
This behind-closed-doors barrage continues in too many of
today’s Bible schools. Parent and student, beware; halt, Dr.
Dalton Find-Fault, before yet another generation of preachers is
ruined.
Reaction to Briggs
Massa admits that Briggs’s views were “a frontal attack on

America’s “biblical civilization.” Briggs received “sharp
criticism from conservatives” and was charged with
“conspiracy” (M assa, Charles, pp. 6 9 ,6 7 ,6 9 ). So extreme was Briggs that
the New York Times, in its June 7, 1891 issue, reported that the
“Briggs Case” involved “the source o f a new type o f religion, if
not of a new type of church.” The New York Sun warned of
Briggs’s “heresy’s spreading” and the “laity being infected.” It
joined the Catholic News in asserting that Briggs was about to
return to the “Mother o f Churches.” The Independent said
Briggs will “spread more darkness than light.” Two newspapers
published Briggs’s critical comments. “ [T]he conservative
response to both had been deeply critical and disapproving.
Even the secular paper, M ail and Express, “published a bitter
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEB RE W-ENGLISH LEXICON 951
editorial attack on both Union Seminary and Briggs as violators

o f their ordination oaths” (M assa, Charles, pp. 90, 82, 8 5 , 9 6 , 131). Massa
admits that the “new Theology” met head on with “conservative
lines o f thought that opposed it (the latter being unified
somewhat later and eventually labeled “fundamentalism...”)”
One must ask, ‘Why are good fundamentalists using Briggs’s
lexicon and its unbelieving secular definitions?’ (M assa, Charles, p.
47).
Briggs, Ladies, and Jesuits
When you read Briggs’s Lexicon, you are reading Briggs

and his daughter, “Emilie Grace Briggs, B.D., who has
laboured with me on the Hebrew Lexicon...” They also worked
together on The International Critical Commentary: A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Book o f Psalms (Charles Augustus
Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, Vol. 1, N ew York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914, p. ix). In
their Critical Commentary on the book of Psalms, C.A. Briggs

(and his daughter) said, “The commentary will show that
Roman Catholic Commentators have rendered valuable service
which has been too often neglected by modem Protestants;”
(Briggs, Critical Commentary: P salm s, pp. vii-viii).
His other book, The History o f the Study o f Theology, is

a Who s Who o f Catholic Jesuits, monks, and Cardinals (Vol. 2 ,
London: D uckw orth & Co., 1916). It is not surprising that Massa, a Jesuit,
would view Briggs in a friendly light. In Briggs’s History o f the

Study o f Theology he speaks glowingly o f the Jesuits saying,
“The chief aim o f the order was missions to the

heathen and to heretics. The methods were:
pastoral care, preaching, and religious
education...The colleges which they established,
wherever they could get a foothold, became the
chief seats of theological education for two

centuries” (Briggs, History, p. 135).
Briggs said,
“The founders of the Jesuit Order in their Ratio

Studiorum combined the old learning with the
new in more harmonious proportions and in
better adjustments than did Melanchthon, Calvin,
Ximenes or Eck [most were Protestant
Reformers].. .The Jesuits also united the
theoretical and the practical in theology as these
had never been united before; and while for two
centuries, they trained the best scholars of
Europe, they also trained the best preachers,
pastors, teachers and m issionaries...It is not
surprising that such discipline in scholarship and
in its practical use make them the most adroit
and able scholars o f Europe...It may be
interesting here to note the rules o f Cardinal
Allen for the Seminary at Douai, in which priests
were trained for the English mission. These rules
o f the year 1580 make the study of the Bible of
fundamental importance, and require Greek
and Hebrew that the students may
understand the Scriptures in the original
texts” (Briggs, History, pp. 136, 137, 140).
The Catholic hierarchy is always looking for a way to

move the authority away from the Holy Bible onto something
else, be it a priest, a vision, or a Greek or Hebrew language
professor. Briggs’s book on the History o f Theology promotes
this trail o f misdirection toward language study in Greek and
Hebrew. He cites all of the Catholic monks and pedants who
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW -ENG LISH LEXICO N 953
have recommended such study throughout history. He writes of

Roger Bacon (1214-1294), a Catholic and Franciscan monk
who said,
“It is impossible to obtain a perfect knowledge o f

the Scriptures without knowing Hebrew and
G reek...” (Briggs, History, p. 58).
Briggs adds,
“Bacon himself wrote Hebrew and Greek

grammars. His Epistola de laude Scripturae
sacrae emphasizes the study of the Sacred
Writings in the original languages. Bacon was
suspected o f magical arts and heresy, and was
imprisoned in a monastery for ten years, but was
temporarily released by Clement IV ...” (Briggs,
H istory, p. 58).
Interestingly, the ‘father’ o f critical Old Testament

study was Father Richard Simon (1712), a Catholic priest,
whom Briggs includes in his group o f “eminent theologians”
(Briggs, History, pp. 146, 149). Simon believed, “Biblical criticism was
the most effective weapon to be employed against

Protestantism...” “It was by Semler’s influence that the critical
works o f Richard Simon were translated into German” (M cClintock
and strong, vol. 4, pp. 630,632). Simon says... like ‘father,’ like son. Why
is the church playing ‘Simon Says’ with the Bible? Jesus said,
“Ye are o f your father the devil and the lusts o f your father ye
will d o ...he abode not in the truth .. .thy word is truth..
Francis Brown (of Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon)
T.K. Cheyne, well-known Bible critic, observes that the

Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon promotes the
“criticism” of the Bible. It defines words based on pagan
usages:
“Above all, the Hebrew Lexicon, o f which he is

the principal editor, will, when completed,
ensure a sound basis for Old Testament
criticism for many a long day...” (Cheyne, p. 244).
Brown was also a faculty member at Union Theological
Seminary. “Union seminary was already deeply infiltrated by
liberalism ...” His ultra-liberalism catapulted him into
leadership, as the seventh president o f this bastion of unbelief.
When his friend Briggs was charged with heresy, Brown

said, “Now we will become more militant in our efforts to
promote Higher Criticism and stand by Briggs” (Hatch, P . 75; Lindseii,
pp 191, 192). ("Philip Schaff, Professor o f Church History at Union, w as a close friend of
Briggs. He was also a theological liberal.” He too saw B riggs’s speech as a “m anifesto o f war
against those w ho still believed the Bible; Hatch, p. 46; Lindseii, p. 191).
An “early adhesion to the critical point of view”

characterizes Brown (Cheyne, p. 243). This American was more
completely at home in the ‘higher criticism’” than his
counterparts at Cambridge (Cheyne, p. 243).
F ra n c is B ro w n , b ib lic a l s c h o la r. U n io n 's s e v e n t h p re s id e n t.
1849-1916
From A History of Union Theological Seminary in New York
By Robert T. Handy
Copyright © 1987 Columbia University Press
Reprinted with permission from the Publisher.
go*oa
S.R. Driver (1846-1914)

(of the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon)
Driver, like Briggs and Brown, was a higher critic of the

Bible. He was a fellow Bible reviser with Westcott and Hort on
the Revised Version Committee. Scholars observe the following
about Driver’s critical views o f the Bible.
■ Samuel Rolles Driver “did much to foster the spread o f the

critical view of the OT [Old Testament] in Britain,” notes
the The Oxford Dictionary o f the Christian Church (2nd ed.).
■ He was a member o f the Old Testament Revision Company

1876-84, spearheaded by Westcott and Hort (Schaff-H erzog, p. 6,
vol. 4 ). Along with fellow RV committee member, James
Strong (Strong’s Concordance) and occult Cabalist C.

Ginsburg, Driver’s word choices (and lexical definitions)
weakened the Old Testament, word by word.
■ Bible critic, T.K. Cheyne said of S.R. Driver, “He came to

this subject theologically and critically uncommitted, and
the result is that, in the main, he supports criticism with the
full weight o f his name and position” (Cheyne, p. 252). Driver s
works “will appear to many not to give hints enough
concerning the religious value o f the records criticized [the
Old Testament]” (Cheyne, p. 254).
■ The Harvard Theological Review calls Driver’s books an

“apprenticeship in textual criticism” of the Bible. It calls
him a “critic” o f the Bible numerous times, and said that
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS HEBREW-ENGLISHLEXICON 957
“ c o n s e rv a tiv e s” sa w h is w o rk as a “ c o m p ro m ise ,” w h ic h
“ se e m e d to th re a te n th e stro n g h o ld s o f re lig io n ” ( g .a . Cooke,
“Driver and W ellhausen,” Vol. IX, July, 1916, Num ber 3, pp. 250, 251, 252, 253).
■ “Thus a d istin g u ish e d O x fo rd c o lle a g u e , D r. C heyne,

e x p re s s e d h im s e lf d issa tisfie d ; th e a u th o r [D riv er] d id n o t
tak e s u ffic ie n tly h ig h g ro u n d ” in h is v ie w o f th e B ib le (Cooke,
p. 252).
Samuel Rolles Driver

1846-1914

Driver Denies Inspiration
Driver said, “On the authorship of the books of the OT.,

as on the completion of the Canon of the O T ,.. .the Jews possess
no tradition worthy o f real credence or regard, but only vague
and uncertain reminiscences, intermingled often with idle
speculations” (Driver, Introduction to the Literature o f the O ld Testament, Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 9lh ed. Revised, Introduction, p. i). D r i v e r c h a r g e s ,
“No part of the Bible, nor even the Bible as a

whole is a logically articulated system of
theology...None of the historians of the Bible
claim supernatural enlightenment for the
materials of their narrative: it is reasonable,
therefore, to conclude that these were derived by
them from such human sources as were at the
disposal of each particular w riter...” (Driver,
Introduction, Preface to the eighth edition, pp. ix, x).
Driver’s Critical View vs. the Traditional View
“ [T]he critical study of the Old Testament” is Driver’s

theme, in opposition to “writers who seek to maintain the
traditional view of the structure o f the Old Testament” (stated in the
preface o f D river’s book, Introduction to the Literature o f the Old Testament, Edinburgh: T.&T.
O f his views which are critical o f the

Clark, 9th ed. Revised,. Preface, P. iv).
Bible, Driver states, “ ...they are opposed in the present instance

by some theologians, only because they are supposed to conflict
with the requirements of the Christian faith.. .The price at which
alone the traditional view can be maintained is too high...But
the phenomena which the traditional view fails to explain are
too numerous for such a solution to be adm issible...” (Driver,
Introduction, Preface, pp. viii).
BROWN, DRIVER, BRIGGS H EBREW -ENGLISHLEXICO N 959
Driver Charges Jesus with Not Being “scientific”
Jesus himself saw the Old Testament as the word o f God

and recognized those men, such as David and Moses, who
penned G od’s words. Driver charges Jesus with ignorance. He
says, “In no single instance, so far as we are aware, did He
anticipate the results o f scientific inquiry or historical research”
(Driver, Introduction, Preface, p. xii).
“[H]is forcible paper on the criticism o f the historical

books” of the Bible made his views clear to all (cheyne, p. 249).
“[H]e has no scruple in holding that the psalm in Jonah ii was
not the work o f Jonah” (Cheyne, p. 309). The story o f Jonah, Driver
asserts, “ ...is not strictly historical” (Cheyne, p. 314). Jesus himself,
on the other hand, spoke o f Jonah (Luke 11:32).
“The majority o f the ‘Davidic’ psalms,” Driver charges,

“are thus certainly not David’s; is it possible to determine
whether any are his?” he quips. “[TJhough it may be ancient, it
can hardly have been composed by David,” Driver asserts
(ch ey n e, pp. 327, 332). Driver says o f the Psalms, “The titles are
suspicious...Thus o f the 73 ascribed to David, the majority, at
least, cannot be his...[T]he majority o f the “Davidic” Psalms
are thus certainly not David’s ...” (Driver, introduction , PP. 374,3 7 8 ). “Four
o f these books [the Psalms] are closed by a doxology, which Dr.
Driver explains by the custom o f Oriental authors and
transcribers to close their works with a pious formula” (Cheyne, p.
323).
In Driver’s book Introduction, “he made known his

complete acceptance o f W ellhausen’s scheme” (Cooke, p. 256).
(Wellhausen believed that the Old Testament was not only not
the word o f God, but that it was not even penned by the men
who said they wrote it from the mouth o f God (i.e. Moses,
etc.).) In Driver’s mind, Moses did not receive the book of
Genesis from the mouth o f God, but it was put together, “by the
compiler o f pre-existing materials” ... “it is composed o f distinct

documents or sources, which have been welded together by a
later compiler or redactor...” (Driver, introduction, p. 8). Jesus Christ
charged those who did not believe Moses saying, “For had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of
me” (John 5:46). Moses wrote the first five books o f the Bible,
including Genesis. God said, “Thy word is true from the
beginning:” (Ps. 119:160); this includes Genesis. Driver denied
that Isaiah authored the book of Isaiah (Driver, introduction, pp. 2 3 6 ,219,
210, 206). Driver continues divorcing the scriptures from their
divine authorship and credibility on every page o f his

Introduction. O f Lamentations, Driver states that “the poems be
not the work o f Jerem iah...” (Cheyne, p. 356).
Ian I. Taylor’s book, In the Minds o f Men: Darwin and

the New World Order, says Driver’s writings, “more than any
other work served to liberalize theological students. The
evolutionary ideas o f Wellhausen were thus carried across the
English Channel and into British pulpits by the efforts of
Professor S.R. Driver” (2nli ed., Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1987, pp. 383-396,
footnote 31). In Driver’s day, Bible defenders such as Sir Robert
Anderson wrote The Bible and Modern Criticism to expose the

heresies of Driver and his fellow Bible critics (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1903, pp. 1-141, especially, 41, 44, 50, 131 footnote, 133, 134, 136 footnote, 141 et
al).
Driver & the Catholic “Plot”
The Harvard Theological Review reported that Driver

was asked to participate in the “Plot” with Briggs to bring
Protestants to the Pope by means of Bible criticism. “On 25
August 1906 [Catholic] Baron von Hiigel wrote to the noted
Anglican biblical scholar, S.R. D river...” seeking his
participation in the Catholic-Protestant “Plot (M assa, "M ediating, p-
422). In Driver’s book, Introduction to the Literature oj the Old
Testament, he wrote, “In America, a daily increasing number of

the leading theological Professors avow their adhesion to the
critical cause. In the Roman Catholic Church, the Abbe Loisy,
and, in this country, Baron von Hiigel...Other learned and
thoughtful Roman Catholic theologians, o f whom it may suffice
to name here the eminent Dominican scholar Pete Lagrange,
and Prof. Salvatore Minocchi, teach openly critical
conclusions...” (Driver, Introduction, p. xvi).
Driver’s Corrupt Hebrew Text
The fox is in the hen house again. Driver was

responsible for the Hebrew text and the corruption o f its notes
in “Deuteronomy and Joshua, in R. Kittel’s Bihlia Hebraica
(Leipzig, 1905).” Driver’s criticism therefore laid a weak
foundation for the 1937 Biblia Hebraica Kittel (BHK) and the
current Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) (Schaff-Herzog, P. 6, vol.
4). (Rudolf Kittel was seduced by higher criticism (Cooke, PP. 255,
256). The Kittel family’s liberalism, mysticism, anti-Semitism,

and pivotal involvement in the Holocaust are exposed in New
Age Bible Versions and Theologians Under Hitler).
The Harvard Theological Review states that Driver’s

books promote the corruptions and “changes which the Hebrew
text has undergone,” as well as “the use o f the Versions,” in
place o f the pure Hebrew Masoretic text (Cooke, P. 250).
Who put Driver in the driver’s seat, steering Bible words

off track and carrying them swiftly downhill?
Conclusion
All books about the Old Testament, which discuss the

‘Hebrew’ and its so-called ‘meaning,’ are using either the
Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon or one of
the many works which are based entirely upon it. Hebrew word
study has become virtually impossible, outside o f the King
James Bible. Brown, Driver, and Briggs permeate everything,
even work done in very conservative circles. When asked what
he used to create his definitions, even Donald Waite, Jr., editor
o f the definitions in the Defined King James Bible, said, “I am
relatively certain that this would have included Thayer's Greek
Lexicon o f the N T and Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew-English
Lexicon o f the O T (Letter to Edward Carrington, 8/19/08 on file). KJB critics
consequently observe that the definitions in the DKJB
sometimes mirror those in the new versions (http://www.a-
voice.org/discem /dkib.htm ). An entire generation has been hoodwinked
by BDB; this is a mistake the upcoming generations cannot

afford to carry on.
C hapter 26
Summary
& Update
on Hebrew Lexicons
Step 1:
“Menahem ben Saruk, in the beginning of the ll.C .
compiled the first complete Hebrew lexicon” (M iller, p. 25).
Step 2:
The early English Bibles, including the King James
Bible, were not subject to the influence o f pagan meanings in
lexicons. “From the time of Reuchlin, 1454-1511, when the
study of Hebrew lexicography began in earnest among Christian
scholars, till a short time after Joh. Buxtorf, Jr., died 1664, the
most important Hebrew lexicons were based on Rabbinic
tradition.. .The use of other dialects for comparison and
etymology, though attempted, was not approved of in this
period...” (M iller, P. 30). (Reuchlin studied Hebrew for the wrong
reasons. He was prompted by his interest in the wicked occult
Jewish Kabbala and its strange application to Catholic, not
Christian theology; see upcoming chapter on Reuchlin.) Prior to
the KJB, “Fdrster, in his Diet. Hebr. Nov. (Basel 1557), sought
to determine the meaning o f the words from the comparison of
the different passages of Scripture in which they occur, and of
allied words, words having two consonants in common, or two
consonants o f the same organ” (M cClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia o f Biblical,
Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, H arper and Brothers, 1867-1887, vol. 4, p. 139).
Before the KJB o f 1611, word meanings were determined by

“comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” within the Holy
Bible itself. In 1612, after the KJB of 1611, Schindler
introduced the new idea of comparing the Hebrew language to
that of the “dialects” o f the neighboring heathen (M cClintock and
stro n g , vol. 4 , P. 139). Conservatives, such as Jacques Gousset,
revolted against such attempted changes and prepared the
“Commentarii Ling. Heb. (Amst. 1702), in which he follows
strictly the method of deducing the meanings o f the Hebrew
words from the Hebrew itself, rejecting all aid from rabbins,
HEBREW LEXICONS: SUMMARY & UPDATE 965
versions, or dialects (M cciintock and strong, vol. 4 , p. 139). His struggle

was unnecessary as God had already solidified his own English
‘meanings’ o f Hebrew words, directly in the English Holy
Bible.
Step 3:
In the 1700s was introduced “the almost exclusive use of
the Arabic [Koran, et al.] for the illustration of Hebrew
grammar and lexicography” (M cciintock and strong, vol. 4 , PP. 139, 140).
Gesenius and his followers, Brown, Driver and Briggs, have
followed this dangerous path in their Hebrew lexicons.
“Gesenius was the pioneer of a new era o f Hebrew
philology...he divorced Hebrew linguistics from dogmatic
theology...” (Schaff-Herzog, p. 477). “Very often he dropped the
primary meaning which had been proposed by the leaders o f the
Dutch School and their followers in Germany.” “Gesenius
altered the meanings o f some o f the more rare Hebrew words.”
(Miiier, pp. 32-33). Gesenius continually changed his mind in
subsequent editions (see Miller). James Strong identifies Gesenius

as his source of the dangerous Hebrew Old Testament
definitions seen in the Hebrew Lexicon in the back o f his
Strong’s Concordance.
Step 4
Gesenius’ Lexicon began in German, was then
translated into Latin and was edited through numerous editions
by many, many men after Gesenius’ death. Robinson translated
one of these editions into English. This was later thoroughly re-
edited and put into English by Bible critics, Brown, Driver and
Briggs. When someone says, “ ...that Hebrew word means ...”
he is unknowingly reading the English word in the corrupt RV
of 1881, every time he consults the BDB or any Hebrew
reference book. Even Bible critic Frederick Danker warns that
the Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, “relies too

much on word meanings o f the RV” (Danker, Bible Tools, P. 106). RV
translator and pederast, Charles Vaughan, is still seducing
God’s children.
Step 5
The Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon has
been put into numerous ‘Reader’s Digest’ easy-reading editions.
To BDB some add a dash of dust from the Qumran caves (Dead Sea
trash), and a pinch of Ugaritic (via Gordon’s Ugaritic Manual and
Young’s Concordance o f Ugaritic (aka Ugaritic Textbook), both froin ,
Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute. They also add an ounce of
Arabic (Koran?!, via occultist and 1881 Revised Version OT.
translator, William Wright’s Grammar o f the Arabic Language) and a
touch of Aramaic and Akkadian (Babylonian!), from Caplice’s
Introduction to Akkadian, again from Rome’s Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
Put all o f this together and you have created the first
monstrosity, called the Theological Wordbook o f the Old
Testament, edited by NIV committee members, R. Laird Hams
Gleason Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Why play Hebrew and
‘cognate’ games with the Pontiff? Just get an NIV and see
Harris, Archer and W altke’s lexical heresy close up. The
heresies of these men are detailed in the book New Age Bi e
Versions.
The Theological Dictionary o f the Old Testament, edited
by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (various
volumes translated by Willis, Bromiley, and Green) is another
lexicon-type series in which “Rabbinic material is slighted m
favor o f secular “traditions” (Danker, M ulti-Purpose Tools For Bible Study, MN.
Fortress Press, 1993, p. 98).
Analytical Key to the Old Testament, by John Owens,

chimes BDB.
HEBREW LEXICONS: SUMMARY & UPDATE 967
Jay Green’s Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament does a

‘cut and paste’ edition o f BDB above the Hebrew text (see his
preface). How sad that the naive think the English above the
Hebrew is actually the ‘literal’ translation o f the Hebrew, rather
than what it is - ‘the RV and GBDB’ with a little Maurice
Robinson mixed in (He says that he, not Green, really did
Green’s O.T.).
A R eader’s Hebrew-English Lexicon o f the Old

Testament by Armstrong, Bushy, and Carr will give you BDB
also.
Step 6
Why get a Hebrew Lexicon anyway? One can simply
get an RV, ASV, or NIV and read the lexicon’s English word in
the modem version. O h...N ever m ind...I forgot...the purpose
of referring to the ‘Hebrew’ is to make someone, who hasn’t
been shown any insight from the Lord in the English Bible, at
least look or fe e l ‘smart.’
Step 7
Remember, that there are no pure, good Hebrew
reference works. All have been influenced in their so-called
‘meanings’ by the corrupt Hebrew text, corrupt foreign
versions, faulty textual criticism, so-called cognate language
meanings, and finally unbelieving, secular minds and anti-
Semitic roots. Our English Holy Bible, the King James, gives
God’s English equivalents- suited perfectly to each context.
Conclusions about Gesenius’ and Other Lexicons
Gesenius’ Lexicon “is not the finished product which

reviewers in general regarded it to be” (M iiier. p. 93). Therefore, the
foundation o f all o f today’s Hebrew study is faulty.
Part V
Hebrew
Old Testament
Texts
. Hebrew Old Testament

Critical T exts
■ Hebrew Massoretic
Old Testament
Non-Authoritative Texts
HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT CRITICAL TEXTS 969
Chapter 27
Hebrew
Old Testament
Critical Texts
• Manuscripts
- Modern Hebrew Critical Editions
- Jewish Hebrew Bibles
■ Online & Software Editions
• Dead Sea Scrolls
■ Corruptions in O.T. Versions
Edited by
■ Ben Asher
Biblia Hebraica Kittel (BHK)
■ Rudolph Kittel
■ Paul Kahle
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)
■ K. Elliger and W. Rudolf (G erm a n Bible Society)
Other Publishers
■ Baer, Delitzsch, Ginsburg, Snaith et al.
Various Israeli Publishers
■ Mordechai Breuer/Cohen
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Summary: Current Critical Old Testaments

Hebrew Manuscripts
■ Ben Asher Manuscripts: Leningrad &
Aleppo, Cairo, et al..
Hebrew Printed Editions
■ Baer, Delitzsch, et al.
■ Biblia Hebraica (BHK):Rudolf Kittel &
Paul Kahle
■ Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)
■ Biblia Hebraica Quinta
■ British & Foreign Bible Society: Snaith
■ All Hebrew Bibles currently printed in
Israel: (all taken from the Aleppo or
Leningrad codices)
Corrupt Old Testament English Editions
■ Dead Sea Scroll Bible: Abegg, Flint & Ulrich
■ Jewish Publication Society 1999
■ Jewish Publication Society 1917, 1955 (in
Messianic verses)
■ Jerusalem Bible (Harold Fisch, Israel)
■ Judaica Press’s Complete Tanach, Mikraot
Gedolot, ArtScroll Tanach (Mesorah
Publications) Living Torah and Nach (Kaplan),
The Bible Unauthorized and The Jewish Bible
for Family Reading (1957 Gaer), Kehot
Publication Society
■ Various editors: Lesser, Friedlander, Everett
Fox, Chaim Miller, Robert Alter, Manachem
Kasher
■ Old and New Testaments: NIV, NKJV, TNIV,
RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, Holman CSB,
ESV, New Living Translation, The Message,
New Century Version, Net Bible, New
Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible et al..
T his list is representative, not all inclusive, and is continued in
next chapter, w hich includes m uch better but slightly corrupted c
m an H ebrew editions.
Corruptions of the Hebrew Old Testament
he apostle Paul said,
T “For we are not as many, which corrupt the

word o f G od...” (2 Cor. 2:17).
As a Pharisee, Paul knew of various corrupters o f his

Hebrew scriptures. He knew o f the Essene sect that lived by the
Dead Sea, whose sometimes tainted scriptures are now being
used to tamper with the Old Testament text in new versions.
Paul knew the “difference between the holy and profane” (Ezek.
22:26). Modern liberal editors do not know the difference, nor
can they tell us.
Old Testament study and translation has been ill-affected by

six or more corrupters:
1. Corrupt Manuscripts
2. Corrupt marginal notes, which have crept into the text
or which are followed instead o f the pure text; pure
readings in the text which have been discarded and
moved into the margin in certain manuscripts.
3. Corrupt Printed Editions (German, British & Jewish)
4. Corrupt vowel points in either text or margin
5. Corruptions in Old Testament versions in other
languages
6. Currently available Hebrew Lexicons (Hebrew-German,
Hebrew-Latin, and Hebrew-English) all o f which were
created by liberals based on pagan sources and corrupt
texts. (See chapters on Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and
Briggs et al.).
The serious errors brought into new versions by reliance on

marginal readings, corrupt versions o f the Hebrew text, or
conjectural emendations (guesses) exceed any errors which

have crept into the actual Hebrew text.
Corrupt Manuscripts
The Hebrew Old Testament has been subject to far fewer

corruptions than the Greek New Testament. Old Testament
Messianic verses which speak of our Saviour have been
corrupted in Hebrew editions written after Christ.
Corruption of Hebrew manuscripts does not fall into a

neatly defined history like the corruption o f Greek New
Testament manuscripts. Scanlon observes,
“ [TJhough there is usually uniformity in the

manuscripts o f the Masoretic tradition, there are
a few textual disagreements among the
Masoretic manuscripts. Benjamin Kennicott and
J.B. de Rossi, both working in the latter part of
the eighteenth century, published extensive
examples o f these textual variants” (H arold Scanlon,
The D ead Sea Scrolls and M odern Translations o f the O ld Testament,
W heaton, 111.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993, p. 124).
There are thought by some to be two different textual

traditions, one Western (Palestine) and one Eastern (Babylon),
but all Hebrew manuscripts do not clearly break down into two
disparate types. Some say that “the textus receptus” “follows
the Western recension.” Also distinguished are not only the
Occidental and the Oriental, but the differences between the
Ben-Asher and Ben Naphtali traditions. Two o f the older
corrupt Ben Asher manuscripts are the Leningrad MS and the
Aleppo MS. These contain corruptions which are followed by
new versions and are cited favorably in Ginsburg’s notes in his
edition of the better Ben Chayim Rabbinic Bible (Christian d .
Ginsburg, Introduction to the M assoretico-Critical Edition o f the H ebrew B ible, London:
Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897, pp. 217, 438, 385; See Scanlon, pp. 36-37 for an overview o f
current critical theories.).
Leningrad Codex (Codex Leningradensis) is dated A.D. 1008

and was copied in Cairo, Egypt from a manuscript written by
Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. It contains many alterations and
erasures. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein believes that it originally
was not a corrupt ben Asher-type text and was heavily changed.
It does contain the Hebrew vowel points and cantillation signs.
It is now in the Russian National Library at St. Petersburg,
accessed as “Firkovich B 19 A.”
Aleppo Codex (Aleppo, Syria) was edited by ben Asher

himself in the 10th century. The Jews tend to rely on this
manuscript because it is decades older than the Leningrad MS.
It is also revered by them because their rabbi and scholar
Maimonides (A.D. 1135-1204) is said to have used it. He said,
“The codex which we used in these works is the codex known
in Egypt, which includes 24 books, which was in Jerusalem.”
The Aleppo Codex is incomplete, with nearly all o f the first five
books missing since 1947. The codex was smuggled into Israel
in 1958 and entrusted to the Ben-Zvi Institute and the Hebrew
University o f Jerusalem. It is kept in the Shrine of the Book at
the Israel Museum. A few o f the missing pages have shown up,
one in 1982 and another in 2007. The Jews at Aleppo may not
be the best source for pure Jewish manuscripts. “ [T]he Jewesses
of Aleppo adopt a costume resembling that o f their
Mohammedan sisters - a long black cloak enveloping them
from head to foot...” The library o f Aleppo also “contains a
cabalistic [occultic] w ork...written in Cochin in 1497” (see
M aimonides, H ilkhot Sefer Torah in his M ishneh Torah; w w w .Jew ishEncyclopedia.com , s.v.
Aleppo).
Approach #1: There are editors and publishers who produce

printed corrupt Hebrew editions which strictly follow one or
both of these two corrupt ben Asher texts. These include Paul
Kahle, Norman H. Snaith (British & Foreign Bible Society),
and Hebrew University editions.
Corrupt Margins & Methods
Approach #2: Then there are editors and publishers who create
corrupt printed Hebrew editions by beginning with one or both
of these corrupt Hebrew texts (ben Asher). They then change
them based on the marginal Massorah notes and so-called
‘rules’ o f Hebrew grammar. A hybrid Hebrew text is thereby
created.
Historically, many Hebrew Bibles have been accompanied

by marginal notes, which give variant readings. They are called
the Massorah or the Keri (also spelled Qere); it means ‘read.’
The text itself is called the Kethiv (also spelled Ketiv, Kethib);
it means ‘written.’
In some manuscripts the reading in the margin is the reading

in the text of other manuscripts. Critics, who say that ‘the KJV
took a reading from a marginal note in the Hebrew Bible, are
unaware of the fact that the reading is in the text in many
manuscripts, not in the margin. Words pop from text to margin
and back again like popping popcorn in some manuscripts. In
the Hebrew edition that the KJB translators followed, the
reading was in the text, not the margin. It may be in the margin
in some other manuscripts and editions. Ginsburg admits,
“ ...the different Schools o f Massorites were not

agreed among themselves in the critical canons
which they respectively followed. Hence that
which is exhibited as Keri in the margin in a MS.

proceeding from one School is no Keri in the
MSS. which emanated from another School and
vice versa” (G in sb u rg , Introduction, p. 18 5 ) .
An example of this occurs in 1 Kings 22:48 (verse 49 in

Hebrew). Although some texts have “made” in the margin and
“ten” in the text, others have “made” in the text, which is what
the KJB followed. Critics assume the KJB is following the
margin and is in error. Such critics do not know the history of
one-man Hebrew editions, nor the varieties which exist in
Hebrew manuscripts. Their currently printed one-man Hebrew
edition is not the “Originall” to which the KJB translators
referred.
New versions adopt dubious marginal readings and apply a

little linguistic pseudo-science to justify the corruption in their
versions. Note just two examples:
1. In Isaiah 9:3 the text o f the traditional Hebrew Bible (e.g.

Bomberg), the King James Bible, and even the Qumran
Isaiah Scroll (lQ Isa) say,
“Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the

jo y ...”
The NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV turn the
Bible upside down and follow the margin of the Hebrew
Bible. They omit the “not” and say,
“You have multiplied the nation And increased its jo y ...”
Textual critics pretend that this is a homophony (same sound)

wherein LW (“in him”) is pronounced Id, just as L ’ (“not”).
This is just one example o f how critics use pseudo-linguistic
science to uproot the actual written text o f the Hebrew Bible

(G le a s o n A rc h e r, A Survey o f Old Testament Introduction, C h ic a g o : M o o d y P ress, 19 9 4 , p. 6 1) .
2. In Isaiah 49:5 the traditional Hebrew Bible (e.g. Bomberg)

and the King James Bible say,
“ .. .Though Israel be not gathered...”
The NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV follow the
inofgin o f some Hebrew Bibles and oiuit the not saying,
“So that Israel is gathered ..
Hebraist Norman Snaith explains Approach 1 and Approach

2 saying, “Throughout all these details it can be seen that we
have two principles at work: either follow what are believed to
be the best manuscripts [actually the corrupt Leningrad or
Aleppo MSS] with support from the m asorah...or follow the
masorah and the rules of the grammarians with occasional
support from the manuscripts.. (O rlin sk y , H a rry, e d „ The Library o f Biblical
Studies, Jacob Ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah's Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and
English; with Explanatory Notes, b y C h ristian D . G in sb u rg , L L .D . and the Massoreth Ha-
Massoreth o f Elias Levita, In Hebrew, with An English Translation and Critical and
Explanatory Notes b y C h ristia n D . G in sb u rg , L L .D ., “ P ro le g o m en o n ” b y N o rm an H . Sn aith ,
N e w Y o r k : K T A V P u b lish in g H o u se, In c., 19 6 8 , P ro le g o m en o n , p. X X X I ; se e a ls o p. X X X V I ) .
A sample examination o f 1 Samuel reveals that new

versions use a scrambled approach. They all begin with the
corrupt Hebrew text and then make changes to it. The following
shows the number o f times some new versions depart from their
own stated corrupt Hebrew text ( S e e s c a n io n , p. 26).
Revised Standard Version: about 60

New Revised Standard Version: about 110
New English Bible: 160
New American Bible (Catholic): 230
New Version editors think nothing of changing the text as it

appears in the Massoretic Hebrew Bible. The statement in the
preface o f the New English Bible says, “The Hebrew text as
thus handed down is full o f errors of every k in d ...” (S c a n lo n , P . 31).
For example, in 1 Sam. 1:24 the King James Bible follows all
standard Hebrew texts saying, “three bullocks,” while the NIV,
NRSV, and most other versions change it to “a three-year old
bull,” based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX and the Syriac.
In Isaiah 38:16, the KJB joins all Hebrew Bibles, including

the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea, in using the word “Lord.”
The NKJV gives no manuscript evidence (as none exists) for its
rendering “LORD.” James Price, the NKJV Old Testament
editor, is sinking in the sea o f his personal opinion, in the battle
using a rattle instead o f a paddle (S c a n lo n , p. 34 ).
(T h e m an u scripts fro m th e D ead S e a S c r o lls are d iscu sse d n ear the end o f this ch ap ter and in
The Language o f the King James Bible b y this auth or.)
Corrupt Printed Editions
J.H. Michaelis (Halle, Germany, 1720) was one o f the first

to create a hyper-critical Hebrew Bible. Other critics include
Norzi, Lonzano, Jablonski, Wickes, and Heidenheim.
Seligmann Baer (A.D. 1825-1897) followed the notes and
grammar ‘rules’ over the text and added lists o f various
readings at the end. He was joined in the production o f his
“revised Masoretic text” (1869) by “Old Testament critic” and
reviser o f the Luther translation, Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)
(O rlin sk y/Sn aith , “ P ro le g o m en o n ,” pp. X X V II, X X II, X X III et a l.;
w w w .Je w is h E n c y c lo p e d ia .c o m , s .v . D e litzsch , F ran z ; B a e r, S e lig m a n ).
Biblia Hebraica (BHK): R u d o lf Kittel & Paul E. Kahle
Biblia Hebraica (BHK) was edited by Rudolf (also spelled

Rudolph) Kittel (A.D. 1853-1929), the father of Gerhard Kittel,
infamous anti-Semitic propaganda high-priest for Adolf Hitler.
R udolfs anti-Semitic influence sowed the seed which planted
his son Gerhard in prison for war crimes in the deaths of
thousands of Jews. Rudolf studied at the liberal Tubingen
University in Germany and became Professor of Old Testament
at Breslau and Leipzig. Here he wrote critical commentaries on
the Old Testament. Yale University Press’s book, Theologians
Under Hitler said, “ [T]he elder Kittel’s feet were firmly planted
in nineteenth century liberal academ ia...” (R o b e rt E ric k so n , N e w H aven :
Y a l e U n iv e rs ity P re ss, 1 9 8 5 , pp. 4 5 , 4 6).
In 1909 and 1913 Rudolf Kittel published editions of the

Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica (BHK), which contained the
text of ben Chayim, 1524. These two editions are called BH1
and BH2 or generally BHK. To the text Kittel added his own
footnotes which were highly critical of the text. His notes
faulted the traditional Hebrew Bible and suggested replacing it
with corruptions from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint,
the Vulgate and the Peshitta. His notes introduced many
‘conjectural emendations,’ a high-sounding term that simply
means ‘changes based on guesses.’
In 1929 a dramatic change took place. The Foreword to

Kittel’s third edition (BH3) notes that the Hebrew text is now a
“completely new form of the Masoretic text.” He says, “in place
of the text of ben Chayyim” he has used “the text of ben
Asher.” He adds, “ ...the time has now come to go behind the
hitherto accepted form of the Masoretic text, that offered by ben
Chayyim.” He writes, “I prepared the accompanying text after
repeated collations with MS. L [Leningrad] and frequent
consultations o f C [the MS. o f the Prophets from the Karaites in

Cairo], Professor Kahle then went over the whole text once
more with the aid o f the photograph o f L.” Kittel had met Kahle
in 1906 and they began working together in 1926. After the
1917 communist revolution, Moscow continued their
persecution o f the Jews by promoting this corrupt Hebrew
manuscript. Kittel boasted o f —
“The loan o f manuscript B 19A (hereafter

referred to as L) by the Leningrad Public Library
to the Old Testament Seminar o f the University
of Leipzig - a loan magnanimously approved by
the People’s Commission for Enlightenment in
M oscow ...” (K itte l, Foreword, see b elo w ).
Kittel admits his notes for his third edition were also
completely revised. (So much for those scholars who thought
these contained the holy grail.) He admits, “ ...the critical
apparatus given at the end o f each page is not calculated to be
merely a revision of the old apparatus; it is an entirely new
work” (K itte l, Foreword, see b e lo w ). This third edition also reproduced
exactly the marginal notes o f the Leningrad Codex. Kittel’s
notes and suggested alterations remain imbedded in the minds
o f Old Testament critics and today influence many new version
readings.
Kittel’s third edition was published in installments

beginning in 1929, the year o f his death. Paul Kahle (A.D.
1875-1964), also a proponent o f the Leningrad Codex, saw
Kittel’s third edition through all o f the installments until it
appeared in one volume in 1937. In 1937 Kahle joined editors
Alt and Eissfeldt who said, “The principles laid down by Rudolf
Kittel for the carrying out o f the task were not altered.” The
1937 third edition is called BHK “Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, third 9

edition” (Biblia Hebraica, R u d o lf K ittel, e d ., Stuttgart: W u rtte m b erg isch e B ib elan sta lt,
1 9 7 1 prin tin g, F o re w o rd , pp. X X V I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X I X , X X X V I I ; a ll r e fe r to ed itio n s after
1 9 3 7 as K itt e l’ s ed ition s [e .g . W illia m H o lla d a y , A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon o f the
Old Testament, G ran d R a p .d s , M l: E erd m a n s, 1 9 7 1 , p. v ii, “ B ib h a H eb ra .e a (third edrtton,
1 9 3 7 ) ed ited b y R u d o lf K itte l” ; the N A S B p re fa c e . Revised English Bible p re fa c e , Good News
Bible, and S c a n lo n , pp. 3 1 , 3 3 , et al.].)
In 1935 the Leningrad codex was lent to the University of

Leipzig, Germany where Kahle had access to it for two years to
further proofread its transcription for the Biblia Hebraica.
Kahle had studied Semitic philology in Cairo, Egypt. He
became professor of Eastern Studies in Bonn University in
Germany. He was fired for heresy (quite a feat since this was a
very liberal university) and in 1939 fled to Oxford, the heretic s
nesting ground, well-feathered for Bible vultures for decades by
Dean Henry Liddell (See chapter on the Liddell-Scott Greek-
English Lexicon). After the war Kahle returned to work in
Germany. In the 1951 seventh edition Kahle, Alt, and Eissfeldt
added “the variant readings of the complete Isaiah manuscript
from the Dead Sea scrolls ( S e e a lso K a h le ’ s The Cairo Geniza, pp. 1 1 3 fo r ‘ h is ’
sto ry.)
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is a Latin term meaning

‘Stuttgart Hebrew Bible’ (Germany). It is currently published
by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society). (Pop
quiz- Why is Germany not a good place to get a Jewish Bible.)
Answer: It is a revision of the third edition of Biblia Hebraica
and was printed in installments between 1968 and 1976, with a
one-volume edition appearing in 1977. The editors were •
Elliger and W. Rudolf. The text is generally a reproduction o
the Leningrad Codex, which means the books are in a dif eren
order from most Hebrew Bibles (i.e. Job comes after Psalms
and before Proverbs et al.). It does not follow the Leningrad

codex in that Chronicles has been moved to the end as it is in
most Hebrew Bibles. Although both BH3 and BHS claim to be
representative o f the Leningrad Codex, there are differences,
such as those in 2 Sam. 11:1,2 Kings 20:14, and Isa. 3:24. The
footnotes o f BHS have been completely revised. Although they
are based on those in the Leningrad MS, they have been grossly
edited, and are rife with Kittel’s and others’ suggested changes
to the already corrupt Hebrew text. The notes suggest changes
based on the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, the Vulgate,
the Peshitta, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
H O TTP
The Hebrew Old Testament Text Project is sponsored by the

liberal United Bible Societies. This Hebrew edition is intended
as an aid to translators. The text follows the critical Hebrew
texts with dashes o f personal opinion here and there, about
which even critical scholars disagree. Its variants bring even
liberals to accuse its editors o f believing “error, so long as we
have it on paper, is better than truth that is not on paper” (S c an lo n ,
pp. 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 3 ) .
Biblia Hebraica Quinta
Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Fifth Hebrew Bible) is currently being

created by German ‘scholars,’ who are busy carving away at the
BHS. This text will follow the Leningrad Codex with
emendations from the sometimes dry as dust Dead Sea Scrolls.
Isn’t it comforting to know that after thousands o f years, the
critics still have not come upon a pure Hebrew Bible? When
BHQ is released, readings in today’s BHS, which are clutched
as if they were the holy grail, will fade away like a 50 year old
science textbook. They will be replaced by yet another attempt
by ‘scholars’ to discover what God has already placed so

lovingly right in your lap, “the word of God which liveth.. the
King James Bible and other vernacular Bibles.
“For this commandment which I command thee

this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it
far off...Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou
shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea fo r us,
and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do
it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy
mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it”
(Deut. 30:11-14).
The British and Foreign Bible Society
The British and Foreign Bible Society is a non-Trinitarian,

ecumenical organization, with heavy Roman Catholic input
(The Trinitarian Bible Society broke away from them in 1831
because of their rejection o f the Trinity and their use o
apocryphal Catholic books.)
1. The B&FBS’s slightly corrupt 1866 Letteris edition o f the

Hebrew will be discussed in the next chapter. It is used for
Jay. P. Green’s tainted Hebrew-English Interlinear.
2. C.D. Ginsburg, who will be discussed in great detail in the
next chapter, worked with the British and Foreign Bible
Society in the creation of a Hebrew Bible. “In 1904 he was
elected editor of the BFBS New Critical Hebrew Bible, ana
by 1914 [the year of his death] had completed the
Pentateuch, Prophets and part of the writings. The eît1^
was published in 1926. Ginsburg’s friendship with th
B&FBS was so close that he included them in his wi ,
potentially receive the same percentage as a living c ^
(h ttp :// w w w .jsa s o c .c o m /F a m ily _ a rc h iv e /G in sb e rg ; C a m b rid g e U n iv e r s ity L ib ra ry .
and F o re ig n B ib le S o c ie tie s L ib r a ry , L etters and ph oto grap h s o f m em b ers o f the O ld

T esta m en t R e v is io n C o m p a n y , d e p o sited fo r G in sb u rg b y “ h is third w ife E m ilie ”
“ p resen ted to the B ib le S o c ie ty in 1 9 3 2 ,” c. 18 7 0 - 8 5 , BSM S 6 5 1; search :
h ttp ://jan u s.lib .co m .ac.u k ).
3. The B&FBS 1958 edition is by Norman H. Snaith who

made changes based on British Museum Oriental MSS
2375, 2626-27-28. He produced a Ben Asher-type text
(O rlin sk y /S n a ith , “ P ro le g o m e n o n ,” pp. X V I , X V I I , X V I I I ) .
Critical Hebrew Texts vs. Traditional Hebrew Bibles
There are hundreds o f differences between the Bomberg

Traditional Hebrew Bible (see next chapter for a full discussion
o f its editions) and the corrupt Hebrew editions (e.g. Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia, all Jewish and Online Editions) based on the
Leningrad, Aleppo and other Codices. For instance, the Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia changes the name o f God, the
Tetragrammaton, in thousands of places, omitting the cholem
above the third consonant. Kittel boasted in his “Foreward” of
“The new way o f writing the Divine Name” in his text (K itte i, P .
X X V II).
The following is a very partial list o f verses in critical

Hebrew editions which contain corruptions (of words and
vowels which may change words). (S e e K itte l, p. X L fo r B o m b e rg sigla and
its o ccu rren ce in h is fo o tn o tes fo r h is s am p lin g o f v a rian ts fro m B o m b e rg .)
Material textual differences: Joshua 8 :2 2 ,1 Kings 8:31, Isaiah

8:11, 10:15, 15:2, 21:5, 31:1; Jeremiah 5:7, 14:14, 18:4, 25:23,
34:5, 50:9; Ezekiel 31:11, 36:23, Zephaniah 3:15, Zechariah
1:8, Proverbs 8:16, 10:3; Ruth 2:6, Esther 8:11, 9:2; Ezra 8:14;
Nehemiah 7:62; 1 Chronicles 15:2; 2 Chronicles 3:5, 9:18, 22:8,
28:18, 29:18, 34:8.
Vowel Differences: Gen. 9:18, Numb. 16:21, 16:32, Deut.

9:27, 11:29, 15:14, 15:18,27:25,28:29,32:6, 32:15, Judges 8:2;
1 Sam. 29:1, 31:13, 1 Kings 10:27, 2 Kings 23:34, Isa. 5:28,

24:12, Jer. 1:6, 3:6, 5:1, 5:15, 9:17; Ezek. 4:12, 4:12, 16:33,
27'24 27:29, 28:13, 31:7, Hos. 10:14, Joel 2:16, 2:24, Micah
6:3. Hab. 1:6; Psa. 27:4, 45:10, 119:14, Job 5:3, Prov. 8:28,
28-22 Ruth 1:7, 4:17, Song of Sol. 1:6, Eccles. 2:13, 6:8, 9:2,
10:14, Lam. l : i l , 3:8, Esfher 3:15, 7:4, Dan. 6:12, 7:5, 7:9,
9:19, Ezra 3:4, 5:7, 5:12, 10:12, Neh. 2:13, 11:28, 11:32, 12.22,
2 Chron. 3:5, 9:1, 10:10, 11:18, 14:9, 20:2, 31.7
Kethiv - Keri Differences: 2 Sam. 17:16, Jer. 4:19, Prov. 21.9,

E z ra 8:13, 2 Chron. 25:9 et al..
These lists do not include the newest Dead Sea Scroll changes
which will be in the BHQ.
Jewish Bibles:
Will the Real Holy Bible Please Stand Up?
Hebrew Old Testaments are called the Tanakh, the Rabbinic

Bible, or the Mikraot Gedolot. The reader may ask, ‘Why don’t
we go across the sea and find a true Hebrew Old Testament?
Surely the Jews have it.’ No doubt the preserved old Hebrew
scriptures are sitting on a shelf somewhere, jot and tittle intact,
being ignored just as they were before Hilkiah said, “I have
found the book o f the law in the house of the LORD” (2 Chron.
34:14-28). The apostasy which brought about the conflicting
corruptions in the existing Hebrew manuscripts has only grown
worse. Most modern Jews seem to be unaware of the
corruption in their ben Asher texts and are using these
corrupt editions themselves. They are adamantly opposed to
any Messianic Christian readings and will not print them in
their editions. When they rejected their Messiah and the
specific Old Testament verses which spoke of his suffering for
them, they abandoned their role as preservers o f God’s word.

God had another plan —
God seems to see no need for non-Hebrew speaking

Gentiles to have the Hebrew ‘originals’ today. We are now in
“the times of the Gentiles” and God has long ago given the
Gentiles the Old Testament in their own language for our
admonition (Luke 21:24; 1 Cor. 10:11). Since Acts chapter 2,
the Holy Bible has been given to “every nation under heaven”
(Acts 2:5). God has seen fit to ensure the continued purity of
ensuing Old Testament vernacular editions, “purified seven
tim es...in a furnace o f earth” (Ps. 12:6). We see this evidenced
by the fact that old pure vernacular Bibles still have the correct
readings. Exactly how and when God did this is not any clearer
than exactly how, where or when God opened the Jordan to
allow the ark, which contained his word, to pass with the people
o f Israel over to the other side. The Israelites passed to the other
side and so has his Old Testament passed on to the Gentiles in
their own languages.
Even if the Gentiles did have ‘the originals,’ they would

only have the corrupt German-based Gesenius, Brown, Driver
and Briggs Lexicon and its clones to access them. Why would
God leave Gentiles with only the ‘original’ languages, which
they cannot read, hoping they will figure them out using a
dictionary made by critics who hate God and the Bible? (See
documentation in chapters on Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and
Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon.) His yoke is easy.
Most Jews do not speak Hebrew since their worldwide

migration in 70 A.D.. In fact most people o f Jewish origin live
in the United States and speak English. The remainder speak the
language o f their exile and can read its vernacular Bible.
An Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense

Forces said that 90% o f the Jews in Israel can understand
English. Today’s Israeli citizens have immigrated there from
many countries. English has become the common denominator
because it is the only truly international language. They learn
English in school and their perfect American accent shows that
they watch American movies with Hebrew subtitles, which
refines their pronunciation. Sixty percent or more of those
living in Israel can read and write in English. These facts make
it clear why the devil hates the King James Bible. Good
missionaries in Israel use a King James Bible there as often as
possible because o f Hebrew textual varieties, ‘opinions’ about
translation, and the current Israeli ‘excuse’ that the Hebrew Old
and New Testaments available to them are ‘archaic.’ Use of
Hebrew is helpful but not mandatory for missionaries. The older
citizens or impoverished immigrants may not have English
skills. They need missionaries who speak the language of the
country from which they immigrated (Russian, Italian, etc.).
God will certainly spread abroad to “his people their pure
scriptures when they return to him during the upcoming years of
Jacob’s trouble. God preserved it for Hilkiah; he is still
preserving it for the next Hilkiah. He said, “For verily I say unto
you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18). (The
id entities o f th ese m issio n a rie s and th is ID F so ld ie r m ust rem a in a n o n y m o u s fo r secu n
rea so n s.)
Current Jewish Hebrew Old Testaments (All Corrupt)
It appears from this author’s research that all currently

printed or online editions of the Hebrew Bible, published under
Jewish auspice, are from the corrupt manuscripts. If there is
exception, 1 have not been able to find it. (Please also see
next chapter on the Hebrew Massoretic Text.)
Most Jewish editions are based first upon the Aleppo Codex.
Where this codex is missing books and chapters, they generally
substitute the Leningrad Codex. These include, but are not
limited to, the following publishers:
1. The Keter Yerushalayim is based on the corrupt Aleppo

Codex. It is the official Bible o f the State o f Israel. It
was edited by Mordechai Breuer. It is also called
(translated) Jerusalem Crown: The Bible o f the Hebrew
University o f Jerusalem (2000) printed under the
supervision o f Y osef Ofer with new refinements since
the Horev edition.
2. Mikraot Gedolot haKeter, edited by M ena’hem Cohen
with the University o f Bar Ilan, was the first printed
Jewish sponsored edition based on Keter Aram Tzova,
the corrupt manuscript o f Aleppo (Bar-Ilan University
Press, 1992). (This differs from Breuer’s edition of
Aleppo.)
3. Mossad Harav Kuk edition, Mordechai Breuer, ed.,
1977, 1979, 1982.
4. Horev Publishers, Jerusalem, Mordechai Breuer, ed.,
1996-98.
5. Jerusalem Simanim Institute, Feldheim Publishers,
2004.
Some Jewish editions strictly follow the Leningrad Codex:
1. The Dotan edition was given to the soldiers as the

official Bible o f the Israel Defense Forces during the
1990s. It is based on the corrupt Leningrad Codex.
2. The JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (Jewish Publication
Society, Philadelphia, 1999) is based on the Leningrad
Codex.
Online Jewish Hebrew Old Testament Editions (All Corrupt)
1 The Westminster Leningrad Codex is the online digital

edition o f the Leningrad Codex. It is posted by the J.
Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research at
Westminster Theological Seminary. See also the West
Semitic Research Project at University of Southern
California (h ttp ://w w w .ta n ach .u s/T an a ch .xm l).
2. Mechon-Mamre.org provides an online edition of the
Tanakh based on the Aleppo Codex and other Tibenan
manuscripts based on Breuer’s methodology. However,
it does differ from Breuer’s text in some areas. The JPS
English Translation of 1917 is included (m ech o n -m am re.o rg ).
3. LevSoftware.com has a Team to speak’ Hebrew edition;
I contacted them and they have no idea what text it is.
How safe does that sound?
4. TanakhML.org (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and
King James Bible) Do not be fooled by inclusion of the
KJB.
5. Tanach on Demand uses the BHS and the Leningrad
codex.
(S e e last p a g e o f ch apter fo r corru pt Je w is h O ld T esta m en ts in E n g lis h .)
Corruption of the Vowel Points
God spoke to Moses and the prophets. He gave the words of

the Bible to his penmen. Words include consonants and vowels
(somewhat like the English a, e, i, o, u). He did not dictate a list
of consonants to them. God said, “Every word of God i
p u re...” (Prov. 30:5-6). The Bible is replete with references to
the word of God. God wrote words on the tables (Ex 34:1, Deu •
10:2). The prophets, such as Amos wrote words (Amos
Words must contain vowels. A consonant-only text can be
easily mis-interpreted. For instance, the consonants ‘d-b-r’

could be ‘dabar’ which means ‘a w ord,’ deber, which means
‘the pestilence,’ or ‘debar,’ which means ‘to speak.’
Bibles printed in page-blocks were known for centuries

before moveable type was invented. These Bibles had vowel
points. (They are called ‘points’ because many o f the vowels are
made up of dots; old texts show that originally all o f the vowels
may have been made up o f dots.) One o f the oldest partial
manuscripts (Prophet Codex o f Cairo) is pointed and also
covered with diacritical signs. The famed Aleppo and Leningrad
codices both have vowel points. The oldest complete scroll of
the book of Isaiah (lQ Isa3) from the Dead Sea has vowel points
(S c a n lo n , p. 1 1 ) ,
Christians, along with many scholars and orthodox Jews,

have always defended the inspiration o f the vowel points, as
well as the consonants. While the KJB was being translated,
Protestants such as Ussher and Amandus Polanus (1561-1610),
professor o f Old Testament at Basel, supported the inspiration
of the vowels, as did Johannes Buxtorf, Sr. (1564-1629) in his
Thesauras Grammaticus, Commentarius Masoreticus, and
Tiberias (c. 1609-1620). Still available from A.V. Publications
is John G ill’s definitive Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity
o f the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents.
Gill gives an abundance o f evidence that the vowel points were
known before 400 B.C. (L o n d o n , 1 7 6 7 ; rep rint A .V . P u b lica tio n s, P .O . B o x 2 8 0
A ra rat, V A 2 4 0 5 3 , pp. 3 8 -6 6 ; G ill a lso n o tes that A b ra h a m liv e d p re v io u s to the co n fo u n d in g o f
to n gu es at B a b e l; th is o cc u rred n ea r the en d o f P e le g ’ s d a y s w h e n A b ra h a m w o u ld h a v e b een
about 4 8 y e a rs old. T h e re fo re a fte r A b ra h a m w a s c a lle d b y G o d fro m the U r o f the C h a ld e e s he
co n tin u ed to sp ea k H eb re w , the ton gu e w h ic h G o d g a v e A d a m . C h ristian and oth er sch o la rs,
su ch as B u x t o r f and O w e n suppo rted the o rig in a lity o f the v o w e l poin ts. S e e O f the Integrity
and Purity o f the Hebrew and Greek Text o f the Scripture, v o l. I X . The Works o f John Owen, ed.
G o u ld , W illia m H. & Q u ick , C h a rle s , P h ila d elp h ia, P A : L e ig h to n P u b lica tio n s, 18 6 5 et al.).
Only critical editors have questioned the authority of the

vowels (e.g. Ginsburg, Levita, et al.). Ginsburg pretends, “The
Sohar quotes and mystically explains the Hebrew vowel points,
which were introduced for the first time by R. Mocha of
Palestine, A.D. 570, to facilitate the reading of the Scriptures
for his students” (G in s b u rg , The Kabbalah,?. 16 8 ).
Following ben Chayim as editor for Bomberg was Elijah

Levita (A.D. 1468-1549). He began the modem tradition of
questioning the Hebrew text and vowels. He “alarmed orthodox
Jews” by his assertion that vowels points were given by the
Massorites in about A.D. 500 (W ill D uran t, The Story o f Civilization: The
Reformation, V o l. 6 , N e w Y o r k : M J F B o o k s , 1 9 5 7 , p. 7 4 1 ) . MaSOHteS Ben Asher
and Ben Naphtali were purported to be the codifiers of the
vowel points. Henceforth scholars, particularly Bible critics,
refer to the Hebrew Bible with vowel points as the Massoretic
text (also spelled Masoretic). However, Masorete means
‘transmitter’ not ‘inventor.’ The vowel points were a part o f the
originals. The term ‘the Massoretic text’ gives undue reverence
to the Tiberian Massorites.
Levita states that he would only concede an early origin of

the vowels if the occult Kabbala confirmed it. Levita said,
“I shall first do battle against those who say that

[vowel points] were given on Sinai... But if
anyone should prove to me by clear evidence,
that my opinion is opposed to that of our
Rabbins o f blessed memory, or is contrary to the
genuine Kabbalah of the Sohar, I will readily
give in to him and declare my opinion as void”
(E lija h L e v ita , Massoreth Ha Massoreth, trans. G in sb u rg , p. 1 2 1 ) .
Unfortunately for Levita, the Sohar does support the

originality o f the vowels, as Buxtorf notes.
This theory, that the vowel points were not part o f the
'original’ but were introduced by the Massorites, although
“suggested by some Jewish scholars as early as the ninth
century, provoked a great outcry among the Orthodox Jews,
who ascribed to the vowel-points the greatest antiquity”
(w w w .Je w is h E n c y c lo p e d ia .c o m , s.v . L e v ita , E lija h ).
A scholar who lived in the 1600s said, “There are some who
believe the Holy Bible was pointed by wise men o f Tiberias. I
do not wonder at the impudence o f the Jews who invented the
story, but I wonder at the credulity o f Christians who applaud
it (Jo h n L ig h tfo o t, A Chorographical Century, C h ap ter 8 1 , w o rk s, v o l. 2 , p. 7 3 et al., ed.
18 6 4 , as cited in G in s b u rg ’ s The Massoreth haMassoreth o f Elias Levita, “ L i f e o f E lia s L e v it a ,”
L o n d o n , p. 5 8 ; T h is is Jo h n L ig h tfo o t (A .D . 1 6 0 2 - 1 6 7 5 ) not J .B . L ig h tfo o t o f the in fa m o u s R .V .
C o m m ittee).
Hebrew Vowel Points, the Kabbalah, and the Catholics
Some NIV, TNIV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB and NASB errors

are based on the idea that the vowels were not original and can
be ‘tweaked’ based on marginal notes and absurd theories of
textual criticism.
Wicked occultists may have removed the vowel points, as

admitted by cabalistic Rabbis. Defender o f the vowel points,
John Moncrieff, quotes such admissions in 1833:
“ ...it is well known, that, from the time the

Jews became so fond of the allegorical or
cabalistical interpretation o f the Scriptures,
though they did not deny the antiquity o f the
Points, they wrote their principal copies
without them, that they might not be confined
by them to one sense, but might with the letters

alone, be at full liberty to find out a diversity of
senses, just as their extravagant fancy might
suggest. The cabalistic writer, Rabbi
Menahem, says, “the book of the Law, in
which there are many senses to be found,
ought not to be pointed.” Rabbi Bechai,
another cabalistic writer, declares their views
more fully, in not admitting the Points into their
principal copies o f the Law ...he adds, The
consonants, without the Vowel-Points, have
various and beautiful meanings; and accordingly
we have this precept, ‘that we should not add
the Vowels to the book of the law, because
with these, the words can have only one sense,
but without them, they admit of various and
wonderful significations.’” This eager desire to
reach a variety of mysterious senses, accounts, in
no small degree, for their excluding the Points
from their principal copies o f the Law; but
furnishes no valid argument against the antiquity
and utility of the Vowel-Points” (Jo h n M o n c r ie ff, An
Essay On the Antiquity and Utility o f the Hebrew Vowel-Points, G la s g o w :
Jo h n R e id & C o ., 1 8 3 3 , pp. 8 1 - 8 2 ; se e a ls o pp. 8 4 -8 5).
The Catholic church also encouraged the notion that the

vowel points were less than original and came from an oral
tradition, codified by the Massorites c. A.D. 500. This fable was
used by Catholics as a weapon against the preserving work o
the Jews. Such presumed instability gave greater credence to
their corrupt Latin Vulgate. They also used it to combat
Christians who charged their Vulgate with error, based on
readings in vernacular Bibles, which matched the vowel-pointed
Hebrew text. Most importantly the Catholics used the ambiguity

inherent in a vowelless Hebrew text to point to the need for an
infallible pope to interpret the scriptures. Catholic apologist
John Morinus (A.D. 1591-1659) wrote why he believed the
Hebrew Bible was written without vowel points. He says,
“The reason why God ordained the Scriptures to

be written in this ambiguous manner is because
it was his will that every man should be subject
to the Judgm ent o f the Church, and not
interpret the Bible in his own way. For seeing
that the reading o f the Bible is so difficult, and
so liable to various ambiguities, from the very
nature o f the thing, it is plain that it is not the
will o f God that everyone should rashly and
irreverently take upon himself to explain it; nor
to suffer the common people to expound it at
their pleasure; but that in those things, as in other
matters respecting religion, it is his will that the
people should depend upon the priests” |and
might I add ‘bible’ teachers, Greek scholars
and their lexicons] (Jo h n M o rin u s, Exercitationes biblicae de
Hebraici Graecique textus Sinceritate (B ib lic a l E x e rc ita tio n s on the
H eb re w and G re e k T e x t s ...) , E x e rita t, P a ris , 1 6 3 3 , iv . c a p .ii, s .8, p. 2 9 8 ,
a s cited b y T h o m a s R o s s , “ T h e B a ttle O v e r the H e b re w V o w e l P o in ts,
E x a m in e d P a rtic u la rly a s W a g e d in E n g la n d ,” F e b . 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , P a p e r on
file).
Many synagogue scrolls are written without vowels.

Moncrieff gives the Jewish ‘explanation’ as to why synagogue
scrolls are written without vowels, an explanation which eases
the memory o f their original omission by Kabbalistic rabbis.
...the copies for public use are required to be

without Points, in order that there may be the
greater security against all blemishes, copies of

this description are appointed to be used,
exclusively, in their synagogues, as a test o f their
accurate knowledge o f the Law, who are
admitted to read in public” (M o n c rie ff, p. 8 3 ).
Whether missing vowel points, private lexical, mystical or

allegorical interpretation, or corrupt Greek and Hebrew texts,
the devil has found plenty o f loopholes to catch those who
wander away from their vernacular Holy Bible.
Urgent Warning!
Dead Sea Scrolls’ Tour Promotes Mark in the Forehead
A museum tour, featuring fragments from the Dead Sea

Scrolls, slithers its way across America. Naive spectators pay
$12.00 to see these fragments and other samples o f early
‘bibles,’ such as “The first Bible in English printed by and for
Catholics: The “Douai-Rheims” Bible o f 1582-1610 and “early
manuscripts Bibles in Latin,” and “4th century” fragments of a
“Septuagint.”
The Bible warns,
“If any m an... receive his mark in his

forehead...The same shall drink o f the wine of
the wrath o f G od...” (Rev. 14:9, 10).
A booklet sold by the Dead Sea Scroll tour’s ‘curators’ is no

doubt THE MOST FRIGHTENING portent o f the last days that
this author has yet come across. The Ancient Tav, by Frank T.
Seekins has 26 pages which promote taking a mark in the
forehead!! Due to its copyright restrictions, it will be difficult to
quote enough directly from this small booklet to convey the
enormity o f its deception. It states, “In fact, the use o f an X to

mark and sign comes directly from the Hebrew letter Tav and its
use throughout history” (p. 1). The booklet elicits support from
Bible verses which the anti-Christ will mimic, such as Ezek.
9:4-6. It says, “set a mark upon the foreheads o f the m en... Slay
utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and
women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark.” It
adds Rev. 7:3 where an angel “sealed the servants o f our God in
their foreheads.” In both cases these verses were written for
Jews, not Gentiles or Christians. Only the antichrist will mark
the foreheads o f Gentiles. Yet this booklet cites these verses,
along with a long list o f heretics and others throughout history
who promoted the taking of a mark on the forehead by Gentiles.
For support Seekins cites the following:
■ Origen: “the sign made by Christians on the forehead

throughout the early years o f the church...the Greek letter
X .. .This is X as in X marks the spot” ( S e e k in s ,p . 4).
■ Pope Innocent II: “God will know us by the sign.. .marked
on our foreheads” (S e e k in s , p. 7).
■ E ssenes: “When the Essenes baptized their converts they
were marked on the foreheads with a Tav (S e e k in s , p. 4).
■ Tertullian: the mark “predicted would be the sign on our
foreheads” (S e e k in s . p. 3).
■ Catholics: are “marked on the forehead on Ash Wednesday
and at baptism” (S e e k in s , pp. 3 , 1 1 ) .
To promote the taking of the X mark he cites Catholics,

Jerome and St. Francis o f Assisi, as well as the Orthodox
Church and the heretical Jewish Talmud. He adds the “New
Dictionary” of Avraham Eben-Shoshan who cites the mark of X
as an “ancient Canaanite-Hebrew” sign. He tops off his sources
with the “invaluable resource” [corrupt] Gesenius’ Hebrew-

Chaldee Lexicon.
Hold on to your hats...I mean foreheads! In Ezek. 9:4 the

booklet cites the Catholic New American Bible as saying,
“Pass through the city (through

Jerusalem) and mark an X on the
foreheads...”
The Catholic Douay-Rheims, also says, “mark Thau upon
the foreheads of the men” (Tau or Thau was originally a leaning
X; Seekins, p. 16). What is the origin o f such ideas? The wicked
Mme. H.P. Blavatsky in 1877 wrote in Isis Unveiled, “[W]e
find Ezekiel stamping the foreheads o f the m en.. .with the signa
thau, as it is translated in the Vulgate. In the ancient Hebrew
this sign was formed thus X ...” (L o n d o n : T h e o so p h ic a l P u b lish in g H o u se , 1877,
e d itio n 1 9 7 2 , v o l. 2 , p. 3 9 3 ).
1 could write an entire book on the letter X. An aerial view

of the Egyptian pyramids is an x inside of a square. The word
pyramid comes from pyro (fire) and mid (in the middle). Within
the Pyramid two sticks (crossed feverishly in an X shape) create
a spark and hence a fire upon which a human sacrifice was
made. Initiates into the mystery religions lay in a coffin and
cross their arms in the shape o f an X (S e e T e x e M a m , Codex Magica,
A u stin , T X : R iv e rc re st). Lexicographer R.C. Trench posed for his
portrait wearing an X symbol, hung from a ribbon, which hung
round his neck (See chapter ten on Trench to see the picture).
The sinister history of the Dead Sea Scrolls was discussed in

my book, The Language o f the King James Bible. Even Harol
Scanlon, translation advisor for the United Bible Society,
admits “hints o f secret plots to suppress evidence” and “the
suspicion that there is some plot by the people in charge to

suppress documents that they find embarrassing.” He notes that
“Rumors still persist that other major manuscripts have been
withheld from view.” O f the over 800 manuscripts discovered
in the caves, less than 200 contain Old Testament portions. The
scrolls are impossible to date; the guesses range from 250 B.C.
to A.D. 75. Embarrassed scholars had to admit, “The scrolls
confirm the reliability o f the Masoretic Text, thereby adding
almost a thousand years to the antiquity o f the Hebrew text.”
“[I]t can be argued that the Dead Sea manuscripts lend support
to existing translation traditions that rely heavily on the
Masoretic Text” (S c an lo n , P P . 3 , 45 , 107, 139). Today that would include
the King James Bible alone, as all other modem English Old
Testaments translations use a mix o f texts, versions, and
conjectural emendations (guesses).
The Dead Sea Scrolls, because they were the product o f the
Essene sect, contain some corruptions. For example, the NIV
adds words to Ps. 145:5, based on the scroll llQ P s a, which is
notorious for wild “variants” (S c a n io n .p . 126).
In Isaiah 49:5 the traditional pure Hebrew Bible (e.g. Bomberg)

and the King James Bible say,
“ .. .Though Israel be not gathered...”
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NASB,
HCSB, and ESV turn the Bible upside down again and omit the
“not” saying,
“So that Israel is gathered ...”
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible editors admit, “When the

translation o f a passage in the scrolls differs from ...any other
Dead Sea Scroll...the editors presented these variant readings in

the main translation as far as possible.” In other words, if most
of the Dead Sea Scrolls say one thing (and match the KJB) and
one scrap disagrees, this edition gives the impression that THE
Dead Sea Scrolls disagree with the traditional Bible. With one
o f its editors, Eugene Ulrich, as a member of the New Revised
Standard Version Committee, the English is sure to follow the
NRSV and use “inclusive language,” regardless o f what the
scrolls actually say (M artin A b e g g , P eter F lin t, E u g e n e U lric h , N e w Y o r k :
H a rp e rS a n F ra n e isco , 19 9 9 , pp. x v iii, x x x ) .
God has continually preserved his word “which liveth and

abideth forever.” The Dead Sea scrolls merely held a few truths
which we already had in our King James Bibles. However, they
held heaps o f heresy which haunt new versions and those
looking for buried treasure. Buried things are dead; our
Redeemer and our scriptures “liveth.”
Other Language Versions of the Hebrew Old Testament
Whether in their margin or in their text, Hebrew critical

editions and new versions use translations o f the Old Testament,
such as the Septuagint (Greek), Vulgate (Latin), Peshitta
(Syriac) and others. It must be remembered that there are
numerous varying manuscripts o f each of these translations. A
manuscript is a handwritten document. In some manuscripts the
true reading may be preserved; in others it may be corrupted.
There are also numerous printed critical editions in which
editors turn the multitude of conflicting manuscripts into one
printed edition. Modem editors are invariably liberal and pick
and choose readings from those manuscripts which suit their
viewpoint. These printed critical editions may not be reflective
o f all of the manuscripts of that language. Editors have a
tendency to prefer readings which match the critical Greek or
Hebrew texts as well as non-traditional and unusual readings.

The rules of ‘textual criticism,’ which are usually followed,
would not produce G od’s original text. Therefore, to use the
term, ‘the Latin’ or ‘the Syriac’ is invalid (unless the person
using it is aware of the scope o f variants for a certain reading).
These critical editions are most often cited by translators, since
few if any translators have access to all of the actual
manuscripts.
Modem Bible version editors seem to comb these critical

editions for variants to fulfill new version copyright
requirements. Corruptions in new versions sometimes come, not
from the differences in Hebrew editions, but from following
corruptions in various language versions o f the Old Testament.
In some readings these manuscripts have preserved the true
reading, but not in every case. The following is a list o f some of
the Old Testament versions:
■ The Greek Old Testament is also called the Septuagint or

LXX and is seen in Aquila’s, Symmachus’s, and
Theodotian’s Version. These contain numerous errors.
For example: In Isaiah 49:5 the traditional pure Hebrew

Bible (e.g. Bomberg) and the King James Bible says,
. .Though Israel be not gathered...”
The LXX (Septuagint Greek Old Testament) and the

margin o f the Hebrew Bible are followed by the NIV,
TNIV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV. They omit the word
“not.”
“So that Israel is gathered ...”

Origen, who created the text underlying today’s editions of

the Septuagint, corrupted his New and Old Testament verses so
that they would match precisely. (There are reasons why verses
do not match. Examples were discussed in In Awe o f Thy
Word.) New versions which follow these corrupt texts
( Vaticanus, et al.) therefore give the false impression that Jesus
is using a ‘Septuagint.’ The words o f Jesus Christ prove that he
did not use the so-called Septuagint, as some pretend. Jesus
mentioned the three-fold division o f the Hebrew Old Testament
which the Septuagint does not contain. He said,
“These are the words which I spake unto you,

while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
concerning me” (Luke 24:44, Acts 26:22).
The law (torah), the prophets (nebiim) and the writings

(kethubim) make up the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint
does not have such divisions. Also when Jesus said, “From the
blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias...” (Luke 11:51),he
was giving the parameters o f the Hebrew Old Testament. He
began with Abel in Genesis 4:8, then ended with the murder of
Zacharias in Chronicles, the last book in the Hebrew Bible (2
Chron. 24:20-22). The Hebrew Bible places the books in this
order, which the Septuagint does not.
Whether there was a Greek Old Testament before Christ or

not is a moot point. The fact is that the editions used today are
not taken from a B.C. document which Christ could have read.
Today’s editions o f the Septuagint state that they are critical
editions taken from a mix of several manuscripts, usually the
Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. Scanlon admits, “The ancient
Greek translation o f almost the entire Old Testament derives

from a version commonly known as the Septuagint and is found
in the great Uncial manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and
Vaticanus” (S c a n lo n , p. 1 3 3 ) . These manuscripts were created in the
third and fifth centuries after Christ.
Any B.C. witnesses to a Greek Old Testament are scanty

fragments at best whose readings are not represented in the
standard printed editions. These Greek Old Testament witnesses
are limited to the following:
1. Silver Amulets contain the Greek text o f Numbers 6:24-26

dating possibly to the 6th century B.C..
The following Greek texts could easily be A.D. documents,

though scholars try to squeeze them back to the 1st century B.C..
Dating techniques are clearly not that precise. None o f the
evidence from the following is included in the standard editions
o f today’s ‘Septuagint.’
2. The Greek Nash Papyrus contains Exodus 20:2-17 and

Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Its dating is precarious, though some
try to push it back to 100 years before Christ.
3. Papyrus Rylands (P. Ryl Gk 458) contains a few verses
from Deuteronomy. It is precariously dated in the 1st or 2nd
century B.C.
4. Greek papyrus Fouad 266 contains small portions from
Genesis and Deuteronomy. It too is precariously dated in the
1st century B.C..
5. A Greek scroll (8HevgkXII) containing parts o f Jonah,
Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah was
found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars “place it
somewhere in the first century A.D,” though some would
like to push it further back a few years before Christ (H aro ld

S c a n lin , The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations, pp. 8 3 , 4 2 ).
Even Ginsburg admits that the letter describing the creation

o f a B.C. Septuagint is a fraud. O f this letter of “Aristeas, a
Pagan” he says, “It is now generally admitted that this Epistle
[letter] which was written about 80. B.C. is apocryphal” (G in sb u rg ,
Introduction, p. 301). He admits that the Jews thought that the
Septuagint was devilish and not made by seventy-two elders,
but —
“ ...by five and that the day on which it was
made was as calamitous to Israel as the day on
which the golden calf was substituted for the true
God, because the Thorah cannot adequately be
reproduced in a translation. This anathema was
afterwards emphasized by describing its
accomplishment as a national calamity which
was preceded by three days of darkness...”
(G in sb u rg , Introduction, p. 3 0 6 ).
■ Aramaic Targums are corrupt ‘interpretations’ of the

scriptures. For instance, they apply the Messianic prophecy
of Psalm 22 to Esther.
For example: In Isaiah 9:3 the traditional pure Hebrew Bible

(e.g. Bomberg) and the King James Bible say,
“Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the

jo y ...”
The Targums join the margin o f the Hebrew Bible to lead

the NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV to omit the
word “not” saying,
“You have multiplied the nation And increased its jo y ...”

■ Syriac Version (Eastern Aramaic: Peshitta Syriac, Syriac

Hexapla)
■ Latin Version (Old Latin or Itala Version [Sabatier 1739],
Wurzburg Palimpsest, Lyons Codex, Jerome’s Vulgate et
al.)
■ Coptic Version (Sahidic, Bohairic, et al.)
■ Ethiopic Version (Was the Ethiopic eunuch reading from
this inspired Ethiopic “scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16))? The
Ethiopic Version is the Bible o f the Falashas, a group of
African Jews who migrated to Ethiopia during the reign of
King Solomon and the Queen o f Sheba (Philip com fort, The origin of
theBible, W h eato n , 111: T y n d a le H o u se P u b lish ers, 19 9 2 , p. 3 0 6 ).
■ Arabic Version (Saadia Gaon)
■ Armenian Version
■ There are others also...
When the Versions Preserve the Original Reading
It is likely that Old Testament Messianic verses, which

might have been tampered with by unbelieving Jews during the
years follow ing Christ, were preserved by other language
versions of the Old Testament. For example in Psalm 22:16, the
Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Greek Bible preserve “they
pierced my hands and my feet.” The oldest Hebrew witness for
Ps. 22:16, the Dead Sea Scrolls, also matches the KJB (“the
Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever” (5/6HevPS). The scroll has
ka'aru, not ka'ari, like the more recent corrupted Hebrew texts.
Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the words “they
pierced” seemed to contradict the Hebrew text which Jewish
scholars interpreted as saying, “like a lion my hands and my
feet.” In Ps. 22:16 the KJB says, “They pierced my hands and
my feet” based on placing the Hebrew letter “k” as part o f the
verb. The unbelieving Jews o f course rendered it “as a lion my
hands and my feet,” by using the “k” as the word “as,” and
altering the rest to create the word “lion.” However, their newly
created spelling o f the word “lion” (ari) in verse 16 does not
match the standard spelling o f the word lion (aryeh) in verse 13.
This is why the vowel points are so important (A b e g g , The Dead sea
Scrolls Bible, N e w Y o r k : H a rp e rS a n F ra n c isc o , 19 9 9 , p. 5 1 9 ; B u llin g e r , The Companion Bible,
To create a complete sentence,
G ra n d R a p id s, m i, rep rint 1990, p. 7 4 0 ).
Jewish and other new version editors must add words, such as
“they are at” or “they are gnawing at” which are not in the
Hebrew text. They must also ignore the fact that a middle Aleph
is sometimes in words which come from middle Waw verbs
(e.g. la't, lat and m'um, mum).
For over 1900 years the correct reading was missing in

Hebrew Bibles, but preserved in the Latin Bible. The
unbelieving Jews could not bare this verse s witness about the
Messiah they rejected. Likewise, the Greek Orthodox church,
which teaches baptismal regeneration, could not bear Acts 8:37
so they removed it from most Greek manuscripts. It has been
preserved in the Latin and other vernacular editions. The text of
the Bible has not been given to one or two language groups, but
to all. By destroying certain verses, the Jews and the Greek
Orthodox church could be compared to wicked Athaliah. She
thought she had “destroyed all o f the seed royal.” (The Bible is
called the “royal law” 2 Kings 11:1, James 2:8). Yet God hid
one son and preserved the kingly line. Likewise, God preserved
his words in Bibles other than those of the corrupt Greek
Orthodox church and Hebrew nation, when those language
groups destroyed certain readings for sectarian reasons. Charges
that the KJB wrongly followed the ‘Latin’ in a verse are only
made by those who do not understand the history of Bible
preservation.
C hapter 28
Hebrew
Massoretic
Old Testament
Non-Authoritative Texts
Published by
■ Trinitarian Bible Society
■ Jay P. Green (Hendrickson Publishers,
Baker Books, Sovereign Grace, MacDonald
Publishing, and Associated Publishers)
■ British & Foreign Bible Society
■ Software and Online Editions
Edited by
■ Jacob ben Chayim (Chayyim)
■ Ginsburg
■ Letteris (Athias/E. van der Hooght)
Summary: Current Non-Authoritative Texts
All currently printed, facsimile, software, and

online editions of the Hebrew Massoretic Text fail
to reflect the pure historic Massoretic Text in toto
(e.g. Numbers 33:8, 2 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam 16:23, Ruth
3:5, Ruth 3:17, Judges 20:13 et al..) These include,
but are not limited to the following:
■ The Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green,

published by Hendrickson, Sovereign Grace
Publishers, and others. This is the Athias/van der
Hooght/M. Letteris edition from the British and
Foreign Bible Society (B&FBS), 1866. (S e e G r e e n ’ s
P re fa c e .)
■ The British and Foreign Bible Society, The

Holy Scriptures o f the Old Testament, Hebrew
and English. It was edited by J. Athias, E. van
der Hooght and finally by M. Letteris; none of
these names appear in the edition. It is currently
out o f print ( I S B N 0 5 6 4 0 0 0 3 9 6 and oth ers).
■ The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), Holy

Bible, The Holy Scriptures in the Original
Languages, Bomberg/Ginsburg Old Testament
1894 and 1998.
■ All software, online editions and facsimile
editions which use the term “Hebrew Old
Testament” or “Massoretic Text” (sometimes
spelled ‘Masoretic’).
■ All commentaries, lexicons, Bible notes, and
study Bibles which reference “the Hebrew.”
HEBREW: TBS GINSBURG, GREEN, CHAYIM, BOMBERG 1007
Summary: Trinitarian Bible Society (Ginsburg)

1. C.D. Ginsburg (A.D. 1831-1914) admits he does
not follow The Second edition o f the Rabbinic
Bible, the editio princeps of Jacob ben Chayim,
1524-25 Hebrew Bible in some places. Ginsburg
mis-renders the verses listed on the preceding
page, but correctly inserts Joshua chapter 31:36,
37 and Neh. 7:68, which ben Chayim omitted.
Letteris and Green do likewise. Therefore the
Ginsburg and Green editions, the only currently
printed editions o f the ben Chayim-type Hebrew
Bible, do not precisely represent the “Originall”
used by the KJB translators (C h ristian D . G in sb u rg ,
Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition o f the Hebrew Bible,
L o n d o n : T rin itarian B ib le S o c ie ty , 18 9 7 ).
2. Ginsburg’s Massorah (notes) in his Hebrew Bible

are not simply those o f ben Chayim, but include
Ginsburg’s own notes and views which are
radically critical o f many aspects o f the generally
good ben Chayim text. In so doing, Ginsburg did
what Rudolph Kittel did in originally printing a
traditional text, but inserting new critical notes
which suggest different readings, then later
printing a critical text. “In 1904 he [Ginsburg] was
elected editor of the BFBS New Critical Hebrew
B ible...” Ginsburg’s (and Kittel’s) poor
suggestions sometimes match the new corrupt
Hebrew Bible, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,
and new versions.
3. Ginsburg, a foundational member o f the
Westcott and Hort Revised Version Committee,
beginning in 1870, produced an Old Testament
which departed from the traditional Hebrew text.
4. Ginsburg was a member o f “The National Liberal
Club” (The Times, “ D r. G in sb u rg and the S h a p ira M a n u scrip t,” L o n d o n ,
W e d n e sd a y , M a rc h 1 1 , 1 9 1 4 ) .
Summary: Ginsburg’s Heresy
5. Ginsburg was a proponent of some o f the views

of German “Biblical criticism,” which sought to
destroy the Holy Bible. He denied that Solomon
penned Ecclesiastes (G in sb u rg , Introduction, p. 2 9 5 et al.).
6. Ginsburg wrote an entire occult book, called The

Kabbala, promoting the theories o f this evil
Jewish mystical system and his female ‘god,’ En
Soph (C h ristian G in sb u rg , The Kabbalah, The Essenes, N e w Y o r k :
Sa m u e l W e ise r, 1 8 6 4 , rep rint 1 9 7 2 ) .
7. Ginsburg was an attendee at the Luciferian

Theosophicai Society’s Meeting in Piccadilly,
England, where Madame Blavatsky spoke.
8. The most wicked book that has ever been

written, The Secret Doctrine by Madame
Blavatsky, teaches that Lucifer should be
worshipped. She bases some of her book on
Ginsburg’s book, The Kabbala. Blavatsky
footnotes Ginsburg to support her views.
9. Ginsburg is said to have ‘converted’ from

Judaism to Christianity, but the Christianity he
espouses appears to have been to “another
gospel,” since it includes infant baptism.
10. Ginsburg wrote a book (essay) entitled The

Essenes, in which he extols the occult views of
this esoteric group o f Jews who before Christ
rejected God’s system o f temple sacrifice. He
teaches “another Jesus,” saying that Jesus was
an Essene and had been initiated into their cult
(G in sb u rg , The Essenes, e.g . p. 24 ).
(D o cu m en tatio n in ch ap ters)
HEBREW : TBS G IN SBU RG , GREEN, CH A Y IM , BOM BERG 1009
C . G in sb u rg
H .P. B la v a tsk y
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Non-Authoritative Massoretic Hebrew Old Testaments
o you believe God inspired any one man, to create an
D edition o f the Hebrew Bible which does not match

any other Hebrew Bible or any other Holy Bible on
the face o f the earth? We are told to swallow this bait — hook,
line and sinker, without a whimper. Neither ben Chayim
(1524), Letteris (1866), or Ginsburg (1894, 1998) were inspired.
The three disagree with each other, as will be demonstrated in
this chapter. They do not represent the “Originall” Hebrew
followed by the King James Bible translators. These Hebrew
texts, unwittingly scoured and empowered by naive Christians,
are good for showing errors in the corrupt Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia, but they are not “very pure” like the Holy Bible
(Prov. 30:5, Ps. 119:140). They are one man editions —
intellectual exercises. The current overblown romance with
‘the’ Hebrew will crash like a teenage crush when the lights
come on through the documentation in this lengthy chapter.
Please read this chapter in its entirety.
Today the only two Traditional Massoretic Hebrew Bibles

in print are slightly corrupt and do not match each other, the
King James Bible, or even the ben Chayim Rabbinic Bible
(1524-5).
1. The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), London, prints
Ginsburg’s Massoretico-Critical Edition o f the Hebrew
Bible as the Holy Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the
Original Languages, Bomberg/Ginsburg Hebrew Old
Testament 1894, 1998. It is a hardback volume printed
with Scrivener’s slightly marred Greek New Testament.
It has changes from the ben Chayim, as well as mis-
renderings in the verses listed in the ‘Summary’ boxes
on the preceding pages. Ginsburg followed Biavatsky.
2. The British and Foreign Bible Society printed the

Letteris edition as The Holy Scriptures o f the Old
Testament: Hebrew and English. This 1866 edition is
now wwavailable from the B&FBS. Like the TBS
edition, it also exhibits changes from the text o f the
Jacob ben Chayim’s (also spelled Chayyim, Hayyim or
Haim) first edition o f 1524-25, as well as mis-rendering
the verses listed in the ‘Summary’ boxes on the
preceding pages. The Encyclopedia Judaica boasts that
Letteris “deleted all christological references” when he
translated Goethe’s Faust. He also promoted and
“published a Spinoza biography.” Spinoza was a monist
and a pantheist, believing that all was God (Je ru sa le m , Isra el:
K e te r P u b lish in g H o u se, 1 9 7 1 , s .v . M e ir L e tte ris, 1 8 0 0 - 1 8 7 1 ) .
Those who are merely pretending to read Hebrew use

this British and Foreign Bible Society’s Letteris edition
in Jay P. Green’s The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-
Greek-English published by Hendrickson, Sovereign
Grace Publishers, and others. Letteris’s name appears
nowhere on any o f these editions. (All online interlinear
editions are likewise corrupted, both in their English and
H eb re w (e .g . h ttp ://scrip tu re4 all.o rg/O n lin e In terlin ea r/O T p d f/e ze 27 .p d f).
Other print, online, and software publishers use Ginsburg or

Letteris’s texts without naming these editors. If you see a
Hebrew Old Testament in print, in software, online, or referred
to in a commentary, Bible margin, or lexicon it:
1. was edited by Letteris, Ginsburg or is a hybrid.

2. is the corrupt Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia or another
corrupt Hebrew edition cited in the previous chapter.
3. is a Jewish publication of the corrupt Leningrad or
Aleppo texts.
4. is a Jewish National and University Library Digitized

Book Repository edition of the ben Chayim, which, it like
the original 1524-25 edition, is missing verses and words
(h ttp ://w w w .jn u l.h u ji.a c .il.d l/b o o k s/h tm l/b k l2 6 8 18 4 .h tm ).
There are no printed, online, or software Hebrew Bibles

which are authoritative in the minutiae; there are no
exceptions, I have found. Read this entire chapter to find
out why. All o f these editions exhibit deviations from the
historical ‘Massoretic Text.’ They are one-man editions, and as
such, are subject to human error. Ginsburg refers to his as “my
edition of the Bible” (G in sb u rg , introduction, P . 4 2 6 ). They are not God s
preserved Holy Bibles which are examined minutely and used
daily by the New Testament priesthood of believers. God’s
people, the church, are “the pillar and ground o f the truth,” not
the college, the scholar, or the publisher (1 Tim. 3:15). The Old
Testament, “the word of God, which liveth and abideth for
ever” has been preserved perfectly and spread widely in a sea of
l i v i n g vernacular translations (1 Peter 1:23).
Jay Green’s Hebrew-English Interlinear

(Sovereign Grace, Hendrickson and others)
Never lean on the Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green,

published by Hendrickson, Sovereign Grace Publishers, or any
other publisher. This rubber crutch Hebrew-English Interlinear
is 5 0 unreliable that it often does not even translate into English
the same Hebrew text that it gives! For example, in Jer. 51:3 the
Hebrew text has vowel points for the repeated words “Against
and “against” as seen in Green’s Hebrew; however Green’s
English says “not” and “nor” following corrupt vowel points,
not shown in his own Hebrew text, but seen in corrupt Hebrew
Bibles and new versions. The King James Bible o f course has
the correct “Against” and “against.” Even Ginsburg admits that
here “The Authorized Version [KJB] follows the Kethiv” (the

text) not the margin (G in sb u rg , Introduction, p. 3 1 7 ) .
The Hebrew Text o f Green’s Bible is that o f Letteris “ 1866

by the British and Foreign Bible Society” (jay p. G re e n , s r ., The
Interlinear Bible Hebrew-Greek-English, P e a b o d y , M a s s.: H en d ric k so n P u b lish ers, P re fa ce ,
It is not strictly the ben Chayim edition, nor the Hebrew

19 8 6 ).
Massoretic Text that God providentially placed in the hands of

the KJB and other vernacular translators. Green’s Hebrew
follows Hebrew editions which have been “edited” with
“changes.” (Examples o f the errors in Letteris’ Hebrew text will
follow.)
Step 1: “Joseph Athias (Amsterdam, 1661) edited the

text, using B uxtorf s edition (Basel, 1618-19, a reprint
o f Bomberg’s third edition (1546-48 by Cornelius
Adelkind) and the traditional one, that had come down
from Soncino (1488), with a comparison o f two
manuscripts. This was reprinted by Leusden in 1667.”
Step 2: In 1705 E. van der Hooght (Amsterdam and

Utrecht) made “practically a reprint o f the Athias-
Leusden edition...” with “variants taken from a number
o f printed editions” (Bagster’s Polyglot, London, 1821
used Van der Hooght).
Step 3: “ [T]he edition of M. Letteris (Vienna, 1852)

showing very few changes. This last edition was
reprinted with clear-cut type by the [ecumenical and
Catholic dominated] British and Foreign Bible Society
(Berlin, 1866)...” (T h e B & F B S a g ain prin ted th is ty p e o f te x t in 1 9 1 1 - 1 9 2 6
w ith ea rlie r h elp fro m G in sb u rg ; w w w .Je w is h E n c y c lo p e d ia .c o n i, s.v . B ib le
E d itio n s).
(I h a v e b een told that P ro fe s so r M au rice R o b in so n , w h o created his co rru pt s o -ca lle d

M a jo r ity ’ te x t fo r h is The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, 2 0 0 5 et
al d id the O .T . w o rk fo r G re e n ’ s O ld T esta m en t In terlin ear. W h o e v e r d id it can n ot or d id not
read h is s p e c ific a d jo in in g H eb re w text and tran slate it into E n g lish . It ap p ears that he m ere ly
does not
c o p ie d at tim es fro m a m o d em E n g lish v e rsio n , E n g lish in terlin ear, o r le x ic o n w h ic h
follow his H eb re w te x t p re c is e ly , b y a n y stan d ard s; The Hebrew-English Interlinear, J a y P.
G re e n , P e a b o d y , M A : H en d ric k so n , v o l. II, p. x iv ).
Green’s Interlinear Bible Greek-Hebrew-English is

untrustworthy, both in its Hebrew text and in its grossly
perverted English interlinear. Green’s editor has used corrupt
lexicons to create his English interlinear (see other chapters for
details).
My Examination
A Hebrew Text o f the Old Testament is as vast as the

Pacific Ocean. But an oceanographer could examine enough of
the Pacific in one day to determine that it contains salt and
pollution. His quick but microscopic examination would make
it clear that one should not drink directly from the ocean
(without clearing it through a distiller) or imbibing from a
Hebrew text without clearing it through a vernacular Holy
Bible). I carefully examined the Hebrew text o f various portions
o f the TBS (Ginsburg) and B&FBS (Letteris, Green &
Hendrickson et al.) editions. They contain plenty of preserving
salt, but are also peppered in tiny points with pollution. For
reference I have the original Second Edition of the Rabbinic
Bible, also called the editio princeps o f Jacob ben Chayim with
Massorah, Venice 1524-25.1 also have from Germany a Rudol
Kittel 7th edition of the corrupt text. I am in my third reading ot
the highly technical 1,028 page edition o f Ginsburg’s
Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition o f the Hebrew
Bible. Unless one has read the entire 1,028 pages of Ginsburg s
Introduction he cannot understand the textual variants whic
Paul spoke of when he said, “We are not as many which corrup
the word of God” (2 Cor. 2:17).
In reading the Hebrew texts of the TBS and B&FBS

editions, which I have been accessing as needed for nearly 20
years (never o f course for study, but only to prove errors in the
corrupt versions), I discovered that the TBS, B&FBS, and
Hendrickson /Green editions are not as pure as God’s rain from
heaven, nor as pure as those living waters purified seven times
for Holy Bibles (e.g. KJB). What I discovered, although not a
word-for-word collation of the entire Hebrew Bible, is enough
to resign these texts permanently to the shelf and thank God that
Christians have a Holy Bible that they can love, read and trust
completely. However, I must thank God that the TBS printed
Hebrew edition is still available since it is useful in refuting the
corrupt Hebrew Old Testament, the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia, as well as the corrupt Old Testament readings in
the NKJV, NIV, NASB, TNIV, HCSB, and ESV, which were
taken from corruptions in various texts, versions and marginal
r e a d in g s . (F o r this reaso n the G in sb u rg , L etteris, and ben C h a y im ed itio n s h a v e b een
o ffe re d at a v p u b lic a tio n s.c o m with the caveat that th ey are only to b e u sed to e x p o s e erro rs in
n ew v e rs io n s, not to fa u lt th e H o ly B ib le o r to d e fin e its w o rd s w ith le x ic o n s.
Not Ben Chayim
Although we have been told that the TBS (Ginsburg) and

B&FBS (Letteris, Hendrickson, and Green) texts are the word-
for-word, letter-for-letter ben Chayim text, they are not.
Ginsburg’s misrepresentation has become the party line, and is
partly a lie.
Lie #1: Ginsburg said, “The Text itself is based upon that of
the First Edition o f Jacob ben Chayim’s Massoretic Recension,
printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in the year 1524-5” (G in sb u rg ,
Introduction, P re fa c e ; see a ls o h ttp ://w w w .trin itaria n b ib leso cie ty .o rg /site/a rticle s/h e b .a sp ).
Lie #2: Ginsburg said, “No variations, however strongly

supported by Hebrew Manuscripts and Ancient Versions, are
introduced into the Text itself’...“All variations are relegated

entirely to the margin” (G in s b u rg , Introduction, P refa ce ).
The Truth: Omitted Verses in ben Chayim
1.) The original ben Chayim Hebrew Bible wrongly omitted

Joshua 21:36, 37.
“Jacob b. Chayim was the first who omitted

these verses in the editio princeps of his
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah of 1524-1525
(G in sb u rg , Introduction, pp. 1 7 9 , 18 0 et a l.).
O f course these two verses do belong in the Bible and are

exhibited in most of the Hebrew manuscripts. The King James
Bible rightly includes these two verses. This proves that the
KJB translators DID NOT follow the ben Chayim exclusively.
These verses are in the Hebrew manuscript at Vienna in the
Imperial and Royal Library (No. 4) and were plentifully
available in numerous manuscripts and printed editions as
described in Ginsburg’s Introduction (See p. 478, Harley 1528; p.
495, Harley 5774-5775; p. 504, Arundel Oriental 16; p. 514, K ing’s 1; p.
528, Add. 9398; p. 585, Add. 15250 which has a fuller reading; p. 611, Add.
15451; p. 669, Oriental 2201; p. 725, Oriental 4227; p. 746, G.2.; p. 775,
M adrid University Library, Codex No. 1.; p. 830, The edition princeps ot the
entire Bible, Soncino, 1488; p. 873, The third edition o f the entire Bible
Brescia, 1494; p. 883, The Former Prophets with the commentary ot
Abravanel, Pesaro, 1510-11 et al.).
The KJB translators had access to manuscripts and printed

Bibles which included these verses. They were included in the
earlier Bomberg press’s edition princeps of the Rabbinic Bible
in four parts edited by Felix Pratensis, Venice, 1516-17, who
“utilized the printed editions o f his predecessors” for the text.
They were in the second quarto edition of the Bible, Bomberg,
Venice, 1521. They were in The Bible, Bomberg, 1525-1528
(quarto), which is a fusion o f ben Chayim’s and Pratensis’s

texts. This 1525 edition quickly reinstates the two verses taken
out by ben Chayim. Ginsburg says o f the 1525 edition that “The
text as a whole is substantially that o f Felix Pratensis,” a monk
who dedicated his edition to the Pope. It was popular “at the
time of the Reformation.” One copy has “notes in the
handwriting o f Luther,” who also used the Brescia edition of
1494 (G in sb u rg , Introduction, pp. 9 4 7 , 9 7 5 , 9 5 5 , 9 7 5 , 9 76 ).
Even Ginsburg admits that,
“ ...som e o f the model Codices and the

Massoretic Annotators not infrequently differed
in their readings, and that Jacob b. Chayim had
to exercise his own judgment as to which was
the better reading. In this respect a modem editor
is not bound to abide by Jacob b. Chayim’s
decision. A striking illustration o f this fact we
have in the two verses o f Joshua XXI, viz, 36,
37. We have seen that some of the best MSS. and
all the early editions without exception have
these two verses. Jacob b. Chayim, however,
decided to omit them in accordance with a
certain School o f Massorites, but we are
perfectly justified in restoring them on the
authority which we have adduced” (G in sb u rg ,
Introduction, p. 9 65).
The few manuscripts which do omit these two verses are based
on a slip of the eye (homoeoteleuton) since the following verse
(v. 38) begins with the same words.
2.) The original ben Chayim edition wrongly omitted

Nehemiah 7:68.
Nehemiah 7:68 is in the King Janies Bible and was in the

following printed Hebrew Bibles:
■ The editio princeps of the entire Bible, Soncino, 1488.

■ The third edition o f the entire Bible, Brescia, 1494.
■ The Second quarto edition o f the Bible, Bomberg,
Venice, 1521 (before the ben Chayim).
- The Bible, Bomberg, 1525-1528 (quarto), (after the ben
Chayim) (G in sb u rg , Introduction, pp. 8 3 0 , 8 7 3 , 9 5 5 , 9 7 5 ).
It is in numerous manuscripts as well (e .g . O rien tal 4 2 2 7 ; se e G in sb u rg ,
Introduction, p. 7 2 5 et al.).
The Truth: Ginsburg does not follow Chayim (or anyone!)
Hebraist Norman H. Snaith, editor o f the 1958 Hebrew

Bible published by the British and Foreign Bible Society said in
his Prolegomenon, “Ginsburg did not follow Jacob ben
Chayyim as closely as he suggested...for him one manuscript
was as good as another.” Snaith cites Ginsburg as saying, The
text presented in this book is substantially that o f the first
edition of Jacob ben Chayim’s Massoretic Recension, printed
by Bomberg in Venice in 1524-25.” Snaith continues,
“The word “substantially” is a very useful word,

and usually it covers a multitude o f sins; but
Ginsburg’s statement is saved by the word
‘recension.’ It is actually a recension, because it
differs often from Jacob ben Chayyim’s text”
(S n a ith ’ s qu o tation and co m m en t m ust fo llo w a r e v is e d P re fa c e , a s it d o es
not m atch the p re fa c e in m y p o s se ss io n ; H a rry O rlin sk y , e d ., The Library
o f Biblical Studies, Jacob Ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction to the
Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English; with Explanatory Notes, b y
C h ristian D . G in sb u rg , L L .D . and the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth o f Elias
Levita, In Hebrew, with An English Translation and Critical and
Explanatory Notes b y C h ristia n D . G in sb u rg , L L .D ., “ P ro le g o m en o n b y
N o rm an H . Sn aith , N e w Y o r k : K T A V P u b lish in g H o u se , In c., 19 6 8 ,
“ P ro le g o m e n o n ,” p. X l l) .
Snaith cites Ginsburg’s idiosyncrasies in 1 Sam 15:6, Josh.

5:6, 1 Sam. 1:4 and others places. In Josh. 5:6 “Ginsburg stands
virtually alone, notes Snaith (L e tte ris d o es not fo llo w G in sb u rg at this poin t;
O rlin sk y /S n aith , “ P ro le g o m en o n ,” p. X I II ) .
In conclusion, none o f the current editions o f the Massoretic

Text are the text of ben Chayim. The King James Translators
did not follow ben Chayim exclusively. Chayim is not the holy
grail. Orlinsky notes that in his recent experience with printed
editions “none can claim to being the masoretic text,” but that
there can be masoretic text (O rlin sk y /Sn a ith , “ P ro le g o m e n o n ," O rlin sk y , p.
X V , X X X V I ; Sn aith , p. X I V ) .
King James Bible Follows Old English Bibles, Better

Vernacular and Hebrew Bibles, Not Ben Chayim
Exclusively
Although the KJB translators followed “the Originall sacred

tongues, together with comparing o f the labours, both o f our
own [previous English Bibles] and other foreign languages
[Chaldee, Syriac, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch] o f many
worthy men who went before us,” they did not follow the 1524-
25 edition of ben Chayim when it disagreed with earlier English
Bibles or foreign editions. The “Originall sacred tongues” were
not their ‘final authority,’ according to their own admission.
(“ D e d ic a to ry ,” “ T ran sla to rs to the R e a d e rs ,” H o ly B ib le , L o n d o n : R o b e rt B a rk e r, 16 11).
Chayim’s small errors were quickly fixed by Bomberg’s next

editor in 1525. (It is no longer available in print.)
The following are 8 examples of why the current printed

and software editions of the Massoretic Hebrew Bible
cannot be used to ‘correct’ the Holy Bible, to study the Holy
Bible, or be used to translate Holy Bibles. The examples are
serious only in the sense that Hebrew editions which omit these
words are not following the pure Massoretic Text and are
therefore guilty o f disobeying God’s command to “diminish not

a word” (Jer. 26:2). God commands that we “not add” or
“diminish” from the text (Deut 4:2 et al.). Praise God that Holy
Bibles are holy. Period. (Critics could have learned that by
simply reading and believing the Holy Bible’s cover, thereby
saving much wasted effort.)
Eight strikes against Massoretic Hebrew one-man editions:
1. In Numbers 33:8 the KJB says, “and they departed from

before Pi-hahiroth.” The KJB does not follow the ben
Chayim text, but adds “the textual reading in many
[Hebrew] MSS., in the Samaritan, the Chaldee, the
Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate” (G in s b u rg , Introduction, p.
192 ). He also reports that the KJB here exactly matches the
1545 German Luther, the 1531 Swiss German Zurcher, the

1532 French Olivetan, the 1855 French Martin, the 1641
Italian Diodati, the 1637 Dutch SV, the 1569 Spanish Reina,
and the 1865 Spanish Valera.
2. In 2 Sam. 8:3 the King James Bible says “the river

Euphrates.” Ginsburg admits that “ ...this reading was
exhibited in some MSS. As this is actually the textual
reading in the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 18:3...” In these
manuscripts it is in “the text” in 2 Sam. 8:3 not in the
margin. Wrongly, the Hebrew texts of Ginsburg (TBS) and
Letteris (B&FBS, Hendrickson, Green) merely say, “the
river.” In this case the KJB is not following the Hebrew of
ben Chayim or the text-type o f Ginsburg (TBS) or Letteris
(B&FBS, Hendrickson, Green), but the “Originall,” as noted
on their title page, as well as all vernacular Bibles (Ginsburg,
introduction, p. 310 ). Nico Verhoef reports that the KJB reading
matches exactly the 1545 German Luther, the 1531 Swiss

German Ziircher, the 1532 French Olivetan, the 1855

French Martin, the 1641 Italian Diodati, the 1569 Spanish
Reina, the 1865 Spanish Valera, and the 1637 Dutch SV.
Nadine Stratford o f France reports that the KJB also
matches the 1669 French Geneva, the 1744 Martin, 1996
French Ostervald, the Darby 1988, the BFC Franâis
Courant, and a half-dozen more modem French Bibles.
3. In 2 Sam. 16:23 the King James Bible says “as if a man.”

Ginsburg admits, these words are “in the text after the verb”
“in some [Hebrew] MSS., in several o f the early editions
and in the ancient Versions” (G in sb u rg , introduction, p. 310). Critics
of the KJB will pretend that the KJV got it from the
margin, as they likewise pretend regarding 2 Sam. 8:3;
however, as stated earlier, things which are in the
margin in one manuscript (and in Ginsburg’s ben
Chayim), are IN THE TEXT in other manuscripts.
Ginsburg (TBS), Letteris’s (B&FBS, Hendrickson, Green)
and ben Chayim do not have the words “as if a man.”
Therefore the KJB did not follow the ben Chayim edition or
a text like theirs here. Nico Verhoef reports that the KJB
matches exactly the 1545 German Luther, the 1531 Swiss
German Ziircher, the 1532 French Olivetan, the 1855
French Martin, the 1641 Italian Diodati, the 1569 Spanish
Reina, the 1865 Spanish Valera, and the 1637 Dutch SV
(ital.). Today’s French King James Franâise also matches
the KJB.
4. In Ruth 3:5 the King James Bible says, “all that thou sayest
unto me I will do.” Ginsburg (TBS), and Letteris (B&FBS,
Green, Hendrickson, et al.), and ben Chayim omit “unto
me.” Ginsburg admits that “unto me” is “in the text in
many MSS., in several o f the early editions, in the Chaldee
and in the Syriac...” Again critics will tell you that the KJB
follows the margin (keri), not knowing that MOST
HEBREW manuscripts have “unto me” in the TEXT, not in
the margin. Ginsburg’s “own Massorah” [marginal keri]
hides the truth saying “unto me” is a marginal keri reading!
(G in sb u rg , introduction, p. 312 ). His margin has many such distortions.
Nico Verhoef reports that the KJB exactly matches the 1532
French Olivetan, the 1855 French Martin, the 1641 Italian
Diodati, the 1865 Spanish Valera, and the 1637 Dutch SV
(ital.). Nadine Stratford reports that the KJB reading is seen
in all old French Bibles, such as the 1669 French Geneva
and the 1744 Martin, as well as most modem French Bibles.
5. In Ruth 3:17 the King James Bible says, “to me.” Ginsburg
(TBS), Letteris (B&FBS, Hendrickson, Green), and ben
Chayim omit these two words. Ginsburg admits, “As in the
preceding passage the [his] Keri is exhibited in the text in
many MSS., in several o f the early editions, in the Chaldee,
the Septuagint and the Syriac” (G in sb u rg , introduction, p. 312).
Therefore when you are told that the KJB derived its
reading from the keri margin, remind them that MOST
manuscripts have it in the text, not in the margin. Ginsburg’s
marginal notes do not tell the truth, calling it a keri reading.
Again the KJB did not follow ben Chayim or the erring
Ginsburg, Green-type text. Nico Verhoef reports that the
KJB matches exactly the 1545 German Luther, the 1531
Swiss German Ziircher, the 1641 Italian Diodati, and the
1637 Dutch SV (ital.) Nadine Stratford reports that the KJB
reading is seen in all old French Bibles, such as the 1669
French Geneva and the 1744 Martin, as well as most
modem French Bibles.
6. Judges 20:13 in the King James Bible says “children of

Benjamin.” Ginsburg (TBS) and Letteris (B&FBS,
Hendrickson, Green) and ben Chayim omit “children o f ’

before “Benjamin.” As always Ginsburg pretends the KJB
has a marginal keri reading, but admits in the next breath
that “other MSS. again have “sons of,” [“children o f ’] in
the text which is also exhibited in the Chaldee, the
Septuagint and the Syriac...” (G in sb u rg , Introduction, p. 3 1 3 ) . NiC0
Verhoef reports that the KJB matches exactly the 1545
German Luther, the 1531 Swiss German Ziircher, the 1532
French Olivetan, the 1855 French Martin, the 1641 Italian
Diodati, the 1569 Spanish Reina, the 1865 Spanish Valera,
and the 1637 Dutch SV. Verhoef observes that his Hebrew
from the 1740s reads in the text here as the KJB. His is a
Hebrew-Greek diglot in right column, and the German
Luther, old letter type, in the left column.
Items one through seven are in V erhoef s 1740 Hebrew edition,

either in the text or in the margin.
Ginsburg’s admissions that ‘these words are in many

manuscripts’ can not be readily found in the notes o f his
Hebrew edition for all to see, but are hidden away in tiny print
in his huge 1,028 page Introduction which few have ever read.
The correctness of the King James Bible’s readings in these

verses (and others) is confirmed by their agreement with all
good vernacular editions. Surprisingly, the no longer printed
1917 Jewish Publication Society’s English edition o f the
Hebrew Old Testament matches the KJB almost entirely in
these verses, even though it states that it followed Ginsburg,
Baer (and Driver; see Preface). Ginsburg had some problems;
Baer had big problems. Apparently the JPS had access to
correct Hebrew manuscripts, not available today, or they used
the King James Bible and not a Hebrew Bible as their final
authority. Although they were Hebrew scholars, it appears that

they recognized the authority of the vernacular Holy Bible.
However they admit in their preface that they will NOT
translate the Messianic verses as the Christians do, therefore
their edition is not authoritative. They say,
“The repeated efforts by Jews in the field of

biblical translation show their sentiment toward
translations prepared by other denominations.
The dominant feature of this sentiment, apart
from the thought that the christological
interpretations in non-Jewish translations are out
of place in a Jewish Bible, is and was that the
Jew cannot afford to have his Bible translation
prepared for him by others” (The Holy Scriptures,
P h ila d e lp h ia : T h e Je w is h P u b lica tio n S o c ie ty o f A m e ric a , 1 9 1 7 , 1 9 5 5 , p.
v).
For instance, the Jerusalem Bible as well as the original
Jewish Publication Society’s rendering of the Messianic verse,
Isaiah 9:6 (verse 5 in the Hebrew Bible) transliterates much of
the verse so as to make it indiscernible. It says,
“For a child is bom unto us, A son is given unto

us; And the government is upon his shoulder;
And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-
ad-sar-shalom” (Isa. 9:5).
The KJB and the Hebrew actually say, “Wonderful, C ounseller,

The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince ofPeace^
(Je ru sa le m B ib le , Je ru s a le m , Isra el: K o re n P u b lish ers Je ru s a le m LTD, 19 9 2 ,
P u b lica tio n s S o c ie ty , 1 9 1 7 , 1 9 4 5 , 1 9 5 5 , p. 5 4 3 ).
Ben Chayim: Letteris (Green, B&FBS) vs. Ginsburg (TBS)
These two editions o f the ‘Massoretic Text,’ Ginsburg and

Letteris, do not even match each other.
7. In 2 Kings 19:37 the King James Bible says, “his sons.”

Ginsburg must admit again, “That it was, however, the
textual reading in the redaction o f other Schools in
harmony with the parallel passage in Jerem. XXXVII 38
[37:38 not KJB], is attested by many MSS., several o f the
early editions and the ancient V ersions...” He admits the
words were “in the text in many MSS. and that the
Massoretic Revisers scratched them out except the vowel-
signs and put in the margin against each passage the K e r i”
Yet he pretends it is a marginal keri reading again, since it
is in the corrupt editions to which he leans. Ginsburg’s
Hebrew Bible omits “his sons” from the text, “discarded the
vacant space” and consigned the data to the margin. He is
copying the corrupt “St. Petersburg Codex dated 916.”
Letteris (Green) differs and leaves a space in the text,
including the word’s vowel points and accents, without the
consonants. The words “his sons” is not in italics in the KJB
(G in sb u rg , Introduction, pp. 3 1 4 , 3 1 5 ) .
8. In 2 Kings 19:31 the King James Bible says, “For out of

Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out
o f mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD o f hosts shall do this.”
This is an exact parallel o f Isa. 37:32 which echoes
identically “For out o f Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant,
and they that escape out o f mount Zion: the zeal o f the
LORD o f hosts shall do this.” The words “o f hosts” are not
in italics in Isaiah. Ginsburg concedes that “In the codices,
however, which the Massorites took for their standard the
two passages were identical.” “Many MSS., early editions

and the Versions have the Keri in the tex t...” Repeatedly,
Ginsburg pretends the KJB has a marginal keri reading,
even when most o f the Hebrew manuscripts have the KJB
reading in the text (G in sb u rg , introduction, p. 314). Once again the
KJB does not follow the ben Chayim, but follows most
Hebrew manuscripts. Ginsburg omits “of hosts in his
Hebrew text in 2 Kings, even though most manuscripts and
authorities have it there. Letteris (Green) however leaves
the text as seen in many manuscripts. That is, it leaves a
large space where the word should fit and leaves the vowel
points and accents without the consonants. Ginsburg leaves
no space, thereby giving the reader o f the text the
impression that the KJB translators took their italicized
words out o f thin air. He questions it in his margin.
These 8 verses are merely samples found in my quick 8 hour

collation. They certainly do not exhibit all places where one can
find the KJB using a different Hebrew text from those currently
available. An honest person can see that the original Hebrew
readings are perfectly preserved in a Holy Bible that people use
(e.g. King James Bible), not in one-man intellectual exercises
that sit on sinking lily-pad shelves for scholars to dissect like
frogs ‘til they croak. The King James Bible and the preceding
English Bibles (and other pure vernacular Holy Bibles, no
doubt) have been shown to be a shining reflection o f the
originals, with ample manuscript evidence for those
questioned readings. Translators will wisely use these and
other pure old vernacular Bibles to make new translations,
instead of following today’s currently printed or pocked
online Hebrew editions (seen through the filthy lens of a
corrupt lexicon).
Ginsburg summarizes how subjective his and other editions

can be if they scour for variants:
“ ...it is essential to bear in mind that even after

the text was fixed it was by no means absolutely
uniform. The different Schools still continued to
retain some of their former readings. These they
more or less exhibited in their Standard Codices.
Some of the Massorites themselves belonged to
one or the other o f these Schools and framed
their Massoretic notes and Rubrics in accordance
with the recensions which obtained in their
Schools. Hence it happens that Massoretic
remarks and Lists not infrequently contradict one
another simply because each faithfully records
the readings o f the text from which the
Massorites in question made the Rubrics. Hence
too the Massorites not only recorded the variants
in Codices which were redacted by authoritative
Scribes, but adduce readings from renowned
MSS. which obtained in certain communities and
which are distinguished by certain nam es...They
not only affect the orthography but the division,
insertion and omission o f certain w ords...
The Massorahs which proceed from the
Westerns and from which our textus receptus
was compiled also exhibit conflicting registers
which undoubtedly show that there were
different schools among the Westerns themselves
and that these derived their respective materials
from Standard Codices. These conflicting
Massorahs not only exhibit orthographical
variations, but actual various readings”
“And although the recension which is now

exhibited in the textus receptus has finally
superseded the other recensions, the Massorah
itself frequently records the readings of other
Standard Codices” (T h e w o rd ‘ o b ta in ed ’ is u sed in the sen se o f
'w e r e re ta in e d '; G in sb u rg , Introduction, pp. 4 2 5 , 4 2 6 , 4 2 7 , 4 2 2 ).
The Encyclopedia Judaica summarizes, regarding the

quality o f Ginsburg’s work, saying, “some o f it, however, is not
accurate” (Je ru sa le m , Isra e l; K e te r P u b lish in g H o u se L td ., 1 9 7 1 , p. 5 8 2 , s .v . G in sb u rg ).
Ginsburg Criticizes His Hebrew Text In His Margins
Few have ever heard of Ginsburg before, but his ideas are in
today’s NIV, TNIV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, and ESV. His notes
are his own “Yea, hath God said...” whisper. He stowed them
away on board his Traditional Hebrew text, couched on the
bottom o f the page, just waiting for the next generation to slide
them into the text or into an English translation. Slippery and
quietly, like a snake, they slid right into today’s new versions.
Ginsburg’s Hebrew Bible (TBS) contains his own footnotes,

which represent his views which are critical o f the Hebrew text
he edited! He adds his own ideas and data to the ben Chayim
notes (Massorah). He calls it “my edition o f the Massorah
taken from manuscripts “accessible to me.” Often in an effort to
question the traditional text, he increased the number o f Sevirin
(a type of marginal reading) from ben Chayim’s approximately
200 to around 350 and moved them into the margin. In order to
move the critical point of view closer to the text, he moved into
the margin the “variations” which ben Chayim had placed at the
“end.” The equally corrupted Letteris-Green text includes few
n o t e s (G in sb u rg , Introduction, P re fa c e , pp. 19 4 , 18 6 , 4 6 4 , 1 9 5 , 19 6 ).
Like all Bible doubters, he says he includes his view o f the

variants he ‘scoured’ up, “in fairness to the Biblical student to
afford him an opportunity o f judging for him self as to which is
the preferable reading (G in sb u rg , introduction, pp. 184, 185). Being “as
gods,” deciding which words or vowels are “good and evil,” is a
‘magic’ trick he learned, no doubt, from the serpent lady at the
Luciferian Theosophical Society meeting he attended
(documentation to follow).
Ginsburg’s Notes Change Word Divisions & Vowels
In many manuscripts the words in the Hebrew Old

Testament are often written continuously, that is, there are no
spaces between words. This infrequently gives critics like
Ginsburg an opportunity to change the meaning o f the sentence.
Ginsburg introduces in his margins the choices o f what he calls
“the best Biblical critics,” with regard to word divisions. He
boasts that “the Biblical critics are more or less unanimous in
accepting them.” O f these Bible criticisms he says in the margin
(in Hebrew) “it ought to be so” or “it appears to me” (G in sb u rg ,
Introduction, pp. 16 0 , 1 6 2 ; s e e a ls o p. 16 4 ).
Word divisions do seriously affect the translation o f a few

readings and affect some less seriously:
■ In Ps. 22:16 the KJB says, “ ...they pierced my hands and

my feet” based on placing the Hebrew letter “k” as part of
the verb. The unbelieving Jews o f course rendered it “as a
lion my hands and my feet.” They used the “k” as the word
“as,” and altered the text to create the word “lion.” The
preface o f the Jewish Publication Society’s English Old
Testament (1917 et al.) admits that they will not allow
translations which support the Christian viewpoint. This
verse is discussed in detail elsewhere in this book (S e e aiso

B u llin g e r, The Companion Bible , G ra n d R a p id s, M I, reprint 19 9 0 , p. 7 4 0 ).
■ Isa. 9:3 says “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not
increased the jo y :.. ” (KJB). Ginsburg leads new versions to
omit the word “not.” (Some versions replace “not” with a
marginal reading, “to him” R.V.) (G in sb u rg , introduction, p. i 6 i ) .
■ In Ps. 68:18 he recommends butchering “ ...the LORD God
might dwell among them.”
■ He thinks 1 Kings 19:21 should be divided “he boiled some

of the flesh” instead o f the KJB’s “boiled their flesh”
(G in s b u rg , Introduction, pp. 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 ) .
In certain instances in Ginsburg’s margin, (this is the

exception, not the rule) he introduces his own creation for
vowel points for the text reading and the marginal variant
(which can completely change a word!); he leaves the actual
text without vowels. Sometimes he follows the thinking o f what
he calls “the best textual critics.” Since he thinks the vowel
points in the original text sometimes actually belong to the word
in the margin he must add vowels to the word. He said I “do it
only according to the best of my judgment” (G in sb u rg , introduction, pp.
184, 185). If you are harboring the idea that Ginsburg’s “judgment
is worth following, you will discard that notion quickly once

you read the upcoming documentation about his Lucifenan
connections.
He admits that as far as orthography (spelling, etc.) is

concerned sometimes “a marked difference in the sense” occurs
when a different spelling is used and “it is s o m e t i m e s difficult
to decide which o f the two readings is to be preferred (Ginsburg,
Introduction, P . 155 et ai.). That’s why God gave us Holy Bibles, |
Ginsburg.
Ginsburg joins the higher critics who pretend “the

Massorites invented” the “accents and vowel-signs.” He does
however admit that they followed a “tradition handed down to
them from time immemorial,” but says, “It is certain that they
did not exist in the fifth century” (Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 444, 445, 451).
Imagine God giving the Bible to Moses and the prophets by
using only consonants, wherein they could not distinguish the
word ‘G od’ from the word ‘unto,’ as they have the identical two
consonants
Ginsburg is an Old Testament Higher Critic
Ginsburg promotes the theories o f “textual critics” to

criticize the King James Bible (Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 332, 333, 365, 371
ad nauseam). He was himself a Higher Critic o f the Old Testament
in many regards. He contributed to the Cyclopaedia o f Biblical

Literature (1862-1866) originally edited by John Kitto.
Ginsburg’s entry on the book o f Ecclesiastes charges that the
German higher critics write better ‘Hebrew’ than the Hebrew
Bible itself. He believes that the book was certainly not penned
by Solomon. Ginsburg said in the Cyclopaedia,
“The strongest argument, however, against the

Solomonic authorship o f this book is its vitiated
language and style [Webster 1828: “depraved;
rendered impure; rendered defective and void”].
To quote examples would be to quote the whole
book, as it is written throughout in the Rabbinic
language which developed itself long after the
Babylonish captivity. So convincing is this fact,
that not only have Grotius, J.D. Michaelis,
Eichhom, Doderlein, Spohn, Jahn, J.E.C.
Schmidt, Nachtigal, Kaiser, Rosenmuller, Ewald,
Knobel, Gesenius, De Wette, Noyes, Hitzig,

Heiligstedt, Davidson, Meier, etc., relinquished
the Solomonic authorship, but even such
unquestionably orthodox writers as Umbreit,
Hengstenberg, Gerlach, Vaihinger, Stuart, Keil,
Elster, etc., declare most emphatically that the
book was written after the Babylonish
captivity; and there is hardly a chief Rabbi or a
literary Jew to be found who would have the
courage to maintain that Solomon wrote
Coheleth [Ecclesiastes]. Dr. Herzfeld, chief
rabbi o f Brunswick, Dr. Philippson, chief rabbi
of Magdeburg; Dr. Geiger, rabbi of Breslau; Dr.
Zunz, Professor Luzzatto, Krochmal,
Steinschneider, Jost, Graetz, Furst, and a host of
others, affirm that this book is one of the latest
productions in the O.T. canon. And be it
remembered that these are men to whom the
Hebrew is almost vernacular, and that some of
them write better Hebrew, and in a purer style,
than that of Coheleth [Ecclesiastes].”
(These higher critics refute Solomon’s involvement by pointing to certain words, which they
classify as later in origin. However, this is nonsense because the words Ginsburg and the critics
give as being ‘late’ are used elsewhere in Bible books, which are dated much earlier than critics
place these words. For example, kanas occurs in Psalms and Ezekiel; medinah occurs in
Kings, Lam., and Ezek.; mikreh occurs in Ruth and 1 Samuel; shalat occurs in Psalms and a
derivative of it in Genesis; hephez occurs in 1 Sam., 2 Sam., 1 Kings, Job, Isa.; soph occurs in
Chron Joel, Numbers, and Job; takaph occurs in Job; misken occurs in Deut.; nekasim occu
in Josh, and 2 Chron.; amad occurs in Gen., Ex., and Lev.; kasher occurs in Ps.; zua occurs i
Hab., Jer., and Isa.) (See also Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 112).
Ginsburg on Westcott & Hort’s Revised Version Committee
Because of his critical views of the Bible, Ginsburg was one

o f the first to be “elected a member of the Board of Revisers of
the Old Testament in 1870” joining Westcott, Hort, and

Unitarian Vance Smith in the destruction o f the KJB
(http://www.JewishEncyclopedia.com, s.v. Ginsburg, Christian). AnxioUS tO chop
and change the Bible, Ginsburg had already re-translated
Ecclesiastes (Coheleth) in 1861 and the Song o f Solomon with a
commentary in 1857.
Ginsburg’s marginal notes and his Revised Version

constantly disagree with his own printed Hebrew text. For
instance,
■ In Song o f Solomon 8:6 Ginsburg challenges the editors

“whom we follow in the textus receptus” and which
match “the Authorized Version.” He says “The Revised
Version, though contrary to the textus receptus, exhibits
the true reading in the text... ’ (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 386).
■ Again in Isaiah 30:32, the KJB has the word “it”

following the ben Chayim text (Kethiv), while the Sevir
(a type o f marginal reading), Ginsburg’s Revised
Version and most modem versions have “them”
following the “Babylonians.” His ‘favorite Hebrew
Bibles have marginal notes which often follow the
“reading o f the Babylonians” (Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 188, 189).
■ In 1 Kings 1:18 the KJV says, “and now, my lord the

king,” following the traditional text. However the
Revised Version and most modem versions follow a
Sevir reading, “and thou my lord the king.” Even the
Massorah warns that “they are mislead thereby, that is in
W riting thou instead o f now (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 192).
Although he was a member of the Westcott and Hort

Revised Version committee, Ginsburg’s ideas were often so
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
twisted that even they frequently rejected them. In his margins

and Introduction he often rejects the KJB reading and also the
RV Old Testament reading in favor of his own personal
translation (Ginsburg, Introduction, e.g. pp. 385, 596, 394, 397,403 et al.).
Ginsburg, a Follower of Luciferian Mme. Blavatsky
Madame Helena P. Blavatsky (A.D. 1831-1891) was the

nineteenth century high-priestess of sorcery, magic, the
Kabbalah, esoteric philosophy, Satan worship, and occultism.
Her magazine, Lucifer, evolved into a two-volume book called
The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky’s ‘secret doctrine’ was that
Lucifer should be worshipped. She said,
“Lucifer represents.. .L ife.. .Progress... Liberty

Lucifer is the Logos...the Serpent, the Savior
(Helena P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. II, London. The
Theosophical Publishing House, 1893, pp. 171, 225, 255 et a ., or u er
documentation against Blavatsky see G.A. Riplinger, NeW Age Bible
Versions, Ararat VA: AV Publications, p. 52 et al.).
Her influence has not waned. Harry Potter fans know the
occult scramble of her name as Vablatsky, a character in The
Prisoner o f Azkaban. If someone thinks the Harry Potter series
is harmless fun, he is gravely mistaken.
Ginsburg was an occult Kabbalist and follower o f Mme.

Blavatsky. Translators should be aghast to find sue an
individual as their authoritative source. This information a ou
him has been available since 1999 in the must-have book, a
Testimony Founded Forever by Dr. James Sightler, t en
member of the Dean Burgon Society. He r e c o r d e d Gmsbu g
involvement with the kabbalah, theosophy, and joint me
with Blavatsky (S ig h tle r’ s b o o k is a v a ila b le fro m A.V. P u b lica tio n s; see p. 248 and 4
Further extensive documentation is given in the next dozen

in d ex).
or so pages.
The magazine Lucifer, edited by Madame Blavatsky,

evolved into the journal The Theosophist, still under her
editorship. In the October 1884 edition of The Theosophist
Blavatsky records that Ginsburg attended her “occult”
meeting at Piccadilly in England (H.P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist, Madras:
The Theosophical Society, October, 1884, pp. 12-13; see reprint, H.P. Blavatsky, The
At this
Theosophist Part Six 1884 to 1885, Kessinger Publications, ISBN 1-4179-1002x).
same time he was working on the Revised Version, editing the

Hebrew Bible, and doing his “collation o f all the extant remains
o f the Masorah, three volumes o f which he published in 1880-
86 ” (www.JewishEncyclopedia,” s.v. Ginsburg, Christian).
The Theosophist’s article entitled, “Brilliant Reception to

the Founders in London” said:
“ ...on the evening o f the 2 1st...in Prince’s Hall,

Piccadilly,...Among those present w ere...Dr.
Ginsburg o f the British Museum, who exposed
the fraud o f the Shapira M SS...Rev. H.R.
Haweis; Mr. Edmond Gurney; Mr. F.W.H.
Myers; Prof. H. Sidgwick...Dr. Anna Kingsford
and Mr. Edward Maitland, Authors o f The
Perfect W ay...Mr. Oscar W ilde...” (Blavatsky,
Theosophist, p. 12).
“After an hour spent in general conversation, Mr.

Finch, President o f the London Lodge T.S.,
called the meeting to order and welcomed the
Founders Mms. Blavatsky and Col.
Olcott...Needless to say our dear Madame
Blavatsky was the observed o f all observers, and
her time was constantly taken up, when the
speaking was not going on, with introductions

and conversations with the most eminent
people in the room. She excited the admiring
wonder o f all who have met her at Nice, Paris,
and London, by her...occasional displays of
occult power” (Blavatsky, Theosophist, p. 13).
Ginsburg was rubbing shoulders with the vilest occultist in

England at this particular meeting. Fellow attendee, Anna
Kingsford’s The Perfect Way says in its appendix entitled, “The
Secret of Satan,” “Stand in awe...blessed and sanctified is the
Angel of Hades, Satan.” [New A ge Bible Versions and A Testimony Founded
F orever docum ent the drug involvement, spiritualism , Luciferianism and occultism o f most of
those listed in attendance.]
To document Ginsburg’s attendance at this “occult” meeting

I purchased a reprint o f the original Theosophist from Kessinger
Reprints. It was bound as The Theosophist Part Six 1884 to
1885. In this volume of journal reprints Ginsburg’s name is
surrounded by the vilest of topics. Some excerpts from this
journal’s ‘Practical Instructions for students of occultism and
other articles will give the reader a foul taste o f Ginsburg’s lack
o f taste.
■ The Theosophist peppers its pages with words such as
“disinterred corpses,” “Black Magic,” “White Magic,
“crystal ball,” “sorcerer,” “necromancy,” “initiate
members,” an “occult subject, which it was not desirable to
put before the public” and “magic mirrors” [like A lice Through
the L ooking Glass; see chapter on Liddell-Scott Lexicon] (April, 1885, p.
157; May, 1885, pp. 185, 186; Dec. 84, p. 168; Oct. 1884, p. 138; June,
1885, p. 224).
■ An article on the “Evil Eye” says, “There are many

sorcerers and witches in Yemen, who do some
extraordinary things...a single look is sometimes sufficient
to kill a person.” After several examples are given, the
article adds, “Several more similar instances are given, but

the above is sufficient to illustrate the action o f the Evil
Eye” (The Theosophist, Dec. 1884, pp. 57-58). [If the reader thinks
that this is ancient history, just look at Time magazine
covers (e.g. Jan. 14, 2008, Feb. 18, 2008, Aug. 19, 2007,
June 4, 2007 ad nauseam). Showing only one eye (by
placing the other side o f the face in shadow or otherwise
obscured) is the evil eye; today’s occultists still think this
has some kind o f power; many read those magazines, so
they think it does work. Matt. 6:22 and 23 tell us, “The
light o f the body is the eye...B ut if thine eye be evil thy
whole body shall be full o f darkness.” Proverbs 23:6 talks
o f an “evil eye.”
■ The Theosophist could not forget to insist that, “The Bible

is the mythology o f the Jews.” It snarls at “missionary
ignorance...against Hinduism” (Jan. 1885, p. 76; Dec. 1884, p.
73).
■ An article o f special interest to Ginsburg would have been

his book’s topic the “Kabbalah” and the “ten sephiroth,” as
well as the article for writers on automatic writing
wherein, “a force thus governed by an external intelligence
manifests its action in the writing o f coherent sentences”
(M ay, 1885, p. 184; the same edition in which G insburg’s name appeared,
Oct. 1884, p. 21).
■ It discusses “what are the sym ptom s...to detect that one
has been developing or has actually developed into a so-
called “spiritualistic medium”” (Feb. 1885, p. 119).
■ O f Blavatsky it says, “She would swear like a dragoon

when in anger.. (M arch, 1885, p. 7).
“[A] companion of fools shall be destroyed” Prov. 13:20

Occultists Built Upon Ginsburg
Ginsburg wrote his occult book, The Kabbalah, in 1863. He

wrote —
“Intending it to be a guide for those who
wish to be initiated into the mysteries of this
theosophy, I have aimed to be as
elementary as possible in this Essay...” (Christian
Ginsburg, The Essenes. The Kabbalah, 1863, N ew York: Samuel W eiser,
1972, Preface)
Ginsburg was the source o f “this esoteric doctrine for the

occultists o f his day. They all quote him as their source. His
essay has been the foundation for modem teaching on the occult
Kabbalah, which today is sweeping Hollywood and the minds
o f its ‘stars.’ Ginsburg said, “It is this desideratum [vacuum] in
the literature o f our language which led me to bring the subject
before the Literary and Philosophical Society...” (G insburg,Kabbalah,
preface). Ginsburg’s book started this modem occult movement,
as seen in the following examples:
■/ H.P. Blavatsky used Ginsburg’s teachings in her Satanic

book, The Secret Doctrine. She quotes him as saying,
“The Kabbala was first taught by God him self to

a select Company o f angels who formed a
theosophic school in Paradise. After the Fall the
Angels most graciously communicated this
heavenly doctrine to the disobedient child of
Earth, to furnish the protoplasts with the means
of returning to their pristine nobility and felicity”
(Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, Vol. 2, p. 284 as quoted from Ginsburg,
The Kabbalah, p. 84 with her addition o f w ord capitalization).
Biavatsky’s other wicked book, Isis Unveiled quotes

Ginsburg to promote occultist Rabbi Eleazar. Biavatsky
cites Ginsburg as saying “the disciples o f Israel perceived
that the lamp o f Israel was extinguished” when this occultist
died (W heaton, 111: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1877, reprint 1972, vol. 2, p.
348 footnote).
S A.E. Waite, author of the occult book, The Holy Kabbalah,

says o f Ginsburg, “The work o f Dr. Ginsburg, once so well
known that even now it scarcely needs description, may be
said to have marked an epoch, because it was the first
clear, simple and methodized account of Kabbalistic
doctrine and literature (England: Oracle Publishing Ltd., 1996, pp. 494; first
published in 1924). (The only criticism and disagreem ent Ginsburg had with some people
concerned exactly who and when the Z ohar was written. He knew that it was written by
M oses de Leon in the 1300s, not much earlier, as some supposed. To G insburg the Zohar
(the handbook o f the K abbalah) was not the origin o f the Kabbalah. G insburg's Jewish
m ysticism preceded the Zohar. “ [T]he Zohar constituted a decisive stage in the
developm ent o f the Jewish form o f mystical speculation known as the ‘C abala’”) (W illiam
Varner, The M a ste r’s Sem inary Journal, “The Christian [Catholic] Use o f Jewish
Num erology,” Spring, 1997, pp. 47-59).
S Albert Mackey’s Encyclopedia o f Freemasonry takes his

large section about the Kabbalah from Ginsburg (Philadelphia:
M oss and Co., 1873 and 1878; see Kilo: K essinger edition, vol. 1, pp. 439-443).
S Another “Masonic Supply Co” publication, Kabbalah, the

Harmony o f Opposites, by W.J. Coleville, relies on
Ginsburg for his ideas (New York: M acoy Publishing and M asonic Supply Co.,
1916).
^ Also relying upon Ginsburg is the highly occult The Secret

Teachings o f All Ages: An Encyclopedic Outline o f Masonic,
Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical
Philosophy by Manly P. Hall. On page 93 it cites
Ginsburg’s history o f the Kabbalah directly:
“From Adam it passed over to Noah, and then to

Abraham, the friend o f God, who emigrated with
it to Egypt, where the patriarch allowed a portion
o f this mysterious doctrine (Qabbalism) to ooze
out. It was in this way that the Egyptians
obtained some knowledge of it, and the other
Eastern nations could introduce it into their
philosophical systems. Moses, who was learned
in all the wisdom of Egypt, was first initiated
into it in the land o f his birth, but became most
proficient in it during his wanderings in the
wilderness, when he not only devoted to it the
leisure hours o f the whole forty years, but
received lessons in it from one of the holy
angels.***Moses also initiated the seventy
Elders into the secrets o f the doctrine, and they
again transmitted them from hand to hand. O f all
who formed the unbroken line of tradition, David
and Solomon were most initiated into the
Kabbalah” (M anly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings o f A ll Ages: An
Encyclopedic Outline o f M asonic, Hermetic, Q abbahstic and Rosicrucian
Sym bolical Philosophy, Los Angeles, CA: The Philosophical Research
Society, inc., 1972, edition 18, p. 93 as cited from Ginsburg, The
Kabbalah, pp. 84-86 et al).
Ginsburg’s Book, The Kabbalah
Why do occultists and Luciferians follow Ginsburg’s “guide

for those who wish to be initiated into the mysteries o f this
theosophy”?
■ Ginsburg’s book calls the Kabbalah, “the secret

doctrines and “theosophy,” just as Blavatsky titles her
book and journal (Ginsburg, TheE ssenes, The Kabbalah, p. 12).
■ Ginsburg’s book says “the heavenly dragon is the

centre of the m acrocosm...” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 156).
Blavatsky agrees saying, “Satan represents... the

Centrifugal Energy of the Universe...this ever-living
symbol o f self-sacrifice for the intellectual independence
o f h u m a n ity (See H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1, London: The
Theosophical Publishing Co., 1893, pp. 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533 et al.).
■ Ginsburg’s book says, “The angel M ETATRON...is the

garment of, the visible manifestation o f the Deity...H e
governs the visible w orld... (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 109).
Blavatsky echoes, in Isis Unveiled, “the angel Metatron”

“represents a new world” “between spirit and m atter...”
“Jehovah is but the Metatron, and perhaps, not even the
highest, but only one o f the Aeons” (W heaton, m.: The
Theosophical Publishing House, 1877, 1972, vol. 2, pp. 154, 464, 456, 400; see also
The Secret D octrine, p. I l l , vol. 2).
■ Ginsburg’s book states that the “Prince o f Darkness and

his legions...the Evil Spirit” are merely emanations o f
his God, En Soph. He says, “Even the archangel of
wickedness, or the venomous beast, or Samael, as he is
called, will be restored to his angelic nature and name,
inasmuch as he too, like all other beings, proceeded
from the same infinite source o f all things” (Ginsburg, The
K abbalah, pp. 106, 107, 126).
“Prince o f Darkness...Their prince is called in the

Kabala Samael, the Angel o f D eath...the nature of
angels is purely intransitive...” (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, p. I l l
et al; see her index for ‘Sam m ael' for dozens more citations).
■ Ginsburg wrote about an occult tool “called the

Luminous M irror.” He said, “It has the faculty for that
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
extraordinary prophetical know ledge...” (Ginsburg, n e
Kabbalah, p. 119).
In The Secret Doctrine Blavatsky said, “The future of an

individual is seen, with all its coming events marshaled
in order, in a magic m irror...” (vol. 2, P. 179 et ai.).
Blavatsky’s The Theosophist also had articles on “magic
mirrors.” Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking
Glass Was based O n this OCCult idea (see chapter on Liddell-Scott
G reek-English Lexicon).
Summary: Ginsburg’s Book’s Kabbalistic Teachings
Ginsburg says,
1 The following must be believed to be “initiated into its

mysteries” and “higher gnosis” (Ginsburg, The K abbalah, PP. 191,
190).
2. “God is called En Soph . . . ” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 88).
3. “Now, the medium by which the En Soph made his

existence known in the creation o f the world are ten
Sephiroth or intelligences, which emanated from the
Boundless O ne...The Sephira, which among the divine
names represents Jah, and among the angelic hosts by
Ophanim, sent forth an opposite, i.e. a feminine or
passive, potency, denominated Intelligence, which
represented by the divine name Jehovah, and angelic
name Arelim, and it is from a union of these two
Sephiroth, which are also called Father and Mother, t a
the remaining seven Sephiroth proceeded...the fourt
Sephira which among the divine names is represented y
El (Ezek. i, 4 )....the sixth Sephira, represented by
divine name Elohim (Ps. lxviii, 18)...and thus t e
second trinity of the Sephiroth is obtained... the seven
Sephira, corresponding to the divine name Jehovah

Sabaoth . . . ” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 89, 90, 91; see also p. 93).
4. He says the Christian Bible is not about his ‘real’ God,

En Soph, but about “intermediate beings” such as
Jehovah. He said, “Thus when it is said, “God spake,
descended upon earth, ascended into heaven, smelled the
sweet smell o f sacrifices, repented in his heart, was
angry...” all this does not refer to the En Soph, but to
these intermediate beings” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah p. 146).
5. Ginsburg squeezes the Christian Trinity into his system

o f emanations noting, “One [i.e., God] is over the three,
the three are over the seven, the seven over the twelve,
and all are internally connected with each other.” He
says, “ ...it must not be supposed that the Kabbalists
believe in a Trinity in our sense o f the word.” He
replaces “a ten unity instead o f the Christian three unity”
and “a decade for the triad.” (In commenting upon the
Kabbalah’s ideas, Professor o f Old Testament William
Varner replies that it was hardly “the Cabalists”
“intention” that their teaching “justified Trinitarian
views”) (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 157, 107, 195, 197, 142, 143; Varner, pp.
47-59).
6. Ginsburg writes, “The world was born from the union of

the crowned King and Queen; or, according to the
language of the Kabbalah, these opposite sexes of
royalty, who emanated from the En Soph, produced the
universe in their own image.” “Thus the Holy One,
blessed be he, has a son with the Queen: this is the
heavenly and sacred soul. He sends him into the country,
that is into this w orld... ” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah pp. 102, 115).
“In its original state each soul is androgynous....” “Each

soul and spirit, prior to its entering into this world,
consists of a male and female united into one being.
When it descends on this earth the two parts separate
and animate two different bodies. At the time of
marriage, the Holy O ne.. .unites them again as they were
before...” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 114, 116).
7. Ginsburg teaches monism (pantheism) in which the

creation is merely a part o f God. He says, “This world,
however, is not a creation ex nihilo, but is simply an
immanent offspring and the image o f the King and
Queen, or, in other words, a farther expansion or
evolution o f the Sephiroth which are the emanations of
the En Soph...it is God manifested, all the multifarious
forms in the world point out the unity which they
represent....” He thinks, “The creation, or the universe,
is simply the garment of God woven from the Deity s
own substance; or, as Spinoza expresses it, God is the
immanent basis o f the universe.” He adds, “The
universe, therefore, or the visible world, is a further
expansion o f the Divine Substance, and is called in the
Kabbalah “the Garment o f God”” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah pp.
104-105, 108).
8. Ginsburg teaches reincarnation. He writes, “Hence, if

the soul, in its first assuming a human body and sojourn
on the earth, fails to acquire that experience for which it
descends from heaven, and becomes contaminated by
that which is polluting, it must re-inhabit a body again
and again till it is able to ascend in a purified state
through repeated trials. Thus we are told that “All sou s
are subject to transmigration.. .The transmigration o t e
soul into another body, however, is restricted to three

tim es... ” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 124, 125, 146).
9. He teaches that man is “still the presence o f God upon

earth...” “This destiny o f man - i.e., the reunion with
the Deity from which he emanated - is the constant
desire both o f God and m an... ’ (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 113,
119).
10. O f Jehovah, JAH, and Christ he says, “They are infinite

and perfect when the En Soph imparts his fullness to
them, and finite and imperfect when the fullness is
withdrawn from them ...” Therefore Ginsburg speaks
o f “ ...Christ, — his finite and imperfect human
nature....” Ginsburg teaches that the “Messiah” will be
the last person bom; therefore he is not Jesus Christ
returning, but someone else. He believes, “ [T]he
Messiah, which, like other souls, has its pre-existence in
the world of the Sephiroth, cannot be born till all
human souls have passed through their period of
probation on this earth, because it is to be the last bom
One at the end of days (S eepages 145-146 o f The Kabbalah for a further
sum m ary o f G insburg’s beliefs; Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 97, 126).
Ginsburg says that in the end, man will be God and rule
the world under E n Soph, a woman! He writes, “In that
state the creature will not be distinguished from the
Creator...Then the souls will rule the universe like God, and
W hat S h e S h all C o m m a n d h e Will e x e c u t e ” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah,
127).
His book touches on writings by an “ancient sorcerer” and

“the magic work mentioned in the Talmud.” He admits that the
Kabbala is entirely compatible with and may stem from
Platonism. He admits, “philosophy and the Kabbala propound

exactly the same doctrines, and that they only differ in language
and in technical terms.” He recommends “A Kabbalistic work
entitled the Garden o f N uts...” He is truly one of them and no
doubt the biggest ‘nut’ in this book (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 127, 146,
158, 159, 187-188,204, 198).
Why Was Ginsburg Interested in the Old Testament?
Ginsburg believed that buried beneath the Hebrew text were

Kabbalistic secrets. He viewed the text o f the Holy Bible as
“unworthy o f inspiration.” Why then was he so interested in it?
He states,
“This view that the mere literal narrative is

unworthy of inspiration, and that it must
contain a spiritual meaning concealed under the
garment of the letter, is not peculiar to the
Kabbalah” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 128 footnote 25).
The handbook of the Kabbala is the Zohar (also spelled

Sohar), which he says, “is a commentary on the five Books of
Moses.” He says it gives a “mystical interpretation wherein the
Kabbalistic rules o f exegesis are largely applied.” O f “the
Kabbalah” he says, “its mysteries are covertly conveyed in the
first four books o f the Pentateuch.” He allows the allegorical
interpretation of the Bible. He supports the heretic Origen and
his allegorical interpretation of the Bible; he calls him an
“erudite father.” He dismisses the entire early Genesis record
quoting Origen as saying, “I believe that everybody must regard
these as figures, under which a recondite sense is concealed
(Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 160, 162, 127, 128 footnote 25, 26; Christian Ginsburg,
H istorical and Critical Comm entary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30).
Today’s Luciferians, Occultists and Ginsburg
Today’s followers o f the Kabbalah and Mme. Blavatsky’s

The Secret Doctrine use an edition o f the Kabbalah’s handbook
called The Sepher Ha-Zohar. Zohar: Bereshith to Lekha. It is
currently printed by Blavatsky’s Theosophical Publishing
Company. It was originally printed as a serial between 1900
and 1914 in a journal called The Word. It is an occult
commentary on the Bible beginning in Genesis 1. The serial
ended abruptly on March 7, 1914, upon the death o f C.D.
Ginsburg. Current researchers remark that it was translated and
“written by a pseudonymous Theosophist, probably British”
(http://w ww .sacred-texts.com /jud/zdm /index.htm ).
Because o f the untimely and abrupt cessation o f the series

upon the death of C.D. Ginsburg, others name him specifically
as the author. The translation is unique in that it uses terms used
by Biavatsky. History records no other person at that time, other
than Ginsburg, who was 1.) interested in Biavatsky
(Theosophy), 2.) qualified to translate this and 3.) showed a
marked interest in the material o f the Kabbalah.
Biavatsky cited Ginsburg in her book. Consequently he was

included in a “General Bibliography” of the Secret Doctrine
which was recently compiled —
“ ...to give condensed information, not otherwise

readily available, about the life and writings of
some individuals mentioned by H.P.B. in the
text...to give similar data about a few well-
known scholars who are discussed at length by
H.P.B and whose writings she constantly
quotes...In addition to that, rather extensive
biographical sketches have been included, in
connection with a num ber o f outstanding

w orkers in the early period o f the Theosophical
M ovem ent...”
(http://w w w .tonh.net/theosofie/hpb_cw _online/articles/vl3/bibliography.
htm).
In the Bibliography to The Secret Doctrine, Ginsburg s

Bibliographic citation states,
“Christian David Ginsburg...Born December 25,

1831...It is possible he used the pen name
“Nurho de Manhar” for a translation of the Zohar
that appeared serially in E.T. Hargrove’s
periodical The Word. The manuscript used
differs from both the Mautua & Cremona MSS
of the Zohar, and halts abruptly on the death of
Ginsburg, March 7, 1914. Style and references
to supporting materials, British grammar, typos
caused by a remote location of an author unable
to proof copy, and A.E. W aite’s listing o f a
“Nurho di Manhar” joining the Golden Dawn [an
occult high magic organization] in 1888, indicate
that Ginsburg may have lead two lives
(http://w w w .tonh.net/theosofie/hpb_cw _online/articles/vl3/bibliography.
htm).
This translation o f the Hebrew Zohar says in its Preface,
“To the readers o f the late Madame Blavatsky s

works, Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine,
this will doubtless prove acceptable... The
ancient Jews were not different from other
nations in having occult schools and institutions
in which secret doctrines were inculcated and
imparted to neophytes, or the sons of the
prophets, as they are termed in the Bible”

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/zdm/zdmOO 1.htm).
I would not suggest concluding from such circumstantial

evidence that Ginsburg was the translator o f this Hebrew edition
o f the Zohar. Speculation by occultists on the internet is not
admissible as evidence nor is this small incidental detail
necessary to indict Ginsburg as being an unsound source
(although it is odd that the series ended abruptly and
immediately upon his death before it was finished).
The following previously documented hard facts are in

themselves enough to prove that he is not a safe person to
follow in the minutiae, nor should his unique choices for his
Hebrew Old Testament, documented earlier in this book,
supersede the Holy Bible which God blesses and uses among
his priesthood o f believers.
Irrefutable facts indicting Ginsburg are:
1.) Ginsburg said his own book, The Kabbalah, was written
“Intending it to be a guide for those who wish to be
initiated into the mysteries o f this theosophy.. .” (Ginsburg,
The Kabbala, Preface). His god is En Soph, a Woman!
2.) Ginsburg attended Blavatsky’s meeting.

3.) Ginsburg was a foundational member o f the RV
committee with Westcott and Hort. He publicly denied
the divine authorship o f Ecclesiastes.
Ginsburg’s ‘Jesus’ Was Initiated Into The Essenes
Why did Ginsburg cast doubt on the Hebrew Bible and the
KJB, which both say, “o f the blood o f the sin offering” in Lev.
4:34? Does he, like Cain, deny the animal sacrifice “sin
offering,” just as the Essenes denied it? In 1864 Ginsburg wrote
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
an essay promoting The Essenes: Their History and Doctrines.

His views and those of the historians he quotes paint a picture
of a bizarre Jewish sect, living near the Dead Sea before the
time of Christ. He boasts that their ascetic lifestyle was “a
substitute for the sacrifices which they refused to offer in the
temple.” He states that, “The essenes did not offer animal
sacrifices....” “[T]hey did not frequent the temple and would
not offer sacrifices” (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 417; Ginsburg, The Essenes, The
Kabbalah, N ew York; Sam uel W eiser, 1864, reprint 1972, pp. 22, 24, 10).
Ginsburg believed that Jesus was an Essene. He said, “It

will therefore hardly be doubted that our Saviour himself
belonged to this holy brotherhood.” “Moreover, the fact that
Christ, with the exception of once, was not heard of in public
till his thirtieth year, implying that he lived in seclusion with
this fratern ity ...” He adds, “ [T]hey did not believe in the
resurrection of the body ” They believed that the ‘wicked’ went
to an air conditioned “cold” “Hades.” If such a strange ‘Jesus’
is the focus of Ginsburg’s nominal Christianity, then the
‘Christianity’ he espoused was that of “another Jesus (2 Cor.
1 1 : 4 ) (Ginsburg, The Essenes, pp. 24, 22, 48).
Ginsburg states the following,
■ He states that “According to Philo, Moses himself

instituted this order.”
- He speaks highly o f certain Pharisees who “propound
the mysteries of the cosmogony and the t h e o s o p h y . . . to
those who were regularly initiated in the order....
■ Like Masons who receive an apron upon ‘initiation, e
says that “ ...Thus, after being accepted as a novice an
obtaining the apron...he advanced to that stage in
which he was enabled to perform miraculous cures an
raise the dead.”
■ He writes o f “Their devotedness to the study o f the

magic arts” and “the power to foretell future events.”
He says that they used, “These ancient books on
magical cures....”
■ He writes o f other “secrets” which “played so important
a part among the Jewish mystics from time
immemorial.”
■ He states that “Essenism maintained that fate governs all
things....”
■ He records that, “[T]hey formed an isolated order.”
“ [EJvery man’s goods are cast into a common
treasury....” “[T]hey live without any w om en...They
despise m arriage....” (Ginsburg, The E ssenes, pp. 25, 13, 18; p. 44,
footnote 35; p. 46, footnote 39; pp. 40; 20, 22, 42, 40 ,4 1 ).
Ginsburg’s promotion o f such a strange and disobedient

Jewish cult evidences his heretical mindset.
Murder, Ginsburg & Essene Manuscripts with E lo h im l
O f the Essenes Ginsburg writes, “When they ultimately

withdrew themselves from the rest o f the Jewish nation, the
majority o f them settled on the north-west shore o f the Dead
S ea...” (Ginsburg, The Essenes, p. 26). The Dead Sea Scrolls were a
product of this Essene Sect. Their Dead Sea Scroll collection
contains the true Bible along with many corrupted scriptures, as
well as the Essene’s own heretical writings — just like the
contents o f a Mormon library!
Ginsburg tells his readers that the Essenes were promoters

and preservers o f “the secret doctrines,” like he and Blavatsky.
He notes that Kabbalists and theosophists adhere to—
“ ...strict secrecy towards outsiders, so as not to

divulge the secret doctrines to any
one... carefully to preserve the books

belonging to their sect, and the names of the
angels or the mysteries connected with the
Tetragrammaton and the other names o f God and
angels, comprised in the theosophy as well as
with the cosmogony which also played so
important a part among the Jewish mystics and
the Kabbalists” (Ginsburg, The Essenes, p. 12).
The scrolls which they carefully preserved were discovered

in 1947. Earlier in 1883 a preview had emerged from a Moabite
cave o f the gorge of the Wadi Mujib, which is near the east side
o f the Dead Sea. These fifteen strips of parchment, inscribed in
Hebrew letters, were brought to England for evaluation by
Moses Shapira, an antiquities dealer and Christian. Shapira
was convinced that they represented a version of the Book of
Deuteronomy dating from the 9th century B.C.. If he was
correct, this was the oldest biblical manuscript in the world (the
earliest known copies at that time dated from the 9 century
A.D.) and o f im mense value” (www.trivia-library.com “ M ystery in History
M oses Shapira and the Lost Bible M anuscripts” ). W alter Besant, brOther-in-laW
o f Blavatsky’s Luciferian protege, Annie Besant, and higher

critic William Aldus Wright, a joint-member with Ginsburg of
the Westcott-Hort RV Committee, asked Ginsburg to join them
and examine, evaluate and translate the fifteen strips. Wright
was also the trustee for a Ginsburg Trust and evidently
Ginsburg’s closest friend (http://w w w .jsasoc.com /Fam ily_archive/G insberg).
Examination revealed that the strips contained certain dating

elements (words and orthography) which could prove their early
date. This evidence could fracture the entire higher critica
movement and its Graf-Wellhausen and JEPD theories, which
taught that Moses did not write Deuteronomy.
This Essene paraphrase contained the word Elohim, which the

higher critics associated with later and “non-Mosaic,
Pentateuchal sources.” The fragment was written in letters as
old as the ninth century B.C. Moabite stone, which Ginsburg
had examined thoroughly. The Secretary o f the Palestine
Exploration Fund quoted Shapira as saying that the discovery
“would simply make students o f the Bible and Hebrew scholars
reconsider their ways; it would throw a flood o f light upon the
Pentateuch...” Kenyon’s Our Bible and the Ancient
Manuscripts said “there was enough...to discredit the whole
Science o f textual criticism (p. 43, 3rdedition; W alter Besant, Autobiography o f
S ir Walter Besant, N ew York, 1902, reprint 1971, pp. 161-167; Sightier, p. 248, footnote, 71;
Fred Reiner, Biblical Archeology Review, “Tracking the Shapira Case,” M ay, 1997, p. 33).
What could these higher critics do? Moses Shapira (A.D. 1830-
1884) was a highly respected antiquarian. He was a Jewish
convert to Christianity. Ginsburg and Shapira “had known each
other and engaged in collaborative scholarly pursuits for more
than eleven years” Professor James Adair notes that “A study o f
relevant papers and letters shows Shapira to be a careful dealer;
Ginsburg’s career, on the other hand, was marked by a number
o f scholarly controversies...” (Fred Reiner, The British Library Journal, “C.D. Ginsburg
and the Shapira Affair; A Nineteenth-Century Dead Sea Scroll Controversy,” Volume 21, Number 1, Spring,
1995, p. 113; http://orion.huji.ac.il.onon/archives/1996a/msg0053l.html).
Shapira’s efforts raised “the library o f the British Museum

to one o f the vast storehouses o f information” concerning the
Hebrew manuscripts o f the Karaite Bible (Reiner, C.D. Ginsburg, pp. i l l ,
112). “[MJany o f the earliest Yemenite Hebrew manuscripts
purchased by the Berlin Royal Library and the British Museum

being furnished by him ...’ (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com; s.v. M.W. Shapira).
“ [H]e had been a major supplier to the British
M useum ...Shapira’s position as a reputable
supplier o f manuscripts is described by J. Leveen
in his supplement to G. Margoliouth’s Catalogue
o f the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the

British Museum” (Reiner, C.D. Ginsburg, p. 111).
Leveen said,
“Shapira traveled extensively through the east

and tapped previously unexploited sources, with
the result that the Hebrew collection was
enriched by nearly three hundred manuscripts
between 1877 and 1882...[T]he collection of 145
volumes acquired from Shapira in July 1882...at
one stroke raised the Karaite section of the
Hebrew manuscripts to one o f outstanding
importance, only surpassed by the Firkovich
collection in Leningrad” (Reiner, C.D. Ginsburg,p . 112).
Ginsburg published his translation of the strips in The Times

of London on August 4, 17, and 22 of 1883. The evidence was
entirely too damaging to Ginsburg and his friends the higher
critics. Was this why Ginsburg and Wright finally decided to
publicly call the strips a forgery? Other higher critics, such as
Col. Claude Conder joined their scoffing and said he
“considered it impossible that ancient sheepskin could have
survived for 3,000 years in a damp cave.” Ginsburg denied
access to the scrolls to French scholar Clermont-Ganneau.
Thousands visited the exhibition of these fragments at the

British Museum. Shapira wrote that “Dr. Schroeder...German
Consul in Beiruth, is now here and has seen a strip and thinks
that the manuscript is unquestionable [sic] a genuine one... In
spite o f Ginsburg’s public rejection of the strips, their discovery
“led the religious world o f England to sing hallelujahs” and “the
British religious community accepted what the ‘scoffing
atheists’ o f Germany and France ‘had refused to acknowledge

[as] genuine (Reiner, C.D. Ginsburg, p. 113; Bernard Quaritch, A General Catalogue o f
Books offered to the public at the affixed prices, London, 1887, vol. iii, p. 3192, lot no. 32270).
In confidence, Ginsburg told his daughter that he wished

to buy the scrolls. They would have been worth millions as the
oldest sample o f a Bible paraphrase ever found. He wrote her in
September o f 1883 saying, “If I could afford it I would give
£200 for it” (Reiner, c .d . Ginsburg, p. 120). Why would one want to buy
a forgery? Some time later, after everyone lost interest in them,
Ginsburg did buy them. The Times, recorded that “Dr. Ginsburg
afterwards bought the manuscript for a few shillings at
Sotheby’s” (London, W ednesday, M arch 9 & 11, 1914). Why Was their
original discoverer, Moses Shapira, who knew their value,
shortly found dead in his hotel room? The newspapers called it
a suicide —
Dead Sea Scrolls Show Ginsburg Wrong
Shapira and his scrolls from the Dead Sea area were to
be vindicated in many eyes when the huge Dead Sea Scroll
collection was discovered in 1947 near the same area where the
Shapira scrolls were found. This large collection had survived
for thousands o f years in the same area under the same
conditions. Some o f the scrolls and fragments shared many
similar characteristics with the Shapira scrolls. An investigation
by Menahem Mansoor reopened the issue. In his scholarly
article, “The Case o f Shapira’s Dead Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls
o f 1883,” he said, “[T]here is justification...for a re
examination o f the case” (Transactions o f the Wisconsin A cadem y o f Sciences.
Arts, a nd Letters, vol. 47, 1958, p. 225, pp. 183-229).
■ The Jewish Quarterly Review wrote about “Prof. Menahem

^/lansoor who demanded a re-investigation o f the case
because o f the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran)

and because o f improved methods at ascertaining the age of
documents. He further indicated that the Shapira fragments
may probably belong to these Scrolls” (Like the Dead se a scrolls that
contain both pure and impure docum ents, this would mean that their alleged age, not their
entire text, w as authentic; O skar K. Rabinow icz, The Jew ish Quarterly Review, “The
Shapira Scroll,” Vol. 56, No. 1, July, 1965, pp. 1-21; seejstor.org).
■ The New York Times in August o f 1956 presented the

research of Mansoor. He then presented a paper supporting
the authenticity of the Shapira scrolls at the next Annual
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.
■ The British Library Journal published an article by Fred N.

Reiner which asked the insightful question, “[W]ere other
factors at work” causing Ginsburg to reject them (“ c .d .
G insburg,” pp. 109-127)?
■ In 1957 J.L. Teicher o f Cambridge University supported the

genuineness o f the fragments saying that the facts brought
him “to the inescapable conclusion that the Shapira
manuscripts were genuine.” He detailed this in “The
Genuineness o f the Shapira Manuscripts,” Times Literary
Supplement, March 22, 1957 (http://w ww.trivia-library.com “ M ystery in
H istory M oses Shapira and the Lost Bible M anuscripts”).
■ John Allegro, “one o f the “official” Dead Sea Scroll editors”

wrote an entire book entitled The Shapira Affair supporting
the genuineness o f the scroll (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965; currently
available from Proquest, Book-On-Demand; see also The D ead Sea Scrolls: A Textbook
and Study Guide, 2“* ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983, chap. 25, pp. 215-
224; Scanlin, pp. 84, 85).
■ Other papers which followed the re-opening of the issue

were The New York Times (August 13, 1956), The Jewish
Chronicle (London, Dec. 28, 1956) and Biblical
Archeological R eview ’s article called “The Shapira Affair”

(go to http://w w w .basarchive.org).
Many who now thought them to be authentic excused

Ginsburg’s primitive skills in paleography and his out-of-date
orthography, noting that he did not have the benefit o f the post-
1883 discoveries, such as the post-Siloam Old Hebrew
discoveries, the Lachish ostraca, the Qumran Leviticus scroll, or
the Tel Dan inscriptions. “The rejection o f authenticity was
based on several arguments that no longer seem convincing in
light of what we now know about paleography, scribal habits,
and textual traditions” (Scaniin, p. 85).
Even after the 1947 discovery of the entire Dead Sea Scroll
collection, the ‘scholarly’ community remained divided about
the Shapira scrolls. The higher critics could not bear to admit
their genuineness and their decisive evidence against higher
criticism. Years earlier the scrolls had been ‘accidentally’
destroyed by fire while under the care o f Sir Charles Nicholson.
Hmmmm. The text, however, had been published by Guthr
(“ Fragm ente einer Lederhandschrift,” Leipsic, 1884). M o d e m y e llo w jo u rn a lis m ,
typically seen in the wikipedia.com, continues to destroy

Shapira’s good name, calling him a “purveyor o f fake biblical
artifacts” (s.v. Moses Shapira). Scholars, who are always
reluctant to admit a mistake, have generally buried Ginsburg’s
shameful scam by pretending that Shapira was undependable.
Mark it down: Bible critics and their companions, “lewd fellows
o f the baser sort,” will not be corrected or allow themselves to
be proven wrong — no matter what they have to arrange,
including stealing manuscripts for a fraction o f what they are
worth, destroying the reputation o f a good Christian and
possibly even murdering him, and burning the world’s oldest
Bjble-related manuscript and its evidence against their theories.
“The thief eometh not, but for to steal, and to

kill, and to destroy” John 10:10
Ginsburg, Not a True Christian?
Only God knows who is and who is not a Christian. Death

bed conversions are not unknown. This author can find nothing
in the writings of Ginsburg to indicate that he was trusting in
the shed blood of Jesus Christ to save him from his sins. Any
lip-service he gave to the ‘fundamentals of Christian doctrine
were always couched in esoteric interpretations. He was reared
in the Jewish faith, received a traditional yeshiva education, and
attended the Rabbinic College at Warsaw. It appears that at the
age o f fifteen (1846) he decided perhaps that being a ‘Christian’
was more expedient. Persecution of Jews was a real threat. He
was baptized, whereupon the mission board sent him from
Poland to England for a free education. “In 1850 he entered the
British Society missionary school, Jews’ College in London,
and studied Biblical Hebrew and Greek,” the damnation of
many young men (Cam bridge University Library: British and Foreign Bible Society
Library, b s m s 651). He had his children baptized as infants, which
leads one to think that perhaps he did not understand personal

faith in Jesus Christ. However, his third wife leaves a clear
testimony o f her beliefs (http://www.jsasoc.com/Family_archive/Ginsberg). At
best one can only say that perhaps he was truly converted, but
lost his way in the nominal Christian milieu which surrounded
him. The ‘Jesus’ o f England’s intelligentsia, of which he
became a part, was not the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Christ was
to them merely a high point in the evolution of a religion in
which all men are gods, like their ‘Jesus.’
With over 150 pages of pure occultism, Ginsburg’s essays

squeeze in several pages attempting to fit ‘Christianity’ into his
system. His best efforts at combining ‘Christianity’ with his

occult views are on pages 138-141. His Trinity is not the Father,
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. His “atonement” is that o f the
occult Sohar, wherein Jesus is not the God o f the Bible, and “all
are healed.” He thinks that Christian terms can be made to fit
with the Kabbala, but he admits “though not in the orthodox
s e n s e ” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 142).
The chapter, “The Occult and Catholic Origin of

Greek and Hebrew Study,” documents the foundational role
Catholics who practiced the Kabbalah played in introducing
Greek and Hebrew study. Terms such as ‘Christian Kabbalah’
make no more sense than ‘Christian Buddhism.’ The terms are
mutually exclusive. What fellowship hath light with darkness?
(The spelling ‘K abbalah’ refers to the strictly Jewish interpretation; the spelling ‘C abala’
usually refers to ‘C atholic’ interpretations placed upon the Kabbalah.)
Ginsburg, Bullinger, and the Trinitarian Bible Society
The Trinitarian Bible Society’s current Old Testament is

that of Ginsburg. Therefore it is not authoritative in the minutiae
and cannot be used for Hebrew ‘study’ or by Old Testament
translators as their fin a l authority, as the TBS suggests. It is
helpful, however in revealing errors in the Biblia Hebraica
StUttgaftensia (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/heb.asp).
E.W. Bullinger, leader of the Trinitarian Bible Society from

1867 to 1913, commissioned Ginsburg to make this Old
Testament Hebrew edition for the Society, which they have
been publishing since 1894. Ginsburg also completed for them a
translation o f the New Testament into Hebrew from the corrupt
Westcott-Hort critical Greek text. (The work had been started
by Isaac Salkinson). The TBS published this corrupt Ginsburg
New Testament from 1886 until 1963.
Use of Ginsburg’s corrupt New Testament edition was quite

unnecessary since Elias Hutter had translated the New
Testament into Hebrew and included it in his 1599 Nuremberg
Polyglot. Also in 1817 a Hebrew New Testament was taken
from Hutter’s by T. Fry and G.B. Collyer and published by the
London Jew Society (London: Macintosh). Previous to that in
1661 William Robertson edited the 1599 Hutter original. (This
Nurem berg Polyglot o f the Hebrew Gospels is in the In Awe o f Thy (fo rd CD-ROM set,
available from A.V. Publications, P.O. Box 280, Ararat, VA 24053, 1-800-435-45..).
The British and Foreign Bible Society asked Bible critic

Franz Delitzsch to create a Hebrew New Testament in 1873,
which he completed in 1877, using the corrupt Greek text. The
corruptions led the B&FBS to request that he revise it following
the Received Text, which he did that next year. The TBS now
uses this edition by Delitzsch for their Hebrew New Testament.
It appears to be one of the best available Hebrew New
Testaments at this time and they are to be commended for
printing it (http://w w w .trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/heb.asp).
TBS director E.W. Bullinger published his own study Bible

called The Companion Bible. It purports to give insights into
the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew. Bullinger recommends
the critical text in his Companion Bible. Naive readers may miss
the fact that all o f his references and comments are based on the
corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort. His critical Hebrew
notes are from Ginsburg. His preface states, In the New
Testament all the important readings will be given according to
the evidence of the great textual critics, Griesbaeh, Laehmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the
Revisers’ Greek Text.” He follows the corrupt Vaticanus,
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi manuscripts^ ca mg
them “the four most important manuscripts N, A, B, C” (B ulling*
P . 1823). He adds, “For the Old Testament all the important
readings will be given according to Dr. C.D. Ginsburg’s

Massoretico-Critical Text o f the Hebrew Bible.” Bullinger’s
Bible introduces the critical notions of Ginsburg’s masorah.
Bullinger concludes, “By copying out the A.V., and
substituting these amended renderings, the student may
make his own new Revised Version” (Bullinger, p. ix).
Unlike Ginsburg, Bullinger was no doubt an orthodox

Christian. His Bible does contain some interesting facts, that is,
when he constrains himself to the English Bible at hand.
Although generally orthodox, his friendship with Ginsburg may
have had some small ill effect.
S Bullinger allegorizes a bit — just like a Kabbalist. For

example, we know the tempter in the garden was, “that
old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 12:9).
But his notes take it a little further saying, “ ...it was not
a snake but a glorious shining being, apparently an
angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference.” He said
the word ‘serpent’ was a “figure o f something much
more real than the letter of the word.” “We cannot
conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake...”
[Since it spoke to her first, she would have replied.] He
adds, “Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture
should be accepted in Gen. 3 ...the letter o f what is
‘written’ could be put instead o f the truth that is
Conveyed by it . . . (Bullinger, Appendixes, pp. 24, 25).
S Bullinger feigns a knowledge o f Hebrew but calls
Lucifer, “Morning-star,” when the Hebrew word for
Star i s not in the text (See note on Isa. 14:12, Bullinger, p. 949).
S Bullinger suggests that the book o f Esther contains an
acrostic with the name o f God spelled backwards;
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
backward spelling is strictly a Kabbalistic idea (Buiiinger,

Appendixes, p. 85; Durant, p. 740). #
✓ To Buiiinger, all wine is fermented; he ignores such
verses as “the new wine is in the cluster” which leaves
no time for fermentation (Isa. 65:8) (B uiiinger,P. 29).
Buiiinger and Ginsburg shared an interest in Hebrew, as

well as an interest in the use of numbers in scripture. However,
Buiiinger’s interest was generally in numbers as they appear in
the English version. God does use numbers in scriptures to
convey meaning. They are there for all to see; nothing lshldden
(e g. “the num ber o f < £ beast is ...” ; A.V. Publication’s books, By Divine Order and The K,ng
Buiiinger S book,
Jam es Code show G od’s true use o f num bers in scripture).
Number in Scripture, shows no signs of occult Gematna as seen

in Ginsburg’s book the Kabbalah. (Ginsburg wrongly believed that
“Every letter o f a word is reduced to its numerical value, and the word is
explained by another o f the same quality” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 131).
Ginsburg’s occult Kabbalah system used notankon, which view siw or
acrostically, themurah, which transposes letters or replaces them with
subjective equivalents taken from another g r o u p of anagrams.
uses this occult numerology to interpret verses (Ginsburg The
p 132 et al.). It is insanity. It is typical o f occultists who feel they must be
superior to the masses in knowing things others do not know. God said,
have not spoken in secret” Isa. 45:19).
Today: The Trinitarian Bible Society and Ginsburg
Today the TBS is to be commended for being one of the

very few publishers o f the King James Bible, as well as printing
scripture portions and excellent scripture posters They a
attempting to print and distribute Received Text Bibles
foreign languages. They are aware o f the weaknesses in some o
their editions and hopefully will begin to print edition
are even more historically accurate.
HEBREW : TBS G IN SBU RG , GREEN, CH A Y IM , B O M BERG 1063
Reliance on their defective Hebrew edition by Ginsburg

leads the TBS to state: “The Trinitarian Bible Society does not
believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only
that it is the best available translation in the English
language...The final appeal must always be to the original
languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts”
http://w ww.trinitarianbiblesocietv.org/site/statem ent.pdf: also see site/qr/qr578.pdf.). Small
wonder they think the KJB is not perfect; they are comparing it
to their imperfect Ginsburg text (and no doubt reading
Ginsburg’s Hebrew with a corrupt Gesenius, Brown, Driver,
and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon).
Ginsburg and Green Today
The King James Bible translators never saw a Ginsburg

Hebrew Old Testament. It had no influence upon that
translation. Ginsburg’s Hebrew edition (and the Letteris edition
used by Green) were not produced until over 200 years after the
KJB. The KJB translators had what they referred to as “the
Originall” Hebrew. The KJB has outlived all other attempts at
translation, so obviously its translators were correct in their high
estimation o f the Hebrew and vernacular texts to which they
had access. God said that he would preserve his word and the
KJB has been preserved for us.
Unfortunately, even conservative translators o f foreign

editions are haplessly resting on every jot and tittle of
Ginsburg’s Hebrew or J.P. Green’s Interlinear. Such translators
have not done a thorough collation with historical texts to
uncover the unsoundness o f these currently available one-man
Hebrew editions, nor do they know the history o f their
particulars. Very likely, they are also building on this faulty
foundation with English wood, hay and stubble words from
1064 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ____________
Green or Gesenius, Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew-English

Lexicon.
Other good but naive Christians cry foul on the KJB when it
does not match one of these modern-day one-man Hebrew
editions. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Even more
dangerous is a little knowledge sprinkled abroad to a Christian
college, congregation, or subscriber’s list. Those who instruct
will “receive the greater condemnation” if they teach error
(James 3:1), particularly when one has been warned.
C h ap ter 29
The Occult &

Catholic Origin of
Greek & Hebrew Focus
The Kabbalists:
■ Lally
■ Bessarion & Vaticanus
■ Mirandola
■ Reuchlin
■ Sir Thomas More
■ Ginsburg
“Canst thou speak Greek”? Acts 21:37
he pagan chief captain asked Paul that question. Yet
T Paul ignored him and spoke “unto them in the Hebrew

tongue...A nd when they heard that he spake in the
Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence” (Act
22:2). Jesus likewise spoke in the vernacular tongue o f his
hearers. Christians have grown and thrived since the first
century, exclusively using Holy Bibles written in their own
language. The history o f these vernacular Bibles, which began
in Acts 2, is discussed fully in this author’s book, In Awe o f Thy
Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its History and
Mystery, Letter by Letter. Its documentation demolishes the
Catholic myth that the corrupt Latin Vulgate was the only Bible
available. It documents that vernacular Bibles have always been
readily accessible to people, and not just chained to the pulpit.
Still thriving today is a sparkling sea o f Christians worldwide
who use only their vernacular Bibles (Also see The History o f the Debate
Over I John 5:7-8 by M ichael Maynard).
The Bible speaks o f “the word o f God, which liveth...” The

word itself actually gives life, as we are “bom again, not of
corruptible seed, but o f incorruptible, by the word o f God which
liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). It also sustains
spiritual life. Jesus said, “It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out o f the mouth
o f God” (Mat. 4:4). In today’s most needed sermon Dr. Norris
Belcher said that if we need the “word of God” to live, each
Christian must have the true words which “proceedeth out o f the
mouth of God.” If we need the word o f God to be “bom again
and to “live,” it must have life and must itself be alive. The true
words o f God will not be chained again to the pulpit or
professor’s podium, as the private property o f a few men with
Greek lexicons, giving it out piecemeal, parroting the church of
ORIGIN & RESULT OF GREEK & HEBREW FOCUS 1067
Rome in the Dark Ages. The word which “liveth” must reside in
the common man’s Holy Bible (Dr. Norris Belcher,
http://w w w .opendoorchurch.org; Sermons; “W ord o f God,” “Hush, You D on’t Speak G reek,”
“You Can Trust Y our B ible’s Inspiration," You Can Trust Y our B ible's Preservation” et al.).
There have always been those who seek to interfere with the
one-on-one relationship a believer has with his Saviour. The
serpent injected himself between God and Eve. The Catholic
priest positions himself between God and man. This desire to
halt man’s direct communication with God manifests itself in
three steps:
Step 1: Questioning God’s word: The serpent said, “Yea,

hath God said...?” He hangs around the tree o f “knowledge”
and haunts lexicons at ‘bible’ college.
Step 2: Re-interpreting what God has already said: The
serpent said, “Ye shall not surely die.” Today he speaks
through lexicons, which contain the same words that are
used by new versions.
Step 3 : With these words o f “knowledge” he introduces
m an’s ideas and philosophies to replace the words o f God.
Bible students are the direct target o f the devil. If he can get
them, when they are young and impressionable, he can have the
whole church that they will pastor when they graduate. He does
not care what diversionary tactics he must use to direct honour
and attention away from the Bible, be it the wicked Kabbalah or
the crafty lexicon. The end result is the same. The word is
diminished in men’s sight and they swell with their new god
like abilities, not known by the multitudes. The Bible says,
“diminish not a word” (Jer. 26:2; Deut. 4:2). As soon as the
Holy Bible’s authority is diminished, Lucifer’s lexicons move
in, as the serpent did in the garden, in direct opposition to the
command, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6).
Throughout history these same three steps are seen. Once

the serpent questions God’s word (‘Is the KJB really correct? ),
he can re-interpret God’s warning from “thou shalt surely die ’
to “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 2:17, 3:4). The serpent denied
God’s judgment and judgment fell on mankind. Once again,
“handling the word o f God deceitfully,” new versions continue
to deny God’s judgment by taking the word “not” out of Isa.
9:3 and 49:5, as this book demonstrates (2 Cor. 4:2). They do
this based upon faulty texts and lexicons.
We are not ignorant o f Satan’s devices as he echoes “Yea,

hath God said...?” to yet another generation. “[H]is ministers”
resound the age old lie that man needs an interpreter o f God’s
word (2 Cor. 11:15). Remember, Satan is behind all re
interpretations o f God’s word. Those who have heeded his hath
God said’ are open to his lexicons and contradictory Greek and
Hebrew texts, made by those who fell for the temptation to be
“as gods, knowing” (Gen. 3:5).
The Holy Bible is the very voice of God on earth. His

presence is swept away in one foul swoop by those who think
that the multiplied vernacular versions are merely m an’s feeble
attempts to express the ‘real’ words of God (which can only be
found in one-man editions, which must be accessed by the
lexicons written by unsaved liberals).
In the early centuries after Christ, Satan’s re-interpreters

were Origen and Jerome. With the two arms of Greek and
Hebrew study they wrapped their clutches with a choke hold
around the Bible until they produced counterfeit copies (See
New Age Bible Versions for details). Once again this
contradicting ‘authority’ is trying to slither between man and

God. The serpent gave voice to the devil’s question; now men
give him voice, perhaps pope, priest, professor, or pulpiteer,
with “That word actually m eans....”
Study o f the Greek language, as this book discloses,

inevitably leads to lexicons and their use o f the literature o f the
Greek philosophers. One can quickly wander into the world of
mysticism and be blinded by the shadow it spreads over the
words of the Bible. Study o f Hebrew, as this book shows, can
lead to the study of corrupted Hebrew Bible readings from
apostate Hebrew texts, and even to apostate documents such as
the Talmud and the Kabbalah. The final step, once the word of
God is slandered and not “glorified,” is the introduction o f the
man-made philosophies o f the Greeks and Hebrews, such as the
kingdom building politics o f Aristotle, the mysticism o f Plato,
or the bizarre cosmology o f the occult Hebrew Kabbalah (called
Cabala when used by Catholics).
All o f these wicked philosophies caught the rapt attention of

the Catholic hierarchy during the Middle Ages and the time o f
the Inquisition. “The Zohar, text o f Jewish Cabalism, survived
uninjured because some Catholic scholars thought they found in
it proofs” of their doctrines (W ill Durant, The Story o f Civilization: The
Reform ation, Vol. 6, New York: M JF Books, 1957, p. 740).
Satan, who put the first question mark in the Bible,

has succeeded by using Greek and Hebrew ‘study’ to:
1. slip his interpretation between God and man

2. distance Christians from the living vernacular Bible
3. plant MANY DOUBTS in Bible students’ minds
Servetus (A.D. 1511-1553) “admitted that his Hebrew

studies had influenced him in questioning the Trinitarian
theology” (Durant, p. 726).
Greek and Hebrew Study Rejected for 1500 Years
Once Origen and Jerome had used Greek and Hebrew

to birth their corrupt one-man ‘bible’ editions, Greek and
Hebrew Bible study was not attempted for well over one
thousand years. In the late 1400s the Catholic church again
conjured these questioning spirits by promoting the teaching
and learning of Greek and Hebrew to re-interpret the words of
God. Fellow pagans, the plundering Turks provided the
westward push to Rome and sent apostate Greeks packing with
piles o f Greek manuscripts. Johannes Reuchlin (A.D. 1455-
1522), a Catholic and occult Kabbalist, began mining the texts
o f these languages for mystical meaning which could re
interpret the words o f the Bible. The Encyclopedia o f Religion
and Ethics traces the hissing sound of Greek and Hebrew study
to the serpent’s scribes, Reuchlin and Mirandola, both
Kabbalistic occultists.
“Since the time o f Jerome [c. A.D. 347 to 1500]

Hebrew learning had been rare among
Western Christians.
The most distinguished among the immediate

predecessors o f Reuchlin were John Wessel
(1420-89) and Pico della Mirandola (1463-94).
Reuchlin owed much to their influence. But he
himself was the ‘Father of Hebrew philology
amongst Christians...
He did much to promote the study of Greek,

and even in his early days at Basel his activity
provoked the hostility of obscurantists [true
Christians], who objected to the language as
impious and schismatic - i.e. that of the
Eastern Church...
In supporting Reuchlin, the humanists were

maintaining the freedom o f thought and learning
against the obscurantist demand that nothing
should be taught or published that they chose
to consider at variance with traditional
orthodoxy - that the ignorance... o f the
uninstructed multitude should determine how
far scholarship should be tolerated” (Jam es Hastings,
E ncyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics, s.v. Reuchlin, vol. X, p. 744; see
also E.B., s.v. Reuchlin, vol. 23, pp. 204, 205; The N ew Schaff- Herzog,
vol. IX, p. 745).
As the section on Reuchlin and C.D. Ginsburg, editor o f the

Hebrew text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, will
show, occultism is the final destination o f those who want to
have special knowledge unavailable to the “multitude.”
However, Jesus spoke directly to the multitude, just as he
speaks directly to us today through the Holy Bible. It says, “the
multitude resorted unto him” (Mark 2:13) and “a great
multitude followed him” (Matt. 20:29). “And he called the
multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand” (Matt.
15:10). In fact, the Bible says, “Then spake Jesus to the
multitude, and to his disciples,” warning them o f “the scribes”
(Matt. 23). Why did he warn the multitude? Because finally,
“the chief priests persuaded the multitude” to “destroy Jesus”
(Matt. 27:20).
Today, how do the scribes persuade the multitude of

Christians to destroy the written word? Actually the scribes and
the Pharisees “feared the multitude” (Matt. 21:46). “And they
could not take hold of his words before the people (Luke 20:
26). Likewise the Bible says o f Herod, “he feared the
multitude” (Matt. 14:5). So the enemy does not stand in the
pulpit saying to the multitude, ‘Your Bible is all wrong. You
can’t know God without getting it through me.’ But in the
college classroom, “without the multitude, they become
“whisperers, Backbiters” biting and spitting out bits o f the word
o f God (Rom. 1:29, 30).
Froude said o f Reuchlin, “Reuchlin had opened the way.”

He adds, “He was among the first of the distinguished
scholars who introduced the study of Hebrew and Greek
into Germany, and was thus, in fact, the father of
modern Bible criticism.” He was “imprisoned” for
“heretical” writings. Erasmus conceded that “It is to him really
that Germany owes such knowledge as it has o f Greek and
Hebrew” (Froude, The Life and Letters o f Erasm us, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899, pp.
185, 182-183, 181).
In the late 1400s Greek and Hebrew study was opposed.

Froude writes about the “attacks, too successful” by the
“enemies of Greek.” There were “no grammars or dictionaries
yet within reach, under much opposition and obloquy from old-
fashioned conservatism.” Where are the conservatives today?
(Froude, pp. 181, 39). Scrivener admits “the general ignorance of
Greek among divines in Western Europe” (Scrivener, a Plain i n t r o d u c e

to the Textual Criticism o f the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 175 reprint from Eugene, Oregon. P
and Stock Publishers, 1997).
Catholic, Sir Thomas More, Chides Anti-Greek ‘Trojans’
The battle and its methods change little. Those who will
censure the contents o f this book and its warning about the
corrupt sources from which Greek and Hebrew are studied
would do well to carefully read the following letter and
prayerfully consider just whose footsteps they are following. In
protest to “a course o f sermons” “denouncing” the study of
“Greek,” the Catholic contender Sir Thomas More (A.D. 1478-
1535) addressed the Catholic governing body o f Oxford
University saying,
UT heard lately that either some fools’

A frolic, or from your dislike o f the study
o f Greek, a clique had been formed among you
calling themselves Trojans...and that the object
was to throw ridicule on the Greek language and
literature. Grecians are to be mocked and jeered
at by Trojans...
I have been informed, however, on coming to

this town o f Abingdon, that folly has grown into
madness, and that one o f these Trojans, who
thinks himself a genius, has been preaching a
course o f sermons during Lent, denouncing not
Greek classics only, but...G reek, o f which he
knows nothing...H e says that nothing is of
importance except theology. How can he know
theology if he is ignorant of Hebrew, and
G reek...and if he fancies that Scripture and the
Fathers can be understood without a knowledge
o f the languages in which the Fathers wrote, he
will not find many to agree with him ...
1074 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS________ _______
He calls those who study Greek heretics. The

teachers of Greek, he says, are full-grown
devils, and the learners of Greek are little
devils...
It is not for me, Domini lllustrissimi, to defend

Greek. You know yourselves that it needs no
defense.. .you will not allow the study o f it to be
put down by sermons or private cabals. Make
these gentlemen understand that, unless they
promptly cease from such factious doings, we
outside will have a word to say about it. Every
man who has been educated at your University
has as much interest in its welfare as you who
are now at its head.
Your Primate and Chancellor will not permit

these studies to be meddled with, or allow fools
and sluggards to ridicule them from the pulpit.
The Cardinal of York will not endure it. The
King’s Majesty our Sovereign has himself more
learning than any English monarch ever
possessed before him. Think you that he, prudent
and pious as he is, will look on passively when
worthless blockheads are interrupting the course
of sound instruction in the oldest university in
the Realm - a university which has produced
men who have done honour to their country and
the Church? With its colleges and its
endowments, there is nowhere in the world a
place of education so richly furnished as Oxford;
and the objects of these foundations is to support
students in the acquirement of knowledge. Your
Wisdoms, therefore, will find means to silence

these foolish contentions...” (F ro u d e,PP. 139- 142).
“[T]he devil is not expelled by rose water.” Therefore fiery

sermons which “reprove” and “rebuke” this Catholic spirit o f
Greek and Hebrew focus are still necessary. Long lingers the
spirit o f pride which dwells in all men (Froude, P. i88>.
Sir Thomas More was a staunch Catholic and a man who

finally died defending the Pope. He knew that the authority of
the vernacular Bible must be usurped to retain the pope’s
authority. He was one o f the first to study and later widely
promote Greek and Hebrew study. He was trained as a young
man in the household o f Catholic Cardinal Morton and then
went to Oxford.
“[H]e had Linacre for his master in Greek.

Learning Greek was not the matter o f course
which it has since become. Greek was not as yet
part of the arts curriculum, and to learn it
voluntarily was ill looked upon by the
authorities. Those who did so were suspected
of an inclination towards novel and dangerous
modes of thinking, then rife on the Continent
and slowly finding their way to England. M ore’s
father...took the alarm; he removed him from
the university without a degree...but he would
not relinquish the studies which had attracted
him in Oxford” (E.B., s.v. Sir Thomas M ore, P. 822).
Having placed the pure vernacular Bible on the shelf, More

had no straight course to follow, so he “subjected himself to the
discipline of a Carthusain monk. He wore a sharp shirt o f hair
next his skin, scourged himself every Friday and other fasting
days, lay upon the bare ground with a log under his head and
allowed himself but four or five hours’ sleep” (e .b ., s.v. M ore, P. 823).
Soon —
“[H]e returned with ardour to the study o f Greek,

which had been begun at Oxford. The humanistic
influence was sufficiently strong to save him
from wrecking his life in monkish
mortification...He acquired no inconsiderable
facility in the Greek language, from which he
made and published some translations” (e .b ., s.v.
M ore, p. 824).
His passion for Greek led him, as it always does, to adopt

the beliefs of the Greek philosophers. He wrote Utopia, in
which, “The idea o f putting forward political and philosophical
principles under the fiction of an ideal state was doubtless taken
from Plato’s Republic” (e .b ., s.v. M ore, p. 825).
More was trained in law and held several “judicial”

positions, such as “under-sheriff’ and “lord chancellor” of
England. With this authority he had the power to persecute
Christians and was under the “charge of having tortured men
and children for heresy.” More had no “sympathy with Lutheran
or Wickliffite heretics.” Erasmus, who was gracious to
everyone, extended his kind regards to More in his writings, but
it is said that “they got into an argument during dinner wherein
More said to Erasmus, “Aut tu es Erasmus, aut diabolus
[devil]!” (E.B., s.v. M ore, pp., 824, 823).
The King o f England finally rejected the Pope’s authority

over England. Yet More stayed blindly bound “within the him s
of Catholic” opinion. He “lived in a superstitious atmosphere o
convents and churches” and was charged with being an

“accomplice” with “Elizabeth Barton, a n u n ...” He was finally
found guilty o f “treason” for his stark-blind loyalty to the Pope.
For this he has become a Catholic hero and was “beatified by
Leo XIII in 1886 (E.B., s.v. M ore, pp. 823, 825).
“The Epistola ad Dorpium exhibits More

emphatically on the side o f the new learning. It
contains a vindication o f the study o f Greek, and
o f the desirability o f printing the text o f the
Greek Testament - views which at that
date...w ere condemned by the party to which
More afterwards attached him self’ (e .b ., s.v. M ore, P.
825).
The two chains o f Greek and Hebrew study tugged on the

Reformers, who still clung to a few o f their other Catholic
doctrines (i.e. infant baptism). Converted priests were slow to
give up their special position as private interpreter, so they
studied Greek and Hebrew. However, many recognized the
dangers in this study. A standard work on The Reformation by
Will Durant noted:
“Luther was not so enthusiastic, “how I hate

people,” he complained, “who lug in so many
languages as Zwingli does; he spoke Greek
and Hebrew in the pulpit at Marburg””
(Newm an, Louis I. Jew ish Influence on Christian Reform M ovem ents,
N.Y., 1925, p. 473 as cited in Will Durant, The Reform ation, p. 726).
Like Luther (A.D. 1483-1546), the “multitude” o f Christians

“objected” to the mandated teaching o f Greek and Hebrew as
divisive and dangerous to “traditional orthodoxy.”
Erasmus said,
“My chief fear is that with the revival o f Greek

literature there may be a revival of paganism.
There are Christians who are Christians only in
name, and are Gentiles at heart; and, again, the
study o f Hebrew may lead to Judaism, which
would be worse still. 1 wish there could be an
end o f scholastic subtleties, or if not an end, that
they could be thrust into a second place, and
Christ be taught plainly and simply” (Froude.p. i87).
We have all heard the half truth that Erasmus laid the egg
and Luther hatched it. Many of the egg-headed Lutheran,
Episcopalian, and Reformed ‘chickens’ which were hatched
have been hesitant to move out from the wmgs of the
“MOTHER” hen “OF HARLOTS” (e.g. Augustine s pre
destination, sacraments, priests; Rev. 17:5). The trail of blood of
true believers runs from John the Baptist to today s martyrs.
The second fable is that ‘Luther gave the German people the
Bible in 1522.’ The influx of Greek manuscripts and Erasmus’
Greek texts beginning in 1516 were not needed to bring the
German people a Bible. Luther did not need to go to Greek or
Hebrew exclusively. He could draw from the 17 previous
German Bibles, all printed before Luther.
“While popular tradition hailed Luther as the

first translator of the Bible into German, the
reformer himself laid no claim to it. He could not
have thought of doing so, knowing that the
German Bible had been printed in at least 17
editions before his time” (Em ilio Com ba, History o f the
Waldenses in Italy, 1889, AMS reprint 1978, p. 190 as cited in M ichael
M aynard, A H istory o f the D ebate O ver I s' John 5:7-8, Tempe. A/..
Com m a Publications, 1995, p. 79).
Maynard cites German Bibles before Luther including:

Augsburger Bibelhandschrift (1350), Tepl Codex (1389), J.
Mentel (1466), H. Eggestein (1470), J. Pflanzman (1475), G.
Zainer (1476), J. Sensenschmidt & A. Frisner (1476), G. Zainer
(1477), Sorg (1477, 1480), Koiner (1478), Koberger (1483),
Griiningen (1485), and the Schonsperger (1490). 1 can not
address Luther’s stylistic input to the German Bible, but his
textual input was slightly faulty. Relying on the second edition
o f Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, he wrongly omitted 1 John
5:7, which had been in all previous German Bibles (so much for
Greek and Hebrew study). He would have been better off to
simply follow the general text of previous German Bibles,
with only reference to Greek and Hebrew, as the KJB
translators were charged in the rules for translation. The
German people soon returned 1 John 5:7 to the Bible and it
remained there until 1956 when the liberals removed it (M aynard, p.
97 et al.).
The fairy tale that Tyndale alone gave the English-speaking

people the Bible, exclusively using the Received Greek text, is
shattered in In Awe o f Thy Word, which shows a segment from
an actual English Bible from hundreds o f years before Tyndale
that reads almost exactly as Tyndale’s does. Style may have
been enhanced by Tyndale, Luther and the King James
translators, but the contents o f the text were scarcely affected,
making the Greek and Hebrew texts o f little more importance
than any other vernacular Bible (because o f the corrupting
influence o f the Greek Orthodox church). Scholars and
merchants in England and on the European continent have
always been multi-lingual. Knowing French, Latin, Greek,
German, and other languages was merely a part o f a well-
rounded liberal arts education for many, including early Bible
translators, such as Tyndale, Luther, and the KJB translators.
By the dawn of the 1700s Greek and Hebrew Bible study

was only rabidly pursued by Bible critics and Unitarians. Today
using Greek and Hebrew to re-interpret or define Bible words is
generally practiced by Bible critics. Others today have followed
the loud crowd and missed the still small voice. A few in the
pew have not recovered from the insult that God did not wait to
produce vernacular Holy Bibles until they came along with their
Strong’s Concordance lexicon under arm. Many well-meaning
souls are simply unaware of the status o f currently printed
editions of the Greek and Hebrew text and the corruptions in
lexicons.
“I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly...”

(1 Tim. 1:13).
Many will turn their RV-ASV laced lexicons, by Strong,

Vine and Thayer, into useful kindling, once they have read this
book.
Hebrew Study Hedges in Through Interest in the Kabbalah
“The scribes...sent forth spies which should

feign themselves just men, that they might take
hold of his words” (Luke 20:19, 20).
C.D. Ginsburg, Hebraist and editor o f the Trinitarian Bible

Society’s Hebrew Old Testament, serves as an example of the
dangers of Greek and Hebrew study, as he prods the reader of
his occult tome, The Kabbalah, to join him on its perilous path.
The Kabbalah is a form o f Jewish mysticism which combines a
bizarre cosmology, wherein God is a female named En Soph. It
combines this with strange interpretations and maneuverings of
the text of the Hebrew Bible.
Bom o f Jewish parents, Ginsburg was ‘baptized’ and then

swept from Poland to England to be immersed in Greek and
Hebrew study, with little English Bible in sight. In 1863,
seventeen years after his so-called conversion to ‘Christianity,’
Ginsburg published his occult book, The Kabbalah. In an effort
to excuse his involvement with occultism, Ginsburg’s book
traces the history of men who were involved with a mixture of
Hebrew study, Catholicism and the Kabbalah. He excuses his
occult leanings boasting that,
“Indeed, the very fact that so large a number o f

Kabbalists have from time to time embraced the
Christian faith would of itself show that there
must be some sort o f affinity between the tenets
o f the respective system s...The testimony o f
these distinguished Kabbalists, which they give
in their elaborate works, about the affinity o f
some o f the doctrines o f this theosophy with
those o f Christianity, is by no means to be
slighted (Christian Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, The Essenes, New
York: Samuel W eiser, 1864, reprint 1972, p 143).
Ginsburg charges that this occult system “has captivated the

minds o f some o f the greatest thinkers o f Christendom in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” A true Christian could
never be “captivated” by occultism; Ginsburg’s use o f the term
‘Christian’ for himself and other Cabalists is wrong. He uses the
term ‘Christian’ as loosely as many unsaved Americans do; he
calls Catholics ‘Christians’ and the pope, “His Holiness” (a .e .
W aite, The H oly Kabbalah, England: O racle Publishing Ltd., 1996, p. 495; Ginsburg, The
Kabbalah, pp. 83, 196). He lists occultist Robert Fludd and others
noting,
“ ...these men, after restlessly searching for a

scientific system which should disclose to them
“the deepest depths” of the Divine nature, and
show them the real tie which binds all things
together, found the cravings of their minds
satisfied by this theosophy, the claims of the
K abbalah...” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 83).
Ginsburg unknowingly exposes the dangers of Greek and

Hebrew study. He says the Kabbalah, f
“ ...became known among Christians through the

restless efforts of Raymond Lully, the
celebrated scholastic metaphysician... Being
inspired with an ardent zeal for the
conversion of the Mohammedans and the
Jews to Christianity, he acquired a knowledge
of Arabic and Hebrew for this purpose. In
pursuing his Hebrew studies Lully became
acquainted with the mysteries o f the Kabbalah,
and instead of converting his Kabbalistic
teachers, he embraced the doctrine...” (Ginsburg,
The Kabbalah, pp. 199-200).
Ginsburg traces the influence of numerous Catholic

“illuminatus.” He tells his readers that Lully’s introductory
work on the Kabbalah in the 1200s was followed by Menahim
diRecanti, who in 1330 wrote acommentary on the
[Kabbalistic] Sohar (also called Zohar). Then, in the early
1400s, Greek Orthodox Bishop Bessarion defected from his
church after being charged with heresy. He fled to Italy an
joined the church o f Rome, which anxiously welcomed him as
one who could put them in direct contact with the Greek
language o f mystical Platonism. Rome was a caldron o f

mysticism and the Kabbala, with Popes and wealthy patrons
attracting Jews who could teach them the Hebrew Kabbalah and
Greeks who could teach Greek and its philosophy. Bessarion
brought with him the infamous Greek Vaticanus MS, along
with other bible (and Platonic) manuscripts. All these were a
good match with the corrupt Vulgate o f Jerome, the real
Catholic ‘father’ o f Greek and Hebrew study. The
homosexuality o f Plato and Socrates Bessarion defended in his
In Calumniatorem Platonis (Sightler, PP. 107, 117- 133). (The reader will
find many men in other chapters o f this book who pursued the
study o f Greek to shed the strict world o f the Bible for the
licentious lifestyle o f the pagan Greeks.) Bessarion was soon
made a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic church and started a
mystical school o f neo-Platonism in Florence, Italy. One o f its
students was Pico Mirandola (A.D. 1463-1494), who was
under the patronage o f Pope Alexander VI (1431-1503), the
father o f the infamous magician Lucretzia Borgia (Jam es Sightler, A
Testimony Founded Forever, Greenville: Sightler Publications, 2nd ed., 2002, PP. 106, 107). In
his caldron Mirandola mixes Christ and occultism. Mirandola

reveals the devil’s target:
“No science yields greater proof o f the divinity

o f Christ than magic and the Kabbala. Pope
Sixtus IV (1471-1484) was so delighted with it
that he greatly exerted himself to have
Kabbalistic writings translated into Latin for the
use o f divinity students” (Ginsburg calls Rome “the eternal
c ity ...” Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 206; see also JosePh Leon Blau, The
Christian Interpretation o f the Cabala in the Renaissance (New York:
Colum bia U niversity, 1944, p. 20).
Today a huge full-page portrait o f Mirandola is seen in

Blavatsky’s Luciferian book, Isis Unveiled (1972 edition, vol. 2 , P. 275).
Johannes Reuchlin: ‘Father’ of Greek & Hebrew Studies
Ginsburg said “Not only did Mirandola make the Kabbalah

known to the Christians in Italy, but he was the means of
introducing it into Germany through John R euchlin...” (Ginsburg,
The Kabbalah, pp. 206-207). “Pico della Mirandola persuaded Reuchlin
to seek wisdom in the Cabala” (Durant, p. 323).
Johann Reuchlin
1455-1522
C ourtesy of P alm u P ublications

Question any Greek or Hebrew seminary professor and he

will tell you that Johannes Reuchlin is called the father o f Greek
and Hebrew study. He will not tell you however that Reuchlin
was a Roman Catholic and occult Kabbalist. He wrote the
standard grammars and lexicons while he was writing books on
the wicked occult Kabbalah.
“He was during a great part o f his life the real

centre o f all Greek teaching as well as o f all
Hebrew teaching in Germany... In 1506
appeared his epoch-making De Rudimentis
Hebraicis - grammar and lexicon...” (e .b ., vol. 23,
s.v. Reuchlin, p. 205).
The Encyclopedia says, “ ...he found time to publish at

Pfozheim, in 1506 his De rudimentis Hebraicis. This was
followed...in 1518 by his “De accentibus et orthographia lingua
Hebraicae. In the mean time he had published in 1517 his ‘De
arte cabbalistica,’ in which the cabala was held to have been
revealed to Adam by an angel... (The N ew schaff-H erzog, v o l. i x , s.v.
Reuchlin, P. 499). Reuchlin also made a Latin Lexicon in 1475.
S.A. Hirsh identifies in his Essays (London, 1905) “John

Reuchlin, the Father o f the Study o f Hebrew among the
Christians.” In truth, Reuchlin was no Christian, but “ ...w as
always a good Catholic, and even took the habit o f an
Augustinian monk when he felt that his death was
n ear...” Reuchlin was bom and buried in the Catholic church.
“[H]is father was an official o f the Dominican monastery,”
where Johannes attended “monastery school” (e .b ., s.v. Reuchlin, pp.
205, 2 06. 204). Reuchlin learned Greek from the literate fugitive
Greeks who fled to Europe after the taking o f Constantinople by

the Turks (A.D. 1453). They brought their modem and secular
Greek word ‘meanings’ and pronunciations to Catholics, like
Reuchlin, who were thrilled to learn Greek so that they could

access Greek philosophy, mythology, and literature. Reuchlin
became proficient in Latin and Greek, and soon became a
“teacher o f Classics and Hebrew,” teaching “Aristotelian
philosophy” and “explaining Aristotle in Greek” (Hastings, s.v.
Reuchlin, p. 744; The New Schaff, s.v. Reuchlin, p. 499 et al.).
“Reuchlin’s attitude towards Luther was

unsympathetic” ...“as was his feeling toward the Reformation in
general.” His grand-nephew was the famous Protestant reformer
Melanchthon, but “the Reformation estranged them.” “[H]e
scolded his nephew Melanchthon for adopting the Lutheran
theology, and he died in the arms of the Church” (Hastings, s.v.
Reuchlin, p. 744; The New Sch a ff-H en o g , s.v. Reuchlin, p. 500; E.B., s.v. Reuchlin, p. 205;
Durant, p. 426).
In 1482, Reuchlin “left Stuttgart [Germany] for Florence

and Rome.” While in Rome,
“he made that splendid Latin oration before the

Pope and the cardinals, which elicited from his
Holiness the declaration that Reuchlin deserved
to be placed among the best orators o f France
and Italy. From Rome Eberhard took him to
Florence, and it was here that Reuchlin became
acquainted with the celebrated Mirandola and
with the Kabbalah” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 207).
“Here he saw Pico della M ir a n d o la , to whose C a b b a lis t ic

d o c t r in e s he afterwards became heir, and also made the
friendship o f the p o p e ’s s e c r e t a r y , Jakob Questenberg, w ic
was o f service to him in his later troubles.” He returned
Rome in 1490 and again in 1498 to learn more He r e ,
“utilizing his newly-acquired knowledge to.study th ^ K a ^
(E.B., s.v. Reuchlin, p. 205; Hastings, s.v. Reuchlin, p. 744, E.B. pp. 204, zu
H erzog, s.v. Reuchlin, p. 499). “He now devoted himself to the mystery of
the cabala...” The Encyclopedia Britannica o f 1911 says,
“But his Greek studies had interested him in

those fantastical and mystical systems o f later
times with which the Cabbala has no small
affinity. Following Pico [Mirandola], he seemed
to find in the Cabbala a profound theosophy
which might be of the greatest service for the
defense o f Christianity and the reconciliation o f
science with the mysteries of faith - an unhappy
delusion indeed, but one not surprising in that
strange time o f ferment ( e .b ., s.v. Reuchlin, P. 205).
Ginsburg tells us, “Whereupon Reuchlin at once betook

himself to the study of the Kabbalah, and within two years of
his beginning to learn the language in which it is written, his
first Kabbalistic treatise, entitled De Verbo Mirifico (Basle,
1494), appeared.” Reuchlin’s book teaches that the philosophies
o f Plato, Pythagoras and Zoroaster are compatible with the
Bible. Reuchlin taught that God reveals himself in “the ten
Sephiroth” and that “every existence emanates from him.” He
taught monism, in which there is a “union o f God with nature.”
Just as Reuchlin (and Ginsburg) tried to synchronize the
Kabbalah with the ancient Greek mystery religions, Reuchlin
also tried to mold Christianity to fit his mystical mindset. He
manages to make room for the Trinity in the ‘ten Serphoh.’ He
will say that “Jesus is God himself,” because his Cabala teaches
that men are all actually “God manifested” in the flesh (Ginsburg,
The Kabbalah, pp. 208, 104-105, 209, 210, 211).
Durant said in his classic called The Reformation, “At

thirty-eight (1493) he was appointed professor o f Hebrew in the
University o f Heidelberg. The Hebrew dictionary and grammar
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
that he composed put the study of Hebrew and the Old

Testament on a scientific basis [not a spiritual basis] and
contributed to the powerful influence of the Hebrew scriptures
on Protestant thought. Gradually his admiration for Hebrew
eclipsed his devotion to the [Greek] classics...H e muddied it a
bit with mysticism, but he devotedly submitted all his writings
and teachings to the authority of the [Catholic] Church” (D ura„t>P.
323).
“Reuchlin’s mystico-cabbalistic ideas and objects were in

the De Verbo Mirifico [1494], and finally in the De Arte
Cabbalistica (1516-17)” (E.B., s.v. Reuchlin, p. 205; note that he follows the
corrupt Latin [Span.sh et al.] and uses verbo instead o f serm o for ‘w ord’]. The
Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics says these are Mystic

books “which attempt to extend the Jewish theosophy of the
Kabbala to Christianity...These works are merely literary
curiosities, and have no permanent value” a< footnotes occultist a .e .
W aite, The Secret Doctrine in Israel, London, 1913, p. 6; Hastings, p. 745).
Writing bookends to smash in on his Hebrew Grammar and

Lexicon of 1506 and 1518, Reuchlin added his second book, e
Arte Cabalistica twenty-two years after his first. It is written
the form of a dialogue in which a Mohammedan an a
Pythagorean philosopher meet while being “initiated into the
mysteries of the Kabbalah.” Reuchlin says that the Bible is a
“dead letter” under which a spirit resides that is bound to fulti
his wishes. This is witchcraft!
“This Divine revelation to Moses contains far

more than appears on the surface o f the
Pentateuch...[W]e must believe that something
more profound is contained in them, to which the
Kabbalah gives the key.” [It is] “not to be
understood by the m ultitude.. .This gift is called
Kabbalah...[T]hese have found the living spirit

in the d e a d l e t t e r ... [TJhese signs thus put
together are the means o f p la c in g h im in c lo s e
u n io n w ith s p ir it s , w h o a r e t h e r e b y b o u n d to
f u lf ill h is w is h e s ’ (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 212, 213).
Ginsburg boasts that “Pope Leo X had read his [Reuchlin’s]

Pythagorean book greedily...[A]fterwards the Cardinal de
Medici had done so...Such was the interest which this newly-
revealed Kabbalah created among Christians...in order to be
able to fathom the mysteries o f this theosophy” (Ginsburg, The
Kabbalah, p. 213). Leo X, Cardinal de Medici, and Reuchlin were
actually not Christians.
The famous ‘Reuchlin controversy’ placed Reuchlin in the

epicenter o f the Roman Empire between the Pope and the
emperor. Reuchlin is remembered as a ‘great’ humanist because
he tried to stop an empire-wide incentive to constrain apostate
and occult books which were keeping the Jews from coming to
Christ. His motives may îot have been humanitarian but
personal, in that these apostate books were his intellectual
mainstay. He listed six categories of useful Jewish books; one
included “the cabala” for “defending” the mystical Catholic
view of Christianity (Schaff, s.v. Reuchlin, p. 500). Reuchlin wrote a book
in defense o f these harmful volumes and Emperor “Maximilian
forbad its sale; Reuchlin appealed to Leo X ...” Later, “the
university faculties o f Cologne, Erfurt, Mainz, Louvain, and
Paris ordered Reuchlin’s books to be burned.” His loyalty to
these books about the Kabbalah brought the accusation that he
was “an unbeliever and a traitor to Christianity,” even by
nominal ‘Christians,’ such as Dominicans (Destroying the property o f
others is not Christian; those who burned their books in the book o f Acts did it o f their own free
will; Durant, p. 324). Joining their protest against Reuchlin were
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
orthodox Jews who despised the Kabbalah and other extra-

Biblical writings. Ginsburg admits,
“It is, however, evident that with the increased

circulation o f these two Bibles of the Kabbalah,
as the Sohar and Loria’s Etz Chajim are called,
there was an increased cry on the part of learned
Jews against the doctrines propounded in
them ...som e Rabbins wanted to prevent the
publication of the Sohar, urging that it ought to
be kept secret or be burned, because it tends to
heretical doctrines” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 218).
Reuchlin closed out his adult life as he began it, teaching

Greek and Hebrew. His definitions, as in all lexicons, were a
mix of good and evil. No doubt some were correct; this is the
sheep’s clothing of all lexicons. Too many definitions were
picked from the weed-covered Kabbalah and the garden o
Greek philosophy, which he gathered in his youth from
Aristotle “In 1520 he was professor of Greek and Hebrew at
Ingolstadt...in the winter of 1521-22 he lectured at Tubingen”
until his death that same year (Hastings, P. 745). How different he was
from Erasmus and the King Jam es Bible translators who
looked at the Bibles in all languages (Greek, Hebrew,
English, Old Latin, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, an
German) as fin a l authorities, needing no further
interpretation from the words of mere men. (See In Awe oj
Thy Word for details.)
Reuchlin was followed by Paul Ricci (A.D. 1506-1541) as a
proponent of the so-called ‘Christian Cabala’ and as pro ess
of Greek and Hebrew. Worse yet, Reuchlin was followed un
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, by the college o
Greek and Hebrew (Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. Ricius, Paulus, Jerusalem: Keter,
1971, 14:163).
Today, Reuchlin and his Kabbalistic writings are the

mainstays in occult books, such as Blavasky’s. She cites him
often and says, “Magic, in all its aspects, was widely and nearly
openly practiced by the clergy till the Reformation...the famous
John Reuchlin, author o f the Mirific Word and friend o f Pico
della Mirandola, ...w as a Kabalist and occultist.” She quotes
Reuchlin’s book uDe verbo virifico saying that the Demiurge
“evolved into Light,” in support o f hers and Ginsburg’s
cabalistic theory o f emanations. She cites reams o f nonsense
from Reuchlin’s De Arte Cabbalistica, p. 689 about occult
num erology and “the immortal gods” (The Secret D octrine, vol. 2, pp. 600,
601 footnote; Isis Unveiled, vol. 2, pp. 20, 419, 819).
Why is it that once the devil has a man, through occult

involvement, such as Reuchlin or Ginsburg, he moves him
into the ‘Christian college,’ teaching Greek or Hebrew, or
has him begin editing and revising the Bible? Reuchlin was
the “Father of Greek and Hebrew study,” while Ginsburg’s
edited Hebrew text is today’s holy grail. Let this be a
warning as to what the devil’s goal is — questioning and re
defining the word o f God.
Chayim and the Kabbalah?
Ginsburg boasts that interest in the Kabbala spurred the

printing o f the Hebrew Bible. He says,
“Attracted by the rage for the study o f Hebrew

literature which spread over Italy at the
beginning o f the sixteenth century and which
made Popes and Cardinals, princes and
statesmen, warriors and recluses o f all kinds
search for Jewish teachers to initiate them in

the mysteries of the Kabbalah, the enterprising
Daniel Bomberg of Antwerp emigrated to
Venice where he established his famous Hebrew
printing-office...” (Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the
M assoretico-Critical Edition o f the H ebrew B ible, London: Trinitarian
Bible Society, 1897, pp. 925-926).
It seems that all critical editions o f the Hebrew and Greek,

even the better one, are haunted by bad memories. Ginsburg
notes that even Ben Chayim of the Bomberg press published “a
commentary on the [Kabbalistic] Sohar. This commentary
was first published by Jacob B. Chayim in Bomberg’s
celebrated printing establishment, Venice, 1523, then again,
ibid, 1545...” (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, pp. 200-201).
Only the Holy Bible has no such hidden skeletons in its

closet, because it is the word o f God which “liveth” forever.
Part VI
Inspiration,
Preservation,
Translation,
& Infiltration
1094 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Chapter 30
“The Scriptures...
t o All N a t i o n s ” Rom. 16:26
“With men of other tongues and other lips will

I speak.. .saith the Lord (1 Cor. 14.21).
- A Second Opinion: God’s
■ Hoskier’s Multi-Lingual Theory of the

Genesis of the New Testament
- The So-Called ‘Originals’:

From Syriac to Latin to Beza’s Greek
to KJB to Scrivener’s Greek?
• Holy Bibles Birth Other Holy Bibles
■ Original American Bible Society

Translated From the KJB, Not Greek
- England’s Prime Minister, Winston

Churchill, Says King James Bible Was
Translated Into 760 Other Languages
- Vernacular Bibles Preserve Readings
■ Translations Today: Spanish, French,

Chinese, Korean et al.
SCRIPTURES TO ALL NATIONS 1095
A Second Opinion
ith multiplied confusion and confessions o f errors
W among the Greek-speaking doctors, both early and

current, it might be good to seek a second opinion.
God has provided many such expert opinions about what the
Holy Bible really says, via inspired vernacular Holy Bibles.
God knew the Greeks, as a nation could not bear the
responsibility o f preserving the word o f God. He immediately
provided a safety net in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14:21 to catch the
words they were apt to lose. The Acts 2 “Scriptures in tongues,”
as Wycliffe called them, were created directly by the Holy
Ghost and were not man-made translations from ‘the’ Greek
(G.A. Riplinger, In Aw e o f Thy Word, Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 2003, p. 758). T h e s e
“Scriptures” would have quickly been available in Latin,

Coptic, Gothic, Celtic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Hebrew and a myriad
o f other languages.
“Chrysostom [thought] that each had a special

language assigned to him, and that this was the
indication o f the country which he was called to
evangelize. (Horn, in Act. ii). Some thought that
the number o f languages spoken was seventy or
seventy-five, after the number of the sons o f
Noah (Gen. x) or the sons o f Jacob (ch. xlvi), or
one hundred and twenty, after that o f the
disciples” (Strong and M cClintock, Cyclopedia, vol. 10, p. 480-
481).
Syria is very close to Judea, Galilee, and Jerusalem. With the

growth o f the church at Antioch and Damascus, there was no
doubt an immediate need for Syriac gospels and epistles. The
importance of the churches at Antioch and Damascus made an
immediate Syriac translation mandatory. Matt. 4:24 notes of

Christ, “And his fame went throughout all Syria.”
“In the provinces, especially at distance from

the chief seats of commerce, Latin was the only
language generally spoken, and in such places
the necessity must have first arisen o f rendering
at least the New Testament into a tongue to be
“understanded o f the people”” ( f .h . scrivener, six
Lectures, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1875, p. 98).
God closed the canon at the end of the book of Revelation

with a warning not to “add unto these things.” However he
never said he would not translate the canon (Acts 2, 1 Cor.
14:21, Col. 1:6, Romans 16:26, Esther 8:9), preserve its
inspiration (Ps. 119:160, 100:5, 105:8, Mat. 5:18, Isa. 40:8), or
purify it as languages change (Ps. 12:6, 7, Prov. 30:5, Psalm
119:140). (He said the gift o f tongues would cease, along with
the sign gifts for Israel. But both Dr. James Sightler and Dr.
Norris Belcher have suggested to me that he never made such a
statement about the gift of “interpretation,” a word which is
always used in the New Testament to mean going from one
language to another. It appears to be no stranger than the gift of
helps.) Acts chapter 2 and 1 Cor. 14:21 assure us that it is God
himself who “speaks” his word in “other tongues” and therefore
must superintend the translation of his words. He is no respecter
o f persons. Would he not answer the prayers o f translators who
ask for wisdom and his very words? Could translators be in a
safer place than to be stranded on God’s omnipotence?
The Greek language has never been primary for other

language groups (except, of course for Greeks). Few Bibles ever
were created from Greek, without recourse to other vernacular
editions also, as will be evidenced by a bank o f examples in this

chapter.
Hoskier: Genesis of New Testaments In Multiple Languages
H. C. Hoskier, one o f the rare scholars who has collate

a large and wide range o f actual ancient manuscripts, concluded
that the originals were created immediately in multiple
languages. The large body o f documentation in his book,
Concerning the Genesis o f the Versions o f the N. T., proves his
thesis Well (H.C. H oskier, London: Bernard Quaritch, 1910). Hoskier makes
three observations (details upcoming):
1.) Originals: Some or all o f the first originals may have

been in languages other than Greek.
2.) Concurrent: Multiple language editions were available

immediately and were concurrent with Greek editions.
3.) Continuity: The Greek manuscripts we now use to

determine the text were often made from vernacular, not
Greek, editions.
Conclusion: Greek manuscripts have historically been no more

authoritative than vernacular editions.
1.) Multiple Language Originals:
Hoskier believes, like Wycliffe, that the original books of

the Bible were written in the language to whom they were
addressed (i.e. Hebrew, Latin, Greek, etc.). He refers to —
“ ...the original languages [plural] in which the

“Ur-texts” [plural] o f the different books o f the
New Testament were written” (Hoskier, p. 21; see In Aw e
o f Thy Word).
[Ur-text means ‘original.’] He lists numerous groups of Greek

manuscripts containing the book of Mark and concludes, Both
groups, however, ipso facto, seem to be translations fiom an Ur-
Mark in Latin or Syriac, or both” (H o sk ier,P. 33). Hoskier says,
“Hardly anyone seems to have thought of

seeking for the Syriac or Aramaic base o f our
Gospels via the Latin. Nearly all attempts have
been made to consider Greek roots and
constructions. But the keys are in the Latin
version, and they show not only a translation
from a Syriac-Greek exemplar, but Aramaic
roots deeply implanted, which cannot be
distinguished when handling the Greek” (Hoskier,
p p . 14, 15).
He adds,
“Now the point is that both the Latin and Syriac

go back so far that they point almost to a
concurrent origin, practically as old as the
G reek.. .If there was no Greek counterpart, then
the Latin came straight from the Syriac. Yet
when we turn to a and d and e, we see that the
Greek and the Syriac were entirely interwoven at
the start. So that we are forced to the conclusion
that very early, even so much earlier than is
supposed, Syriac, Greek and Latin were running
side by side (probably in a polyglot). The history
of this is apparently hopelessly lost - never
referred to except by inference - yet the proofs
survive in every page o f a, d, e, and K (Hoskier, p.
42).
He concludes,
“The truth is that we are wandering round the

point, but have not yet firmly grasped the Syriac -
Graeco-Latin exemplar used.” “We therefore
establish our hypothesis o f a triglot very early”
(Hoskier, pp. 52, 42, 166).
He said these different language editions led to “the polyglots”

[multiple-language parallel scriptures]. He therefore holds what
he calls, the “polyglot theory.” He says that, “Whichever way
we turn we are met by polyglots” (Hoskier, p. 15,1 6 ).
“This leads us straight to the second cause [of

vernacular impact on Greek texts], the early
polyglots, and by that I mean to advance the
theory that, besides Graeco-Latin and Graeco-
Coptic codices, there were other bilinguals, such
as Syriac-Greek, Syriac-Latin or Coptic-Latin
MSS. perhaps, but more probably trilinguals,
Syriac-Graeco-Latin, and possible a great quadri-
lingual Syriac-Coptic-Graeco-Latin back of
[Aleph]” (Hoskier, p. 23).
Hoskier says,
“The supposition, then, that there were current

among the Christians at Antioch, where both
Greek and Syriac were spoken (see above, p.
116), Graeco-Syriac bilingual MSS. o f different
parts o f the N.T. is a hypothesis not only natural
in itself, but also in strict analogy with known
facts about other Churches” (Hoskier, p. 6).
Greek was not the sole language o f the area, nor o f the New
Testament. The sign above the cross was written in Hebrew,
Latin, and Greek because these were the predominate languages
o f the day. Even the McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia o f

Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature asks, “In
what language was it [the Epistle to the Hebrews] written?” It
reports that writers during the early centuries and later affirmed
that it was written in Hebrew, not Greek (vol. 4, p. 147). Hebrew
was the language o f the Jews. It appears often in the New
Testament. Acts 1:19 says, “And it was known unto all the
dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their
proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.”
Paul would only speak Hebrew to the Jews in Acts 21:40-22:2
and 26:14. Jesus read or spoke Hebrew in Matt. 27:46, John
7:15, L u k e 4:16, Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34, and Acts 26:14.
The New Testament has many references to Hebrew words,
such as ‘Bethesda,’ ‘Gabbatha,’ ‘Golgatha,’ ‘Abaddon,’ and
‘Armageddon.’ Peter understood Hebrew in John 1:42.
Latin coins, read by Jesus, in Mark 12:16 demonstrate the

use o f this language. Words such as ‘Appi forum,’ ‘centurion,’
and ‘Praetorium’ show the Latin influence.
I would not suggest the liberal theory that the original

gospel o f Matthew was written exclusively in Aramaic, a theory
which has been fomented by Catholics. However, it is important
to see McClintock, Strong, and Hoskier’s observations that the
originals may not have been written strictly in Greek and
vernacular editions bom out of Acts 2 accompanied the
originals immediately. (See the chapter “The Wobbly
Unorthodox Greek Orthodox Church” for a further discussion
o f this topic.
2.) Concurrent:
Hoskier demonstrates that “the texts were concurrent o

Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic and others. Hoskier sees, “a
concurrent Syriac or Aramaic version lying alongside the

Greek.” He said, “In other words, as regards the Gospels, Latin
and Syriac were made at the same time, or Latin and Greek
from a Syriac originals; or Latin from a Graeco-Syriac
original.” “The real facts stand out clear as light that Syriac,
Latin and Greek were concurrent ever so early, and in the
time o f Justin and Irenaeus” (Hoskier, pp. 342, 54, et ai.). He says,
“We are driven to the conclusion that the Holy

Scriptures o f the New Testament existed in
Syriac translations at an early date; a date at least
as early as that o f the oldest Latin translations,
and practically contemporary with the Greek
originals. When the antiquity o f Latin and
Syriac Versions is fully recognized, the
discussion concerning Aramaic originals o f
certain Books will become in some directions
simplified, but in turn raise other nice questions”
(Hoskier, p 75).
The Bible cannot clearly be made to give any other

impression than that its books were made available immediately
and concurrently in multiple languages. No primacy and
exclusivity o f the Greek language is afforded by Acts 2.
3.) From Vernacular to Greek
Hoskier gives hundreds o f pages of examples demonstrating

his conclusion that even Greek manuscripts, used to establish
the current text, were taken from vernacular editions. He says,
“The point, therefore, is that it was not

necessarily “through the medium o f a Greek
text” (see quotation above), but through the
medium o f a Graeco-Syrian-Latin text existing

A.D. 150” (Hoskier, p. 9).
After pages o f examples in which he cites Greek texts which

appear to take words from vernacular editions, he concludes,
“What more is required to push back the Latin and Syriac to the
same workshop?” He says, “For instance, was k [a Greek MS]
translated direct from Syriac, or merely accommodated to a
previous Greek translation from Syriac...” O f some other Greek
manuscripts he states, “their Greek text was reacted on by
Syriac” (Hoskier. pp. 26, 41, 70). He says of one manuscript,
“We have now brought to an end our

investigation as to the date o f the Bezan text of
the Acts and of the Syriac text which lies behind
it” [This is Codex Bezae, a manuscript owned by
and named after Beza, not Beza’s own Greek
text discussed next and in the chapter on
Scrivener. Hoskier believes] “these Greek texts
[D and E] were themselves conformed
respectively to their companion Syriac texts”
(Hoskier, pp. 4, 5, 6).
Greek From Latin and Syriac?
Since the 1500s even editors o f Greek printed editions have

used vernacular Bibles in the creation o f their Greek texts.
Erasmus’s moderate use of vernacular editions is covered in In
Awe o f Thy Word. Today, two o f the most widely used editions
o f the Greek Textus Receptus were taken, not from any one or
numerous Greek manuscripts, but were determined, in part or in
whole, word-by-word, using a vernacular translation. The
following bears repeating:
1.) Scrivener’s Greek New Testament, published by the

Trinitarian Bible Society, was created using the King
James Bible as the basis for his selection o f Greek-text
words. A Greek word, from one o f several previous Greek
printed editions, was selected to match whatever the
English Bible said, in the main. (This unusual back-
translating is thoroughly documented in the chapter in this
book on Scrivener and was admitted in the preface to
Scrivener’s original edition, no longer included in today’s
TR.) When Scrivener’s bookshelf did not extend back as
far as the KJB translators’ resources, he selected Beza’s
Greek text (1598), which itself was based in part on the
vernacular Latin and Syriac (see below).
2.) Beza’s Greek New Testament, consulted by the King James

Bible translators, was compiled using the vernacular Syriac
Peshitta and a Latin translation o f this Peshitta, as well as a
number o f Greek codices, as all scholars recognize. The
Cambridge History o f the B ible’s General Index, under
“Beza,” notes that Beza “calls New Testament Greek
‘barbaric’” (Cambridge History o f the B ible, S.L. G reenslade ed., Cambridge:
University Press, 1963, p. 560). The Cambridge History states,
“In the preparation o f his text Beza...also had

before him the [Latin]* version made by
Tremellius from the Peshitta [Syriac] New
Testament” (*“T rem ellius’s Latin o f the Syriac New Testam ent” ;
C ambridge H istory, Greenslade, pp. 62, 167).
In other words, Tremellius had translated the Syriac Bible

into Latin. Beza used both the original Syriac and the Latin
translation o f the Syriac to help create his Greek edition.
Scrivener admits that Beza “asserted a claim to the revision
o f the Greek tex t.. .it is hard to put any other construction on
the language o f his Preface to his own latest edition, dated

Calendis Augusti, 1598.” Beza’s Preface does mention his
frequent access to Latin and Syriac scripture readings,
noting in part,
“...Graeco contextu, non modo cum novemdecim

vetustissimis quam plurimis manuscriptis et
multis passim impressis codicibus, sed etiam
cum Syra interpretatione collato, et quam
optima potui fid e ac diligentia, partim cum
veterum Graecorum ac latinorum patrum
scriptis, partim cum recentioribus, turn pietate,
turn eruditione praestantissimorum Theologorum
versionibus, et variis enarrationibus comparato
(as cited in F.H. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition o f the English Bible,
Cam bridge University Press, 1884, p. vi).
Scrivener likes to pretend that Beza may not have made

“any great use” of “Tremellius’ Latin version of the
[Syriac] Peshitta,” but he must admit Beza had it “ready at
hand” (Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism o f the New Testament, Eugene,
Oregon, W ip f and Stock Publishers, Vol. 2, reprint 1997, n, Vol. 2, pp. 192-193).
Proving Scrivener wrong is Beza’s own Preface with its

string of Latin ablative absolutes, wherein he admits his
reliance upon Latin and Syriac editions. This is translated
clearly by C. Winsor Wheeler, Ph.D., graduate of Duke
University and currently the professor of Classics (Greek
and Latin) at Louisiana State University. He translates Beza
as follows:
“ ...the Greek text of the New Testament collated

not only with nineteen and everywhere much-
printed codices, but even with the Syriac
translation [Tremellius’ Syriac into Latin], and,
as well as I was able by faith and diligence,

compared partly not only with the writings
[citations of scriptures] o f the old Greek and
Latin fathers, partly with more recent [writings
or authors], but also with com m entaries...”
(letter on file).
Those who feel that they must follow Scrivener’s Greek text
and its occasional substitution of Beza’s text, instead o f the
KJB’s underlying Greek (where Scrivener pretends the KJB
translators followed the Latin) may unknowingly be following a
Latin translation o f the Syriac. If the editors o f Greek texts have
no qualms about back-translating from vernacular editions into
Greek, why should we embrace their Greek printed editions as
if they were the originals? If Syriac can be translated into Latin
[Tremellius], and that Latin into Greek [Beza], and that Greek
into the KJB, and the KJB into Scrivener’s Greek text, why
can’t the English Holy Bible be translated into any language, as
needed, as it has been in the past, as we shall see?
Holy Bibles Birth Other Holy Bibles
The original Latin and Gothic Bibles from Acts 2 carried

Christ to Europe. As languages continued to be confounded by
divergent dialects, God gave each o f these languages his words,
“forever settled in heaven,” which would judge people in the
last day (John 12:48). As language changed, Holy Bibles were
“given” and “purified” (2 Tim. 3:16, Psalm 12:6, 7) to fit the
linguistic need. The Italic, Gallic, Celtic, and Old Saxon
editions came forth. As will be demonstrated, new New
Testaments have usually been birthed from previous vernacular
New Testaments. For example, the pure Old Latin Bible became
the Romaunt, Provencal, Vaudois, Toulouse, Piedmontese, and
Romanese Bibles. It is unlikely that Greek was even accessed
worldwide in most cases because o f the lack o f availability of

Greek manuscripts, compounded by a lack o f skill in that
language. Scrivener admits,
“The fact that versions as a class go much further

back than [Greek] MSS., constitutes one o f the
chiefest points o f their importance...some are
secondary versions, being derived not from
G r e e k . . . ” (Scrivener,^! Plain, pp. 2, 3).
The Koine Greek New Testament had but minor use as a

medium o f comparison and translation from the first century to
the 15th century. Its use was local and somewhat metropolitan; it
was limited to Greek-speaking people during the centuries and
locales encompassed by the Roman and Byzantine Empires.
Later brief interludes include:
1.) Its current craze, beginning with the German higher

critics, later adopted by Unitarians, and promulgated
recently by liberals, who see it as an avenue to sweep
away the authority of the Holy Bible (See Stanford
University’s An American Bible chapter on “Purity”).
2.) The use o f Greek MSS as a medium of comparison

slightly before and past the 16th century when Greek
manuscripts were carried into Europe by the Greeks as
they fled from the Turks. (This is covered in other
chapters, particularly in the discussion about Reuchlin.)
Their usage at this time simply brought attention to a
Greek text which affirmed what European vernacular
Bibles already said. It was a confirming witness, not a
textual revolution o f discovering lost readings. The pre-
and post-Reformation era’s new access to Greek or
Hebrew editions only verified already existing readings

the French Geneva, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish
Reina-Valera, and the German Luther. O f the Gothic
Scrivener concedes, “Its dialect is marvelously akin to
that o f modem Germany.” Luther had a matrix o f many
previous German Bibles with which to work, whose
origin was not Greek, but Gothic and Latin. (In fact,
following ‘Greek’ led Luther to error in omitting 1 John
5:7, which had been in all previous German Bibles. It
was restored by the German people after Luther.) The
English Bible too developed from the Gothic Bible, as
well as from the Latin, Anglo-Saxon and others (See In
Awe o f Thy Word for details.) (Scrivener, Six Lectures, p. 105;
concerning pre-Luther Germ an Bibles, see Michael M aynard, The History o f the
D ebate O ver 1 John 5 :7).
Most Holy Bibles have therefore been translated from other

Holy Bibles, written in the translator’s own language.
There are two interesting works which list and/or describe in

detail the history of Bible translation efforts and document the
use o f existing vernacular Bibles to translate new Bibles. These
are:
1.) The Bible o f Every Land: A History o f The Sacred

Scriptures in Every Language and Dialect (London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 2nd edition, 1860), published
from the records o f the British and Foreign Bible
Society.
2.) The Book o f A Thousand Tongues: Being Some Account

o f the Translation and Publication o f All or Part o f The
Holy Scriptures Into More Than a Thousand Languages
and Dialects with over 1100 Examples from the Text,
edited by Eric M. North, Published for The American

Bible Society, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938.
A large percentage of the translations discussed in these

books were made in the centuries immediately following the
publication of the 1611 Authorized Version (King James Bible)
and marked by the British missionary and colonization
movement. When one includes: 1.) each individual translation
of portions of scriptures, 2.) the sometimes repeated re
translation of languages throughout time, and 3.) the
translations, which have followed since 1860 and 1938, which
are not included in the aforementioned old books and in the
following examples, then it becomes quite clear that it is not an
exaggeration to say that the majority o f individual translation
projects since the first century have been taken up initially with
a vernacular Bible, not a Greek text. Note just a few examples
taken from the following book:
The Bible o f Every Land: A History o f The Sacred Scriptures

in Every Language a n d Dialect (Spelling is that used in 1860)
Bible L a n g u a g e T r a n s la te d F r o m V e r n a c u la r
Anglo-Saxon —> “from the Latin version which was in use

before Jerome’s time” p. 194
Arabic —► Portions translated from “the Coptic” and

“the Peshito” p. 49
Arabic —► from the “ Samaritan Pentateuch” p. 50
Amharic -> from “the Arabic version” p. 62
Persian O.T. —> “made from the Syriac” p. 67

Persian N.T. “from the Peshito”

and the “Vulgate” p. 67
Beloochee “made the translation direct from the

Persian Gospels and Hindustani
Testament” p. 74
Armenian “from the Syriac” “exclusively, because

no Greek MMS were then available in
Armenia” p. 77
Telinga “he translated the Scriptures direct from

Tamul version into his own language” p.
140
Rommany (Gipsy) from “Spanish” p. 132
Rarotongan “The translation was made from the

Tahitian version” p. 379
Lithuanian “taken from a Polish version” p. 312
Lithuanian “made chiefly from Luther’s German

version” p. 312
Wendish “said strictly to follow the German

version o f Luther” p. 309
Camiolan (Austria) “He translated from the Latin, German

and Italian versions, for he was
unacquainted with the original Greek” p.
305
Piedmontese — “faithfully rendered from M artin’s

French version into modem
Piedmontese” p. 286
Piedmontese (o .t.) ‘executed from Diodati’s Italian version”

p. 286
Pali From Sanscrit to Pali also checking the

“Bengalee version” p. 93
Ribera “The translation was make from the

(Spanish)
French version o f Vence” p. 263
1831-1883
Bruj Taken from the Urdu Bible p. 104
Danish Taken from the “Latin version of

Erasmus” and “the German version of
Luther” “little else than a verbal
transmutation o f Luther’s” p. 218
Danish “made from that of Luther” p. 219
Tschuwaschian “translated from the Sclavonic” p. 351
Tamal (near India)

May have come from “German version of
Luther”
Malayalim “The translation had been make from the

excellent Tamul version” p. 145
Malayalim “translated from Dr. Carey’s Sanscrit p.

146
Greenlandish “Their version of the New Testament is a

literal translation o f Luther’s German
version” “Psalms .. .from Luther’s

version” pp. 442, 443
Dutch From Luther p. 209
Sclovonic “collated with that o f versions in other

languages” p. 293
Icelandic From Luther and Vulgate p. 215
Icelandic “a faithful mirror of Luther’s German

version” p. 215
Jewish-German “on the basis o f Luther’s version” p. 187
Marquesan “adaptation o f the Tahitian version to the

Marquesan dialect” p. 380
Uriya “translated from the Bengalee version” p.

116
Ossitinian “he translated chiefly from Armenian” p.
85
Swedish “according to Luther’s German version”

p. 223
Even those pre- and post-Reformation era Bibles, which

accessed the newly available Greek manuscripts and editions,
compared their versions with other Holy Bibles. The King
James Translators said they looked at —
“the Originall sacred tongues, together with

comparing o f the labours, both o f our own
[previous English Bibles] and other foreign
languages [Chaldee, Syriac, Spanish, French,
1112 HAZARDOU S MATERIAL
Italian, and Dutch] o f many worthy men who

went before us” (D edicatory, The Translators to the Readers,
Holy Bible, London: Robert Barker, 1611).
American Bible Society Translated From King James Bible
It was originally the standard practice of Bible Societies to

translate only from vernacular Holy Bibles. The original
American Bible Society, founded in the early 1800s, insisted
that all translations be made directly from the King James Bible.
Use o f lexicons or a Greek or Hebrew text was forbidden. The
1881 Baptist Encyclopedia says, “The English translation had
been made the standard to which all other translations should
conform ...” not “the Greek and Hebrew texts” (W illiam Cathcart,
Philadelphia: Louis h . Everts, vol. i , 1881, P. 98). The American Bible Society
would not publish Bibles which did not “conform in the

principles of their translation, to the common English version”
(“Am erican Bible Society,” 2:299-301). Dr. Gutjahr of Stanford University
reiterates that, “This emphasis on the common English version

(the King James Version) as the root translation from which
translators had to work” brought about a split and the formation
of the liberal American and Foreign Bible Society, who wanted
to use so-called “Originals” of Greek and Hebrew (See the First
A nnual Report o f the Am erican and Foreign Bible Society, 1838, p. 52). Gutjahr noted
that “The American Bible Society was tying its translators to an

English translation Of the Scriptures.. (An American Bible, Stanford, CA:
Stanford U niversity Press, 1999, p. 106). Making all translations from the
KJB was the foundational conviction o f the American Bible

Society. Their refusal to allow the use of ‘Greek’ came to a
head in their ruling relating to Adoniram Judson’s translation,
which they refused to print because it was not translated directly
from the KJB, but from Greek (G utjahr’s chapter entitled, “Purity," details O ther
m ethods used by liberals to alter the purity o f the printed Holy Bible; e.g. Unitarians, P P * ’ ’
96, 98, 99, 100; infant baptizers, p. 100; Cam bellites pp. 101-102 (i.e. baptism al regeneration),
Cone, a liberal Baptist who wanted to retranslate the entire English Bible, p. 106; and New Age
Parliament o f W orld Religions participant, ASV Chairman, and RV com m ittee m ember, Philip
Schaff, p. 108.)
The mid-1800s saw grave apostasy in ‘scholarly’ circles,

with the advent and spread of Griesbach’s critical Greek text. It
was first published in part in 1774 and completed in 1806.
Although it received “conservative opposition,” the loud
thunder o f liberals brought Griesbach’s sweeping rain, washing
away words from Holy Bibles. Under this cloud a new
generation took over the directorship of the American Bible
Society. Like typical revisionist historians, they disavowed and
even denied their predecessor’s adamant insistence on KJB-
based translations (Schaff-Herzog, vol. 5, pp. 77, 78; this revisionist history is evident
in some o f the later w ritings o f the ABS, including W illiam Peter Strickland, H istory o f the
Am erican Bible Society: From Its Organization to the P resent Time, H arper and Row, 1850, pp.
154-155 and Henry Otis Dwight, “The Centennial History o f the Am erican Bible Society,”
M acmillan, 1916, p. 507.)
Steering By the Compass of the King James Bible
England’s Prime Minister, Winston Churchill wrote the four

volume classic, The History o f the English-Speaking Peoples. In
it he boasts that the King James Bible has been translated into
760 languages, which is no doubt more than have ever been
translated from the Greek text. Britain’s scholarly Prime
Minister said, “It has been translated into more than seven
hundred and sixty tongues” (C hurchill’s H istory o f the E nglish-Speaking Peoples,
A rranged for One Volum e by Henry Steel Comm ager, NY: W ings Books, 1994 edition, p. 160).
This is a disproportionately large percentage, considering the

fact that there are only about 6,900 languages. Since then many,
many, more translations have been made from the KJB. O f the
King James Bible the authors o f The Bible o f Every Land say,
“And it may be said to be, on the whole, the

best substitute there is for the Hebrew and
Greek originals” ( The Bible o f E very Land, p. 202; also see

G.A. Riplinger, The Language o f the K ing Jam es Bible, Ararat, VA: AV
Publications).
Edward Hills states that “ [T]he King James Version has

been used by many missionaries as a basis and guide o f their
own translation work and in this way has extended its influence
even tO Converts Who knOW no English” {The K ing Jam es Version
D efended, Des M oines, Iowa: The Christian Research Press, 1984, p. 216).
As this chapter will demonstrate:
1.) The KJV has been used since its inception to bring the fine
points of the scriptures to literally millions o f people.
2.) Other vernacular Bibles have provided the mainstay for most
vernacular Bibles.
3.) Bibles truly translated solely from Greek and Hebrew have
been in the minority.
4.) Since it would be a monumental task to translate directly

from Greek, many new editions are translated from vernacular
Bibles and only later checked or corrupted with the Greek text,
as The Bible o f Every Land demonstrates. Yet the title pages of
many Bibles imply that the entire volume was ‘translated from
the original.’ Many have taken the early existing translations
and changed them to match the critical Greek text. Removing
words to match the critical text can hardly be called
‘translating.’ Sadly when the corrupt critical Greek text of
Griesbach was introduced, many vernacular translations were
changed to match it. I purchased a rare Pashto (dialect from
India) New Testament from the mid- 1800s, assuming that it
would not have been corrupted by the critical text and found it
had already been tampered with. The Bible o f Every Land,
printed in 1860, already shows widespread evidence o f a new

move to 1.) the critical text and 2.) corrupt ‘corrections’ via
Greek and Hebrew texts, o f Bibles already translated from
vernacular Holy Bibles (p. 5 et ai.).
Note the following documentation, which evidences the fact

that the KJB has been used as a basis for translation and that
other vernacular editions have also been used. This has been the
rule, rather than the exception.
A most interesting case is that o f the Modem Greek Bible

itself (today called the Bambas, or the Vamvas). Its Old
Testament was first translated using THE KING JAMES
BIBLE. The Bible o f Every Land says, “ .. .the plan pursued was
the following:
“A certain portion o f the books o f the Old

Testament was allotted to each of the [Modem]
Greek [Old Testament] translators, who with
the English authorised version, the
French o f Martin, and the Italian o f Diodati,
before them, consulting also the Septuagint, the
Vulgate, and other versions and aids where
necessary, made as good a translation as they
were able into the Modern Greek”” (The Bible o f
E very Land, p. 243).
It was only after the Greek Old Testament was completely

translated directly from the KJB and other versions that, “It was
then the office o f Mr. Leeves and Mr. Lowndes to compare this
translation with the Hebrew, calling in the aid o f other versions
and critical commentaries, and to make their observations and
proposed corrections in the margin o f the manuscript” (The Bible o f
Every Land, p. 243). The marginal suggestions were discussed in a
committee meeting and either accepted or rejected. But the KJB

tightly wove the warp and w oof for the Modem Greek Old
Testament, which remains the purest available today.
The English Bible has been the word-for-word foundation

for numerous Bibles. Only a few are noted here.
From The Bible o f Every Land, London: Samuel Bagster and

Sons, 2nd edition, 1860
English Bible Authority
Mohawk -♦ “He drew his translation from the English

version” p. 457
Sitlapi (Africa) —> “In the preparation of the work he had the
English version ever before him: he
also consulted the Dutch and some other
versions, and occasionally referred to the
German.” “This translation in general
faithfully follows the English text; but
some little deviations from that text occur
in a few instances, occasioned by a
preference by Mr. Moffat for the
corresponding Dutch rendering... P-
424.
Welsh —♦ From Tyndale’s English, p. 154, note 1.
Seneca From King James Bible (F our Gospels in the

Seneca Language, Am erican Bible Society, New York, 1874,
http://www.mingolanguaee.org/texts/tom/gospel/).
First translated from the English KJB
Bible Language Translated From the English
Greek The Modem Greek Bambas O.T. was

first translated “with the English
authorized” p. 243 (see above).
Arabic “The first draft o f the whole translation

was originally made by Mr. Fares
(admitted to be one o f the best native
Arabic scholars o f the day) from the
authorized English Bible.” Later “it was
afterwards to a very considerable extent
corrected by the original [?] Hebrew”
[also the Greek] p. 51.
Persian “The translator took the English

Authorized Version for a basis, and
adhered to it as far as it expresses
faithfully the sense o f the original.” “In
rendering the sense o f difficult passages,
he first consulted our English version,
then turned to the original Hebrew” p.
69.
Tongan “The translation o f the New Testament

was chiefly drawn from the English
version, but many passages were
translated from G reek...” p. 382
Irish “the translation was made in the first

place from the English version...”
although Greek and Hebrew were used p.

163
English As a Final Authority
Note the following examples of Bibles for which the King

James Bible was the final authority.
Caffre (Africa) -+ Although they consulted the Greek and

Hebrew initially, “a rule was enforced, as
in the case o f the New Testament, to
admit no rendering into the Caffre
translation which does not occur either
in the English, the Dutch, or the German
versions.” “The translation had been
drawn partly from the English
version...” p. 429
Samoan —> “Our English authorized version has

been constantly before us, and adhered to
as nearly as possible.” p. 389
Since 1611, English Consulted
Chinese -*■ Morrison began with a very old Chinese

edition o f the New Testament which had
been taken from the Latin. For the Old
Testament he accessed the Hebrew, as
well as the French and other versions.
They add, “ h e n e v e r a p p e a r s , h o w e v e r ,
to m ake any r e m a r k a b le d e p a r tu r e s
fr o m th e sen se of th e A u t h o r iz e d
E n g lis h V e r s io n ” p. 6
Hinduwee “Being unacquainted with the original

languages o f Scripture, he consulted the
English Authorized version...(Calcutta
Bible Society) in all passages where the
Hinduwee idiom required him to alter
M artyn’s admirable rendering [of the
Hindustani from which he w orked]...” p.
102
Cingalese “constant reference was made to the

Sanscrit and Bengalee versions...The
Pali...The whole revision was conducted
with continual reference to the Greek
text and the English Version” p. 148.
Karass “consulted” “the English, German, and

other versions” p. 348
Turkish “collated with the English, German,

French versions, with the
T artan... Scotch... Erpenius... London
Polygolt” p. 343
Bengalee O.T. It is unknown but Carey may have had

“recourse to the English version” in
addition, p. 110
Breton “consulted the Welsh and English

authorized version” and the Greek and
Hebrew p. 172
Greek is an authority, but because of the variants in Greek

texts, it cannot be the authority. Therefore translators have
seemed to only use it side-by side with other versions.
Finnish —► “Greek, with the aid o f the Latin,

German, and Swedish versions” p. 320
German (1667) —► “the original texts, Luther’s German, and

Diodoti’s Italian version...” pp. 183-184
Spanish Valera —> consulted Greek “with other translations,

particularly with the French Version of
Geneva” p. 266
Malayan —> “Arabic into Malayan” ; Only later were

the Greek and Hebrew checked p. 363
The following language groups at one time had Bibles

translated from the vernacular Vulgate, which, while missing
some things, is generally much less corrupt than a critical Greek
text: Russian, p. 296; Arabic, p. 49; Breton, p. 172; Maltese, p.
54- German, p. 18; Flemish, p. 206; Spanish Reyna, (Pagninus
Latin), p. 266; Polish, p. 299. (See The Bible o f Every Land.)
Vernacular Bibles Prove Necessary in Preservation
Vernacular Bibles have proven to be a strong safety net

when the Hebrews and Greeks dropped Bible words and verses,
which did not fit their bulging apostasy. The Old Testament
Messianic verses, which were tampered with by unbelieving
Jews during the years following Christ, were preserved by other
language versions o f the Old Testament. For example in Psalm
22:16, the Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Greek Bible al
preserve “they pierced my hands and my feet.” The unbelieving
Jews could not bare this verse’s witness about the Messiah t ey
rejected. For over 1900 years the correct reading was missing m
Hebrew Bibles - until the 1940’s discovery o f the Dead be
Scrolls. Until their discovery, the words “they pierced seeme
to contradict the Hebrew text, which Jewish scholars interpretea
as saying, “like a lion my hands and my feet.” The oldest

Hebrew witness for Ps. 22:16, the Psalms scroll found at Nahal
Hever (5/6HevPS), matches the KJB. (This is thoroughly
discussed in the chapters on the Hebrew text.)
Likewise, the Greek Orthodox church, which teaches

baptismal regeneration, could not bear Acts 8:37 so they
removed it from most Greek manuscripts. It has been preserved
in the Latin and other vernacular editions. The text o f the Bible
has not been given to one or two language groups, but to all.
By destroying certain verses the Jews and the Greek Orthodox
church could be compared to wicked Athaliah. She thought she
had “destroyed all o f the seed royal.” (The Bible is called the
“royal law” 2 Kings 11:1; James 2:8). Yet God hid one son and
preserved the kingly line. Likewise God preserved his words in
Bibles other than those of the corrupt Greek Orthodox church
and Hebrew nation, when those language groups destroyed
certain readings for sectarian reasons. Charges that the KJB
wrongly followed the ‘Latin’ in a verse are only made by those
who do not understand the history o f Bible preservation; the
Latin merely matches other preserved vernacular Bibles, as one
would expect.
Translation Today
Could the famine o f the word, foretold in Amos 8:11 and

12, refer not only to the close of the Old Testament canon, but
to today’s search for pure Bibles? God said,
“ ...I will send a famine in the land, not a famine

o f bread, nor a thirst for water, but o f hearing the
words o f the LORD: And they shall wander from
sea to sea, and from north even to the east, they
shall run to and fro to seek the word o f the

LORD, and shall not find it.”
Pure Bibles have existed in all countries, but a large

percentage appear to be out o f print, preserved by God on
library shelves, waiting to be sought, found, collated, and
reprinted. Many language groups are consequently left with
only those widely proliferated tainted editions printed by liberal
Bible Societies from the corrupt texts. Those interested are now
scavenging the library shelves for old editions which were
printed or translated before the mid-1800s, when the influence
of Griesbach infiltrated the Bible Societies. Since English is
understood worldwide, many, in search of a pure edition, are
using the KJB as a plumb-line to examine old Bibles.
The ideal situation would be to simply re-print a pure out-

of-print Bible. For example, the Morrison Chinese Bible of
1821 has just been digitized in a collaborative and labor-
intensive effort by Chinese-speaking Christians and an
American Missionary.
In rare cases where no pure text is immediately found,

translators are using the KJB, old Bibles in their receptor
language, and vernacular Bibles in cognate languages to restore
the best edition they can find to its original pure form. The
Spanish Santa Biblia, Valera 1602 Purificada was a fourteen
year project, begun in 1994 and made available in 2008 after
many prayerful years of exhaustive work. It is the only Spanish
Bible to follow rules similar to those followed by the KJB
translation. That is, in the main, they followed the God-given
Spanish Bibles which preceded them, as well as examining
many other sources. This is also the only Spanish Bible project
to which God gave the rare editions o f the 1543 Fransico de

Enzinas, the 1556 Juan Perez de Pineda New Testament and
Psalms, the 1553 Ferrara Spanish Old Testament, as well as the
editions o f Reina and Valera. Their exhaustive work has been
copied in part by other stop-gap translations, such as the Reina-
Valera-Gomez, which rightly sought to replace the corrupt 1960
Reina-Valera, but which falls short in thoroughness and
unwisely introduces modernizations. Among scores and scores
o f errors, it uses ‘Jehovah’ throughout the Old Testament,
breaking the connection between Jesus as Lord o f both the Old
and New Testament, and missing the old Spanish reading o f the
Pineda.
In speaking with the translators of the Valera 1602

Purificada over the years, I observed that they were wisely not
inclined to use a reading which had not been seen in another
Romance language Bible, even going so far back as the Old
Latin. For example, in John 1:1 they retain the historic word
“Palabra” for “Word,” instead o f the Catholic Latin word
“Verbo.” (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.”) Erasmus fought
vehemently against Jerome’s corrupt rendering and himself
used sermo in his Latin text (The Bible o f E very Land, p. 252 et ai.). The
word “Palabra” had been used in Spanish Bibles from the
earliest days, including the Valera 1602 and the Reina 1559.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia note, “For the greater part
he [Enzinas] follows Erasmus’s translation, e.g. John i, 1: En el
principio era la palabra, y la palabra estava con Dios, y Dios
era la palabra (M cClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia o f Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, Baker Book House, 1981 reprint, vol. 9, p. 99). P u r e e a rly
Romance language Bibles use it as well, as can be seen in the

French Ostervald (Parole), the LeFevre’s French (parolle),
Olivetan French (parolle), Geneva French (Parole), the Italian
Diodati (Parola), Swiss Version (Parole), the pure old Latin

followed by Erasmus (sermo), Castalio’s Latin (sermo),
Almeida’s Portuguese (palavra), Indo-Portuguese (Palavra),
Toulouse (paraoulo), Vaudois (Parola), Piedmontese (Parola),
and Romanese (Pled). (See The Bible o f E very Land, pp. 2 52-288). Jerome S
corruption was re-introduced in 1793 by Roman Catholic Padre
[Father] Scio, who translated from Jerome’s corrupt Vulgate (The
Bible o f E very Land, p. 266 ). Verbo is used by all corrupt Spanish Bibles,
such as the Reina-Valera 1960); the wicked occult cabalists

likewise say, God is a ‘Verb.’ It is crucial that the word
‘palabra’ be used as it parallels the written ‘w ord’ o f God with
Jesus, the Word. When two different words are used here, the
connection is lost. (Assertions that the masculine word verbo is
preferable to the feminine palabra, are not Biblical. Jesus is
described using feminine words such as the door (la puerta), the
vine (la vid), the light (la luz), the life (la vida), and the truth (la
verdad) in all Spanish Bibles. (The pure Spanish Bible is available from A.V.
Publications. P.O. Box 280 Ararat, VA, 24053 or Sembrador De La Sem illa Incorruptible
Apartado #8 CD. M iguel Alem an, Tamps. 0 M exico, 88300).
The French Bible had been adulterated by the corrupt

Greek text and had remnants o f Jerome’s corrupt Vulgate, as
evidenced in the Segond and other French bibles. Several
efforts have been put forth to restore the original pure French
Bible. O f these, the most widely received in French speaking
countries is the King James Franqaise, available for download
at http://www.kingjamesfrancaise.com. A native of France took
the King James Bible and collated old pure French Bibles with
it to produce this edition. It is very much the original 1669
French Geneva Bible (Bible de Geneve), but where corruption
crept in, it conforms to the KJB as needed. The translator said,
“In the notes you can see the exact words in French, as seen in
the KJB.” The 1669 notes even admit “Lord” should be
“Seigneur,” instead o f “Etemel” and “only begotten Son”

should be “/e seul fils engendre,” instead o f “fils unique.” (Letter
on file). One might wonder why a native o f France would name
the Bible after King James. There seems to be a worldwide

recognition that the KJB is a solitary light o f preserved truth in
the current sea o f Bible corruption. (I am amazed at the daily
flow o f calls and letters I receive from those living outside of
the U.S., (whose first language is not English). It evidences the
worldwide use of English and a Holy Ghost inspired, not a
culture led, passion for the KJB.
Many from other nations are looking to the KJB. In the last
ten years, the Koreans have published a translation o f the KJB
into Korean. The interest in the KJB is so intense in Korea that
three editions o f my books, discussing the KJB issue, have been
translated into Korean. Sjudur Hojgaard, a native o f the Faroe
Islands near Denmark, is currently translating the King James
Bible into his native language. He writes,
“The King James Bible is truly God’s gift to the

whole world, English then as today being the
predominant language o f the world, this also
being established at the same time as the King
James Bible came forth. There will never be any
Bible to replace the King James Bible, for it has
the purified words o f God, yea seven times. The
noble task facing us today is merely to translate
its words into other languages o f the world. And
this we will do with all sincerity and pureness of
heart, anticipating and furthering out King’s
soon return, as his gospel must go forth, ere we
may even be granted to sit amidst John Wycliffe
and Tyndale and Luther and many others” (letter

on file).
John Selden (1584-1654) recorded the same view, held by

polyglot editor Brian Walton, that the English Bible “is the best
translation in the world and renders the sense o f the original
best.” Bulstrode Whitelock (1605-1675) tells of “the Bible in
English; which was yet agreed to be the best of any translation
ill t h e w o r l d ” (D avid Norton, A H istory o f the Bible as Literature, Cambridge.
Cam bridge U niversity Press, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 229, 218)
Bryan Girard, missionary to Papua New Guinea, wrote

saying o f the translation of the Old Testament “I am going
directly from the KJV English to [Melanesian] Pidgin...” (The
New Testament has been completed). Perry Demopoulos, a
missionary to the Ukraine, is translating the KJB into Russian.
A native of Denmark, Tonny Mollerskov, is restoring the
Danish Bible by accessing the KJB and following the Danish
Bible of 1717, which itself appears to have been an old
translation of the KJB into Danish. He also is accessing the
Frederick VI Bible from 1740. (If you have the Danish 1607 by
Hans Resen Poulsen, he would like to see it.) Translator Peter
Heisey is using the KJB as his plumb line to translate a good
Bible for the Gypsies of Romania (see his collation of
Scrivener’s Greek text in the Chapter “Scrivener, A Little
Leaven”). Charity Baptist Missions has produced translations
from the King James Bible and old versions in both Turkish
(Ralph Cheatwood) and Bulgarian (Dimitar Stefanov).
These are just a few of the many translations which have

been inspired by the recent recognition that the foreign Bible
Societies are often printing Bibles from the corrupt text. It has
been my privilege, in trying to find copies of old pure Bibles,
usually preceding 1850, to work with multi-lingual researchers
such as Dr. Nico Verhoef of Switzerland and Dr. John Hinton, a

Harvard graduate and linguist who speaks most of the world’s
languages and rare dialects from the 10/40 window. Both of
these men, though trained in Greek and Hebrew, are committed
to the absolute authority o f the English King James Bible; they
both recognize the adulterated state o f Greek and Hebrew texts
and lexicons. Others, pursuing pure texts or seeking to find
printers to support who are struggling to print these resurrected
pure Bibles, are urged to contact our group, set in motion in
2006, to bring interested parties (researchers, printers, and
translators) together to avoid the duplication o f efforts and to
support the printing of old or newly restored pure Holy Bibles
worldwide (A.V. Publications, P.O. Box 280 Ararat, VA 24053). We believe that
God has preserved his word and we seek to return to print old
pure Bibles; rarely, a reconstruction or translation needs to be
done, but this is the exception and not the rule. In these cases
translation has generally been done from the translator’s native
tongue and must continue to be done in this manner for the
following reasons:
1.) Tools for translation from Greek (or Hebrew) to any given
language are grossly corrupt. All lexicons are also highly
secularized; printed Greek and Hebrew editions range from
corrupt to slightly undependable; all this has been amply
demonstrated in this book. Though these texts are
interesting, like any other translation, they too must be
translated, and as Shakespeare said, ‘Ah, there’s the rub.’
Translators use corrupt Greek-to-English tools, such as
those constructed by Spiros Zodhiates, George Ricker
Berry, Jay P. Green, and others. They deceive themselves
and others implying that they are translating ‘from Greek,’
when in fact they are merely reading the English o f the
interlinear or lexicon. Also, I have observed that foreign
translations, taken from even generally correct and currently

printed editions o f the Textus Receptus, read like NKJVs.
This is because adulterated lexicons or interlinears are used
to simulate access to the Greek or Hebrew texts. Holy
Bibles, such as the KJB or other old Bibles in the
translator’s language, will provide true “holy” words. Why
use a text that needs its own translation before it can be
accessed? We have a holy translation of it already. Or is the
word “Holy” on the cover of a Bible a lie? ‘Holy Lexicon,’
hmmmm, that will sell.
2.) Translation is not a science; context makes demands which
have already been addressed in vernacular Holy Bibles.
3.) God did not give the Bible to the Greeks alone to begin
with, as evidenced in Acts 2. We have no solid scriptural
evidence that the originals were written in Greek alone, at
least not solid enough evidence to base everything that we
do upon Greek.
4.) Those who claim skill in Greek and Hebrew have garnered
their store o f ‘knowledge’ from corrupt lexicons and
grammars; therefore an expertise in these languages is
merely an expertise in the available adulterated resources.
The so-called experts today could not hold a conversation in
Greek with the KJB translators if their lives depended upon
it. The translators spoke Greek to their peers in the
dormitories as students at boarding school. The great minds,
which today study rocket science, physics, medicine,
computer programming, and other highly demanding
subjects, were in the 16th century, focusing all of their brain
power on the classical languages. They were not dependent
upon lexicons; they made them or had access to origina
sources (e.g. Boise; see In Awe o f Thy Word). If they were
alive, they would not know the multitude o f remote
languages and dialects which need Bibles. God has wisely

set up a system wherein he honors godly nationals or
missionaries whom he calls to bring the Bible to certain
language groups.
5.) The Greek editions available today were in themselves
highly impacted by vernacular editions.
Epilogue
The Greek flagship will stay afloat on the raging waves of

pride, peer pressure and publisher’s profits, which “say not, It is
enough.”
1.) Pride: We had to admit we were wrong when we got saved.

Keeping that kind o f mindset is crucial to Christian growth.
How much easier to admit error now, than to be charged
with it at the judgment seat o f Christ. However, the pride
which brought Lucifer’s fall casts down many more. The
socially insecure feel a need to align themselves with the
polished “heady, highminded” “high things” — higher
education, higher criticism, and higher numbers, rather than
“condescend to men o f low estate,” who are rich in faith, yet
are the “poor,” “weak,” “base,” and “foolish” things God
uses to confound the wise. They will not condescend to
those “base” broken vessels who have been forgiven much
and therefore “tremble at his word” (2 Tim. 3:4, Rom.
12:16, 1 Cor. 1:27, James 2:5, Is. 66:5, Luke 7:47).
2.) Peer Pressure: Everybody’s doing it, dad! Peer pressure for
teens is nothing compared to being “without the camp,
bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:13). Many men see their
identity, not with Jesus Christ, but with a group. That is
what country clubs and Masonic lodges are all about. Are
we no better? Many will look to see what Dr. ‘so and so’
thinks. (Of course, there is wisdom in the multitude of

counselors, but first o f all “Thy testimonies also are my
delight and my counsellors” Ps. 119:24). At the judgment
seat o f Christ we will be alone and the compromising
position of even good men will provide no excuse.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through

philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments o f the world, and not
after Christ” (Col. 2:8).
When the Catholic church was everywhere to be seen,

some went against the grain because the grain was not going
in the direction of the Bible. It was difficult then, but it
should be less difficult today since few are called to give
their lives as these martyrs were. Others face more difficult
perils. Imagine receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour, while
living in Israel, surrounded with swarms o f Jewish rabbis
and Islamic terrorists, all violently hostile to the gospel.
Many make the right choice, even if it is not what their
peers believe. We will stand with all of these brave souls;
small wonder tears of shame will have to be wiped away.
3.) Profits: Greek sells. With the Greek-myth kept afloat,

publishers can keep pumping out new versions and selling
lexicons, study aids, and piles of software to help the naive
‘understand’ the Bible. “O f making many books there is no
end” (Eccl. 12:12). They will continue to pretend that
understanding comes from ‘their products.’ They will not
tell you that understanding the Bible is strictly contingen
upon salvation, study, fellowship with and obedience to our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Chapter 31
Seven Infallible Proofs

of the
King Janies Bible’s
Inspiration
Part 1
■ It’s Alive!
“The Word of God, Which Liveth and Abideth
Forever” 1 Peter 1:23
Part 2
■ Linguistic Proof
“the Spirit speaketh expressly...” (1 Tim. 4:1)
‘God’s Spirit’ more correct than ‘God-breathed’
Part 3
■ Historical Opposition
Calvinist B.B. Warfield first to move locus of
inspiration to lost originals
Part 4
■ Scriptural Proof
What does “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God” mean?
Part 5
■ Historical Proof
Wycliffe and Coverdale say English Bible is Holy
Ghost authored
Part 6
■ More Scriptural Proof
Part 7
- Christians Must Have Scripture; All
Such Is Given By Inspiration
1132 H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R IA L S
Part 1 “Liveth and Abideth For Ever”
'our Holy Bible is alive — handle with care!
Y . .not of corruptible seed, but of

incorruptible, by the word o f God, which,
liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23).
“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,

and they are life” (John 6:63).
“ . .who received the lively oracles to give unto

us” (Acts 7:38).
“For the word of God is quick...” [The Bible

contrasts the “quick and the dead 2 Tim. 4.1].
“Liveth,” But Where?
If the word o f God liveth and abideth forever, where is it?

The actual ‘originals’ have not been the recipient of the promise
of preservation, as they have long since dissolved. As has been
demonstrated in the previous chapters, all currently printed
Greek and Hebrew editions contain the idiosyncratic ideas o
their individual editors. The answer to the question, ‘Where is
this living word of God’ lies in God’s promise given in Isaia
28 and fulfilled in Acts 2.
“With men of other tongues and other lips will I

s p e a k . . .saith the Lord’ (1 Cor. 14.21).
in this verse God says, “I speak” “other tongues, ’ Notice

that the words “other tongues” are plural. Vernacular i es
God speaking, just as truly as he did to t e ree
Hebrews. His living, speaking voice has not dimmished as he
SEVEN PROOFS OF KJB’S INSPIRATION 1133
speaks with “other tongues.” He is still speaking. Today’s Holy

Bibles, be they English or Korean, are not just preserved
museum words or accurate but lifeless equivalencies. They are
his very “spirit” and “life.” Jesus says, “The words that I speak
unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). They
contain just as much o f the spirit and life o f God as did the
originals. The word o f God which “liveth and abideth forever”
was inspired, is inspired and will be inspired, forever. In the
King James Bible, we hold in our hands the very “word o f God,
which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23). “[LJiveth”
and “abideth” define inspiration and preservation. Inspiration
abides and its life is preserved.
The inherent “spirit” and “life” o f scripture are what enables

it to bring forth the spiritual new birth. Only living things can
reproduce themselves. 1 Peter 1:23 says, “Being born again, not
o f corruptible seed, but o f incorruptible, by the word o f God,
which liveth and abideth forever.” It “liveth,” just as Jesus
said; his words “are...life.” We can hide the scripture in our
hearts (Ps. 119:11); we can handle it (2 Cor. 4:2); it is nigh us,
even in our mouth (Rom. 10:8). And finally, we will be judged
by it (John 12:48). Its life is “incorruptible.” It is alive. The
Holy Bible is actually God speaking now.
Toad’s lungs are living breathing things. Why would God

continue to make them perfectly, to breathe out only a croak of
toad’s breath, and not make vernacular Bibles, which speak his
very words, just as alive? Or did the Bible croak? New versions
are buried when their copyright owner dies, since they are no
longer propelled by the hot air of advertising campaigns.
The King James Bible remains alive; its English words are
drawn from what Wycliffe calls the inspired “Scriptures in
tongues,” which were bom in Acts 2. The KJB is the Biblical
English through which God can speak to the two billion people
who speak English as a first or second language. They are his
English words. Remember, he invented languages at the tower
of Babel; he also said, “I speak” “other tongues.”
Earlier he spoke a Biblical form o f Koine Greek to many in

the first centuries after Christ. The book of Revelation records
the warning Christ gave to the Greek-speaking church: He said
that their candlestick (that is, their church which holds forth the
light o f the word o f God) would be removed if they did not
repent. The unorthodox character o f the Greek Orthodox church
since the 5th century exhibits its continued rebellion. This is
evidenced in their Greek manuscripts, which remove such
things as 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, which reproves their heresy
o f infant baptism. Therefore their candlestick was removed. By
600 A.D this form o f ancient Greek was replaced by Modem
Greek. No one today speaks Biblical Koine Greek. We have a
living God who speaks to living people. God now speaks
through pure vernacular Holy Bibles which sprung from the
intervention of the Holy Ghost recorded in Acts 2, as foretold in
Isa. 28:11, 13, and 14. The chapter “The Wobbly Unorthodox
Greek Orthodox Crutch” details the questionable character of
Greek manuscripts. The chapter “The Scriptures to All Nations”
demonstrates the work o f the Holy Ghost in providing
scriptures for “every nation under heaven,” as described in Acts.
(T h e w o rd ‘in s p ire d ’ is d eriv e d fro m th e verse, “ A ll s c rip tu re is given b y in s p ira tio n o f G o d ...’
G ra m m a tic a lly , th e B ible can be called ‘in s p ire d .’ C o n s id e r th is g ra m m a tic a lly id e n tic al p a ra lle l: ‘All
p u re w a te r is p ro d u c e d by th e d istilla tio n o f Jo n e s B o ttled W a te r C o m p a n y .’ T h is w a te r is th e re fo re
called ‘distilled w a te r,’ ju s t as th e Bible is called ‘in sp ire d s c rip tu r e .’ As a word of personal testim ony I
might add that before I was saved I was determined to read the entire university library. But when 1 finally
read the King James Bible in my late twenties, I knew it was not a book written by man. I got saved and have
never gotten over the difference between it and other books. It is alive. Later as a professor, the Lord knew I
would witness to students, so he spread me thin, teaching 17 different college courses, including upper
division courses in over six different and highly divergent majors, several in which 1 had no academic
experience. This necessitated much more reading. After sixty years in a world of books, I can say that the
King James Bible stands so fa r above the books of even the best and brightest men, one could never attri u e
it to the brilliance of the translators.)
Part 2
“Now the Spirit Speaketh E xpressly...” (1 Tim. 4:1)
“All scripture is given by inspiration o f God” (2

Tim. 3:16).
What does “given by inspiration” mean? What is “All

scripture”? These questions hopefully will be resolved for the
reader in this section. I will begin with a discussion o f the Greek
text, only because that is where this discussion usually, and I
might add, somewhat incorrectly begins. My analysis will be
Biblical and will not come from the standard corrupt secularized
lexicons and critical editions (such as Strong, Vine, Zodhiates,
Moulton, Milligan, Thayer, Wuest, Trench, Vincent, Liddell,
Scott, Persbacher, Gesenius, Brown, Driver, Briggs, Scrivener,
Berry, Beza, Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Green, and
Ginsburg — all are proven unreliable in various degrees in this
book and New Age Bible Versions).
The Greek word “theopneustos” is translated “is given by

inspiration o f God.” The first part o f the word is theo which
means “God.” The second part, from pneuma, is almost always
translated as “spirit” (322 times; 91 times as ‘Ghost’ or ghost;
once as ‘wind,’ once as ‘life,’ and never as ‘breath’ or
b re a th e d (J.B. Smith, Greek-English Concordance, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983).
Given the vast preponderance o f the translation of this Greek

word into English as “spirit,” it is logically translated with the
English “spir,” as seen in the word “inspiration.” The use of
the word “spir,” meaning “spirit,” lines up perfectly with John
6:63, where Jesus defines his words. He said,
“[T]he words that I speak unto you, they are

spirit, and they are life.”
In other words, the word o f God is not just ink on paper, like
other books; its words are “spirit.” Since the spirit o f God is
alive, his words are also alive. Consequently John 6:63
concludes that the word of God is life.
(It would only be marginally correct to say that theopneustos is
connected directly with the breath o f God (i.e. Acts 9:1 empneo "breathing
out”), since there are different Greek words used for ‘breathed,’ such as that
used in John 20:22 from the root phusao and that used in Acts 17.25 (pnoe ).
The latter is translated once as “breath” and once as “wind” in Acts 2:2. The
spelling o f theopneustos (i.e. from the noun pneum a) precludes it being from
the verb pneo, as Phil Pins suggests, in his effort to separate it from the noun
‘spirit’ and join it to the verb ‘breathe.’ The current repetition of the
definition o f “theopneustos” as “divinely breathed” comes directly from
liberals such as James Strong and Harold K. Moulton. It is rooted in their
penchant for secularizing Bible words.)
Breath is tangible; the spirit is not tangible. Those who are

afraid to call the KJB “inspired” are wrongly focusing on the
physical character o f Strong’s or Moulton’s erring definition,
“breathe” ; they know that God did close the canon and stopped
the physical sign gifts. But God’s “Spirit” is still striving with
man, comforting man, and leading man into all truth. God never
said the Spirit would not translate the canon; he did provide for
this in Acts 2 when “every man heard them speak in his own
language” from “every nation under heaven.” Although the
Greek word pneuma can be seen in secular English as
‘pneumonia’ and ‘pneumatic,’ both relating to air, its Biblical
usage is exclusively as ‘spirit,’ never as ‘breathe.’ Even Hodge,
as noted in Augustus Strong’s Systematic Theology on p.
admitted that ‘spirit’ is the correct correlative.
Not surprisingly, corrupt new bible versions, such as the

NIV, replace “inspiration” with the secular word breat e ,
thereby erasing the root ‘spir’ and its connection to the Spirit o
God. The Calvinist produced English Standard Version (ESV)

similarly says “breathed out” (yet the word “out” also appears
in no Greek texts).
Secular Dictionaries and the Word “inspiration”
Remember:
1. Dictionaries are written by fallible men.
2. Dictionaries contain numerous definitions,
which apply to distinct contexts; these
definitions are not interchangeable to other
contexts.
(To understand that the varied definitions o f a word
cannot be intermixed, look at the dictionary
definition of the word “save.” Webster’s New
College Dictionary shows that its varied meanings
include:
■ “To copy (data) from a computer’s main memory to
a storage medium so that it can be used again,”
■ “To accumulate money or goods,” “to prevent an
opponent from scoring or wining, esp. in hockey,”
■ “A game in which a relief pitcher preserves a victory
by protecting a team’s lead,”
■ “To prevent waste,”
■ “To treat with care in order to avoid fatigue, wear or
damage,” and
■ “To put aside for future use.”
The definition “To deliver from sin,” which is the
theological definition, is also listed. If one used any
of the other definitions o f the word ‘saved,’ to
describe what Jesus Christ did for us, they would be
wrong.)
As one might expect, dictionaries, made by unregenerate

men, often give very weak or strictly secular definitions of
“inspiration.” After giving several secular definitions of
‘inspiration’ (including “breathing”), which do not apply to
theological contexts, the Webster’s New World Dictionary says
that in theological contexts, (“Theo.”) ‘inspiration’ means “a
d iv in e in f lu e n c e upon human beings, as that resulting m the
writing of the Scriptures.” The W ebster’s II gives six different
usages, of which only one includes “breathing” ; only one of the
six applies to the Bible. That one says to “arouse by the d iv in e
in f iu e n c e .” The word “divine” is a quality, a descriptive
adjective; it is not “God,” who is a person. The term influence
implies a minor involvement, not an all-encompassing one.
Even their theological definition is watered-down.
Other more expanded dictionaries give a long list of

definitions based upon context. These can be misused by those
who apply the wrong definition to the wrong context. The
W ebster’s 1828 Dictionary gives three separate definitions o
“inspiration” ; the first two definitions are secular and the thir
definition is theological. The first two include
breathing; they are distinct from the third usage and defmmo
which says, “The infusion of ideas into the mind y e
S o ir it All Scripture is given by inspiration of God 1 Iim. •
According to thfs, inspiration is the work of God’s Spirit, not
God’s breath.
The twenty volume unabridged Oxford English Dictionary
also actual,y uses 2 Tim. 3:16 as a sample of the stricdy
theological usage of the word ‘inspiration’. Those who d
k„„w how , 0 use the OED or Webster’s .828 grasp
their lengthy entries on “inspiration , this canno e
OED, for example, divides all words into their various usages
by Roman numerals (i.e. I, II, III, IV et al.). Under each usage is

given examples o f the word in historical contexts which elicit
that particular definition. The word ‘inspiration’ is divided into
two categories (i.e. I, II). The first usage (I) is “Literal
(physical).” It includes as “rare” the action o f blowing. It
includes, as much more common, the action o f “breathing in.”
No scriptures are used as an example.
The second usage (II) is the “Figurative senses.” It too is

divided into two headings. The first includes, “The action of
inspiring; the fact or condition o f being inspired.” The verse in
question falls under this category. The first o f these is
theological (“a. spec. Theo., etc”). The very verse in question,
“2 Tim. iii. 16,” is cited from Tyndale’s New Testament as the
perfect example of the theological usage o f the word
“inspiration.” (The definition of Bible words comes from the
Bible itself!) It defines the usage in 2 Tim. 3:16 as,
“A special immediate action or influence o f the

Spirit of G od...upon the human mind or soul;
said esp. of that divine influence under which the
books o f Scripture are held to have been
written”
Under this category another example includes an A.D. 1450-

1530 citation which says, “He sente the holy goste on
Penthecoste sondaye to enspyracyon o f hys dyscyples.” (He
sent the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Sunday to inspiration o f his
disciples.) Interesting, this old quotation connects the word
“inspiration” with Acts 2, as suggested in this chapter.
The second subcategory under “Figurative senses” includes

secular usages, which are defined as “a breathing or infusion
into the mind or soul.”
According to the plan of the OED and other dictionaries, a

word used in the very example for one kind of usage could
never be defined by the definition o f another kind of usage.
Since the OED, like W ebster’s, selects 2 Tim. 3:16 itself to give
the definition o f “inspiration,” and defines it as the “influence of
the Spirit o f God,” then one could not use the OED or
W ebster’s to support the definition “breathed” for that very
context (see OED, s.v. inspiration, vol. 7, p. 1036).
Understanding how to use, not misuse, a dictionary is a most
basic skill. Highly refined tools, such as the OED, should not be
used by novices to promote their agenda.
A w ord’s context is the determiner of usage and meaning.

That is why the OED’s definition (“influence o f the Spirit of
G od,”) is taken directly from the words o f 2 Tim. 3:16
(“inspiration of G od”). A dictionary’s definition o f Bible
words came originally from the Bible itself; therefore there is
no reason to consult a secular dictionary to define Bible words.
This can best be seen by viewing the unabridged OED. To take
another context, particularly a secular one, to define the word
‘inspiration’ as “breathed,” is the agenda o f someone who either
knows nothing about lexicography or has an agenda to
secularize the Bible (e.g. Strong, Moulton, Trench et al.).
One must understand the origin, history, and purpose of the

OED and other dictionaries, as demonstrated in works such as,
Lost For Words, a history o f the OED by Oxford professor
Lynda Mugglestone. The founder o f the Oxford Englis
Dictionary, R.C. Trench, was rabidly against the Holy Bible
and its all pervading influence and sociological control. He
wanted the dictionary to show that words were being used m
society in ways which differed from the historical Bible usage.
He wrote two entire books against the KJB: On the Authorize
Version o f the New Testament, in connection with some recent

proposals fo r its Revision (New York, 1858) and Synonyms o f
the New Testament (Cambridge, 1854). In these books he set the
stage for the watered-down liberal definitions seen in today’s
new versions. On the title page o f one o f these books, he placed
the same serpent logo used by Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky.
Because o f his hatred for the KJB, he was asked to be a member
o f the Westcott-Hort Revised Version Committee. He merits an
entire chapter in this book for his vile re-definition o f Bible
words. As one might expect, The Shorter Oxford English
D ictionary’s definition o f ‘inspiration’ also drops the name
“God” for the adjective “Divine.” It charges that the inspiration
o f the Scriptures “are believed by s o m e ” only. Instead o f citing
the Bible, it sites Trench’s friend and Ghostly Guild founder,
“B.F. Westcott” writing what the “early Fathers” believed,
instead of what the scripture states. (Other chapters in this book
detail the heresies of these ancient Catholic “Fathers.”
The OED editors, which followed Trench, also believed that

they were not compiling prescriptive ‘definitions,’ but
descriptive samples of how a word has been used in different
contexts (secular, not always Bible-based contexts). The OED
will allow the inclusion of the Biblical definition o f words, but
merely sets it in the midst o f numerous other usages. To take
one o f its secular definitions and apply it to re-define the Bible’s
historic usage is to fall squarely into the clutching hands o f R.C.
Trench, whose official portrait shows him donning the occult
‘X ’ medallion, described on pp. 401, 359, and 994-998. (Patrick o f
Ireland was an evangelical and no Catholic ‘saint’; he had no such ‘X ’ medallion).
God demands no knowledge o f Greek or the methodology

o f lexicographers. The definition of “inspiration” is “plain to
him that understandeth” (Prov. 8:9). The word “inspiration” is
a compound word. Even a child can see the definition within the
word ‘in-spir-ation.’ Any English-speaker has been pre
conditioned to know the meaning of the phonemes “in” and
“spir,” through their previous usage in the Bible and elsewhere.
The brain stores words in files in alphabetical order. The ‘spir’
file will take the mind directly to the word “spirit.’ It is called
cognitive scaffolding. (In Awe o f Thy Word explains this in
great detail.) The suffix ‘ation’ changes a verb into a noun of
action (e.g. visit-ation, vex-ation). Therefore in-spir-ation
conveys the active (because the subject, ‘scripture,’ is passive)
sense of the Spirit acting in the scriptures.
Men have always known that it is by God’s Spirit, not his

breath, that the succession o f the scripture “is given.” Oliver
Cromwell in his 1653 Speech the First said,
“The true Succession is through the Spirit given

in its measure. The Spirit is given for that use,
‘To make proper Speakers-forth o f God’s eternal
Truth;” (Cromwell used the 1638 KJB, not the Geneva.).
King James I said in his 1599 treatise, Basilikon Doron,
“The whole scripture is dited [dictated] by God’s

Spirit, thereby (as by lively word) to instruct and
rule the whole Church militant, till the end of
the world.”
Finally, the Bible itself makes it clear that the ever-abiding

Spirit o f God, not the one-time breath o f God, gives life unto
the scriptures:
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
you, they are spirit...” (John 6:63).
Some will call the Bible, the ‘word o f God’ (ignoring what
those three words mean), but they will not admit that the Bible’s
words are still spirit (inspiration). But the Bible is “the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). The Bible is
written, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things
with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13).
This verse makes it clear that the fleshly minds o f the King
James translators, or any other translators, cannot profit in the
giving o f the Holy Bible, without the indwelling direction o f the
Spirit of God. This is inspiration. Psalm 12:6, 7 says,
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as

silver tried in a furnace o f earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, th o u
shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever.”
The words which the LORD keeps and preserves are still his
words', they do not degrade into the words o f mere translators,
even after being “being tried in a furnace o f earth.” These
verses contravene those who wrongly say that God inspired the
originals, but the translators preserve them “for ever.” Only the
Spirit can convey his own words; otherwise they would not be
the “words o f the LORD,” but would become the words o f a
translator. Because the Spirit gives the words, they are never
just ink on paper, but are themselves ‘spirit.’ Hence, the word
“in-spir-ation” is a perfect description o f the way in which the
quickening Spirit gives words which “are spirit.” The Bible says
o f God’s word, “they are spirit, and they are life.” The qualities
‘spirit’ and ‘life’ cannot be separated. Words which are no
longer ‘spirit,’ cannot be said to have “life” and therefore will
not “liveth and abideth forever.”
The word ‘preserve’ inherently requires an object of

preservation. Something must be preserved. There is no
preservation without an object of preservation. If I said, “The
blue suit is preserved,” the suit would still be blue, it would still
be a suit. A preserved entity retains all o f the qualities o f the
original.
To wrongly substitute God’s ‘breath’ for God s spirit is to.
1.) Ignore the pertinent scriptural parallels of the word ‘spirit.’

2.) Ignore the component definitional phonemes in the word
‘in-spir-ation.’
3.) Ignore the preponderant translation of the word pneuma as
‘spirit,’ and never as ‘breath.’ (Pneumatology is the study of
the Holy Spirit.)
4.) Follow the definition of liberals, such a H. K. Moulton (and
his father, the corrupt lexicographer and his grandfather, a
member of the RV committee) and Bible reviser, James
Strong, whose agenda was to replace the Spirit-filled KJB
with his own ASV hot air. These men could only support
their ‘beloved’ new versions by maintaining that the Spirit
of God had not been involved in the previous pure English
Bible’s translation, but merely had spoken aloud, with his
breath, in the distant past, constraining himself to three dead
languages. (Modem Greek and Hebrew are not ancient
Biblical Greek and Hebrew).
5.) And finally, to wrongly substitute God’s ‘breath’ for God s
‘Spirit’ is to disavow the abiding inspiration o f God’s
words. This resigns inspiration to an act of past history an
makes today’s Holy Bibles the mere words o f men, having
no authority or claim to inerrancy, because they are not t
words of God.
“Is Given”
I f th e s c rip tu re “ is g iv e n b y in s p ira tio n ,” th e n th e ‘in sp ire d

o rig in a ls -o n ly th e o ry ’ c o lla p se s. T h e o ld B .B . W a rfie ld th e o ry
th a t o n ly th e o rig in a l sc rip tu re was given by inspiration
m a n d a te s th e c h a n g in g o f th e w o rd “ is g iv e n ” to “ w as g iv e n ” o r
“ is b e in g g iv e n u n til th e c a n o n c lo s e s .” T h e c o n s tru c tio n d o es
n o t a llo w fo r th ese. T h e ita lic iz e d w o rd “ is,” u se d in all B ib le
v e rsio n s, g o o d a n d b a d , is d e m a n d e d in G re e k a n d E n g lish
c o n stru c tio n . T h e p a s t te n se w o rd “w a s ” is n o t ev e n an o p tio n .
(Invariably, those who deny the inspiration of the Holy Bible, use past tense words, such as
“were given” in their explanations. For example, The Miracle o f Inspiration wrongly parallels 2
Tim. 3:16’s present tense “is given” with the past tense “was once delivered” from Jude 1:3,
doing violence to the latter's parallel past tense verse in Jude 17, which identifies and limits
verse three to “the words which were spoken before of the apostles...” (e.g. Paul, Peter, and
other apostles, not Jude, Mark, Luke etc.) (H.D. Williams, The Miracle o f Biblical Inspiration:
A Refutation o f Perfection o f Translation..., Bible For Today, 2009, pp. 104, 113, 10, 18, 27, 67,
68, 104 et al.). Phil Pins wrongly says “ ...to say “is given” is the verb phrase seems incorrect.”
His switch from the KJB’s “is given” to “once given,” is wrongly based upon the idea that the
Greek word “given,” which does not appear in any Greek text, might be an “aorist Greek
participle.” To this imaginary Greek word, he adds the Jehovah Witness/ASV reading, wherein
the solitary word “is” is placed later in the sentence (i.e. “All scripture once given by inspiration
of God is...” (Phil Pins’s unpublished Elementary Greek Workbook, c. April, 2009 draft;
Emphatic Diaglott, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, NY, 1942). It unhappily appears that
both Pins and Williams may have become contaminated by their association with the NIV's
progenitor, Moody Bible Institute. The “enemy” may “prevail against” a man of “great strength”
and “faith,” such as Samson, Pins, and Williams, when he wanders into enemy territory where
Delilah's dictionaries “pressed him daily with her words” (Judges 16, Hebrews 11).
T h e K JB c o n s tru c tio n re a d s, “ is g iv e n b y in sp ira tio n o f G o d

a n d is p r o f ita b le ...” F o r th o se w h o in sist o n an an a ly sis o f
G re ek , o b s e rv e th a t in G re e k th e se n te n c e h as n o p re d ic a te
(v e rb ). It h as, h o w e v e r tw o G re e k w o rd s, w h ic h are tra n s la te d
“ is g iv e n b y in sp ira tio n o f G o d ” a n d “p ro fita b le .” In su ch a
c a se, w h e n th e s e tw o w o rd s are c o n n e c te d b y th e c o n ju n c tio n
“ a n d ,” th e y m u st b o th b e p re c e d e d b y th e p re se n t te n se v e rb
“ is .”
O f Phil Pins’s suggested JW reading, even Strong s

Cyclopedia warns that, “this rendering is liable to insuperable
objections” as “both” must include a verb [i.e. “is”] “it either of
them” does. It says that a reading such as Pins’s “is at variance
with a common rule o f Greek syntax, which requires...if there
be an ellipsis of the substantive verb this verb must be supplied
...N ow there exists precisely such an ellipsis [omission] in the
case before us; and as there is nothing in the context which
would lead to any exception to the rule, we are bound to yield to
its force.” “ [T]he evidence in favor o f the common rendering,
derived from the fathers, and almost all the versions, is most
decided.” The Cyclopedia associates Pins’s reading with the
critic Semler and those who would suggest that “inspiration
belongs to a part o f scripture” only (M cC lintock and Strong, Cyclopedia o f
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 4, pp. 612-613).
In plainer words, the verb “is” must be inserted with given

and “profitable” ; it cannot be “was,” nor “is being,” nor can the
word “is” be used only once. Therefore, according to Greek
grammar rules, inspired scripture “is.” (It is not merely settled
in heaven, as scripture is described as “profitable to man).
Having taught English to Greek speaking adults, I can attest to
the fact that the usage of “is given,” in both English and Greek,
is a “continuing action,” to use the words of Polly Powell, a
former instructor of English at Clemson University (phone
conversation). In English, “is given” is a present tense verb; it is
not time sensitive. In this context “is given” cannot be bound to
the time of the writing of the Bible. It is an irregular verb and its
passive voice indicates that the scripture receives the action o
the ‘spirit’ (spir) o f God. The liberals o f the 1800s, and yet
today, try vigorously to view the Bible as an historic, not a
living document. That approach, applied to this context, is non
grammatical.
The following examples o f the usage o f the phrase “is

given,” seen elsewhere in the Bible, demonstrate that it might
not describe an historical event (e.g. ‘once given’), but often
refers to a continuing phenomenon or a perpetual promise.
Job 37:10 “By the breath o f God frost is given.” Frost is given
by God yet today.
Ezek. 33:24 “the land is given us for an inheritance.” God’s gift
o f the land to Abraham and his descendents is perpetual.
Mark 6:2 “what wisdom is this which is given unto us.” God is
still giving wisdom daily to those who ask.
Rom. 5:5 “the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” He is still
given to those who receive Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
Rom. 12:6 “the grace that is given to us.” Grace is given to
believers daily.
1 Cor. 1:4 “the grace o f God which is given you by Jesus
Christ.”
1 Cor. 11:15 “her hair is given her for a covering.” Hair is
replaced daily. To those who would say that “is given” in 2
Tim. 3:16 refers to the one-time inspiration o f the Bible and
that Bibles are no longer “given by inspiration,” one must
ask, ‘Are all women now bald?’ No, because hair “is given”
repeatedly as it falls out. God even keeps track o f the
number o f our hairs; how much more would he attend to his
very words?
Eph. 4:7 “But unto everyone o f us is given grace according to
the measure o f the gift o f Christ.”
Phil. 1:29 “for unto you is given in the behalf o f Christ, not
only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” If
you live godly in Christ Jesus, you will suffer persecution
yet today.
According to these verses the Christian “is given grace,

“wisdom,” “the Holy Ghost,” and even a continual supply of
“covering” hair. It would be unscriptural, given the context in 2
Tim. 3:16, to say that “is given” refers only to the then current
giving o f the canon o f scriptures. Just as in the aforementioned
verses, this context, demands that a perpetual, continual aspect
be applied. The very end of the sentence in 2 Tim. 3:16 says,
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That
the man of God may be throughly furnished unto
all good works.”
Just as the aforementioned verses show that the phrase is

given” is used in verses which must apply to all Christians,
historic and present, 2 Tim. 3:16 too must apply to all
Christians, not just those who lived when the scriptures were
first given. We need God’s life giving inspired scriptures more
than we need lost hairs replaced.
Only scripture “given by inspiration” is “profitable. It is

given by inspiration of God” for a purpose. That purpose is
“That” the Christian can profit. Inspiration is absolute y
necessary for true “doctrine” and “instruction.” Unless the Holy
Bible is the very words o f God himself, it cannot be an
infallible guide to doctrine.
Ecclesiastes 12:11 is an interesting parallel. It says,
“The preacher sought out to find out a c c e p ta b le

words: and that which was written was upright,
even words of truth. The words of the wise are
as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of
assemblies, which are given from one

shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be
adm onished...”
The words o f truth, that is, the Holy Bible, “are given”
from our good Shepherd, the Spirit of truth, who promises to
“guide” us “into all truth” (John 16:13). The translators or the
“masters o f assemblies” merely fasten them down to paper.
Part 3
Warfield Moves the Inspiration Bull’s Eye
Jesus Christ is the target o f hatred by this world. His living

Spirit-inspired words, which give his express will on this earth,
are the b u ll’s eye. Christians who stand with Christ’s word at
the very bull’s eye will not only suffer persecution, but they will
also be subject to a constant barrage o f attack. The word o f God
brings the same reproach he bore. His word is the only vestige
on earth of Jesus Christ, other than the Holy Ghost and the
testimony o f bom again Christians. Many move slightly off
center to avoid the unremitting assault o f questioning scribes
and mocking bystanders. Those edging away from the bull’s
eye are still ‘for Jesus,’ but the desire not to appear “foolish”
finds puffed egos seeking ways and means to avoid the “shame”
that comes from saying that you have a book in which God
actually talks to man (Acts 5:41, Heb. 12:2).
The living “powerful” quality of the King James Bible

incites sinful men to “mock” and “question” it, just as they did
Jesus Christ, the living Word, when he was on earth (Mark
10:34; Matt. 22:15, Mark 8:11, et al.). (The thought seems to
be _ ‘p 0int a finger at it, before it points one back.’) The

apostles scurried away when Jesus was tried and crucified.
When the KJB is likewise tried with accusing questions, even
some of the best men scurry under the cover of a Greek text,
some lexicon, or the elusive ‘originals.’ (The answer to every KJB question
has been given in eight books: my five books and the three written by M aynard, Bouw, and
M oorm an, all offered by A.V. Publications 1-800-435-4535.)
Calvinists such as Carl Barth (1886-1968) and B.B.

Warfield (1851-1921), although defending a semblance of
traditional Christianity against German rationalism, were among
the first to erect imaginary castles to house the word of God,
outside o f the tangible ‘Holy Bible.’ Jesus is the Word
(capital ‘W ’ John 1:1); the scriptures are the “word” (small
‘w ’). Carl Barth (and Heinrich Brunner), the fathers of neo
orthodoxy, wrongly claimed that the word of God did not
actually exist on earth. To them the Bible was merely a fallible
man-made book, speaking of Christ, the Word. Therefore Barth
began capitalizing the letter ‘W ’ when he referred to the ‘word.’
This was just one o f many weak ‘Christian’ accommodations to
the 19th century skeptics’ claims that the Holy Bible could not
stand up under their “science falsely so-called.” (Today too
many copy his liberal capitalization of the letter ‘W ’ when
referring to the ‘word,’ not knowing the unscriptural character
of such a switch.)
Pastors say, “Open your Bibles to ....” Sunday School

teachers say, “I hope you all brought your Bibles.” There are
those, however who say that the ‘Bible is inspired,’ but actually
mean that only the originals or some Greek text is inspired^
They are practicing Semler’s deceptive theory o
accommodation. They are trying to give the impression of
orthodoxy to their listeners or readers. When I use the term
‘Holy Bible’ or ‘Bible’ I mean what every church-going person
means and exactly what the dictionary calls the “Bible”— “the
sacred book o f Christianity including the Old and the New
Testament.” A ‘book’ is defined by Webster as “a set o f written
or printed pages fastened on an end and enclosed between
protective covers.” This describes precisely the Holy Bible
Christians read and have in their homes. A ‘book’ is nowhere
identified as ‘dissolved animal skins or parchments which have
been written on’; neither is a ‘Bible’ thought o f by anyone as a
rare and unreadable Greek text. No living person identifies a
‘Bible’ as any o f these things, except perhaps those ‘clergy’
who, like Humpty Dumpty say, “When I use a word it means
just what I choose it to mean.” When children and politicians,
like Clinton, do this, it is called lying. The new definition and
usage o f the word ‘Bible,’ as the lost originals or conflicting
Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or editions, is a neologism, that
is, “a new meaning for an already established word” (W ebster’s
II New College Dictionary).
The Unabridged 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary

defines “Bible” as, “The Scriptures o f the Old and New
Testament.” As such, the verse “All scripture is given by
inspiration o f God” would mean that the “Bible” “is given by
inspiration of God.” One merely needs to see the OED to
determine that the Bible is scripture and according to the Bible
“All scripture is given by inspiration.”
B.B. Warfield was one o f the first American theologians to

declare war on the Holy Bible’s inspiration. In the 1800s this
American Presbyterian theologian found himself too close to
the bull’s eye, the Holy Bible. He unwisely positioned himself
under a constant barrage o f attack when, in 1876, he went to
study for a year in Leipzig, Germany under the higher critics,
who denied that God had given man the Bible. Warfield brought
to Germany a letter o f introduction by Philip Schaff, ASV

Chairman and organizer, with the Luciferians, of the Parliament
of World Religions. W arfield’s questionable associations and
dead Calvinism left him no match for the twisted^German
assault on the Bible. There he readily absorbed the 18* century
rationalism o f German and other ‘Enlightenment’ philosophers,
which exalt human reason and rule out revelation as a source of
knowledge (e.g. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz).
Compounding this, he was exposed to the modernism of
Schleiermacher, Hume, and Kant, which flatly deny any
miraculous intervention by God. These philosophers all
redirected their ‘faith’ from faith in the Holy Bible to a faith in
man. Such dark naturalistic philosophies have cast a lingering
shadow over the miraculous nature of the Holy Bible in the
minds of even seminary graduates.
Warfield sought to merge what he learned in Germany with

his previous conservatism. On one hand Warfield wrote against
the rank unbelief of Briggs, the German higher critic (and
author with Brown and Driver of the corrupt English edition of
Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon, unwisely used today; see chapters
on Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and Briggs). However, Warfield
could not defend the Bible in hand. He did not have a strong
enough background in manuscript evidence or a humble enoug
faith in the scriptures to counter the barrage o f textual variants
and ‘problems’ thrust at him in the German classroom. He
invented a plan whereby he could retain the creed, that state
that ‘the Bible’ was inspired. He redefined the word ‘Bible tor
seminary students. H e moved the locus of inspiration from
the Holy Bible to the lost originals. This “biblical para
shift” by B.B. Warfield contravenes every previous belie an
church confession (e.g. Turretin c. 1687, Westminster, 1
London Baptist, 1677 et al.). Warfield could still defend the
inspiration o f ‘the Bible’ with vigor, and he did, but he now

stated that this inspiration related only to the originals. He was
the spokesman for his compromising contemporaries at
Princeton who felt that only the originals “were” inspired. A.A.
Hodge, son o f textual critic Charles Hodge, who himself had
studied two years in Germany, had planted the seed in
W arfield’s mind; W arfield’s fellow associates first put this new
heresy in print at the Niagara conference in 1878. Princeton was
the first place in history to harbor this particular shift from an
inspired Holy Bible in hand to inspired originals, long gone.
Warfield used the Westcott and Hort RV; his “heresies” in other
areas (Ecumenical Calvinism) reveal that he was not
“approved” according to 1 Cor. 11:19. Hence his view o f
inspiration should be rejected.
In order to divest themselves o f a living book that contains

the words o f the Spirit o f God, today’s liberals have adopted his
distinction between the so-called ‘originals’ and the word of
God extant today in vernacular Holy Bibles. His ‘original’ idea
about the originals has “crept in unaware” into Bible school
textbooks and doctrinal statements. It provides a comfortable
respite for those who, as Jesus said, are “ashamed o f me and my
words,” when questions arise (Mark 8:38).
Commenting on W arfield’s departure from the historic faith

is Dr. James Sightler, a medical doctor and son o f Dr. Harold
Sightler, the famous and now deceased pastor from Greenville,
S.C.. Dr. Sightler took the pulse o f the King James Bible and
determined that it was alive. His booklet Lively Oracles is his
dissertation on the inspiration o f the KJB. In his earlier classic,
A Testimony Founded Forever, Dr. James Sightler writes,
“It has been stated by Sandeen that the

Princeton Theologians Archibald Alexander
Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, in
1881, were the first to claim inspiration for the
original autographs only and to exchange the
doctrine of providential preservation for
restoration o f the text by critics. This shift was
accompanied by a change from reliance on
internal verification of the scripture by the
witness of the Spirit and the structural integrity
of the entire Bible to reliance on external
evidences. Actually it was Warfield s teacher
and predecessor at Princeton, Charles Hodge,
father of A.A. Hodge, who was the first to take
up naturalistic text criticism and abandon the
doctrine of providential preservation. It should
also be remembered that the Niagara Creed of
1878, adopted at the Niagara Conference on
Prophecy, which was dominated by a coalition of
Princeton graduates and followers of J.N.
Darby, may well have been the first document
to claim inspiration for every word of scripture
“provided such word is found in the original
m a n u s c r i p t s ” ” (em phasis mine; See Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots
o f F u n d a m e n ta lism , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House1970. pp.
103-131 as cited by James Sightler, A Testimony Founded Forever,
Greenville, SC: Sightler Publications, 2001, pp. 31, 32 et al.; Sight et s
book gives an entire chapter w hich docum ents W arfield’s heretical shi .
John Asquith has written a book entitled Further Thoughts on the Word
o f God\ D efending the Inspiration o f the A V 1611, whic a so
recommend.)
Dr. Gary La More of Canada wrote an entire paper detailing

W arfield’s cowardly retreat,
“Having been encouraged by A A . Hodge to

defend the Princeton view o f verbal inspiration
against an attack by the critical theories o f
Charles A. Briggs, Warfield found himself on
the horns o f a dilem m a.. .W arfield’s solution was
to shift his doctrine of inerrancy to include
only the original autographa; no longer
holding to the belief in the inerrancy o f the Bible
o f the Reformers, the Traditional Text. Thus he
moved that if the locus of providence were now
centered in restoration via “Enlightenment”
textual criticism, rather than preservation o f the
traditional texts, then we need not concern
ourselves with the criticisms lodged at the text
of Scripture presently (and historically!) used
in th e C h u rc h (Gary La More, B.B. Warfield and His
Followers, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Grace Missionary Baptist
Church, 2007, pp. 27-28).
Warfield accommodated the Bible to modem scientific

rationalism, empiricism, and naturalism. Like doubting Thomas,
Warfield must see it, not just believe it. Many were drawn to his
naturalistic idea because they did not know how to defend their
Bibles from the barrage o f questions arising out o f Germany. As
La More observed, W arfield’s accommodation is a comfortable
resort today for those who cannot answer questions about why
the KJB reads as it does and do not want to appear “foolish.” It
is frightening to think that a non-soul-winning German-trained
Calvinist is dictating from the grave his originals-only theory of
inspiration to those who disavow many of his other beliefs and
practices. W arfield’s inspired ‘originals only’ still stains many
churches’ ‘Statement o f Faith.’ The churches who have such
statements think that their creed is orthodox and have no
knowledge of its heterodox origin. They do not realize that it

was merely an accommodation to the infidels in Germany who
found imaginary faults in the Bible.
W arfield’s invention has darkened the sense and spread a

faltering faith to even good Christians such as John Burgon,
Edward Hills, and their modem day proponents, some of whom
have cowered and acquiesced to alleged spots or conceivable
future updates or improvements to the KJB. These men have
become rationalists, naturalists and modernists in practice by
exalting man’s role in the transmission of the Bible and denying
the miraculous intervention o f God. The Bible says, “Thou
shalt preserve them ...” It is his work. What shall he preserve.
He shall preserve his words — not replace them with men s
words. Unwittingly, they have in a sense adopted the neo
orthodox position that the Bible (that we have) only contains
God’s message (but accurately translated by men into English).
To them Bibles are no longer God’s own English words.

Remember, he said “I speak” “other tongues.” Practically
speaking they have adopted the same view as those who create
and use modem versions, who say that the Bible was inspired
only in the originals and consequently they are free to
reconstitute it themselves according to rationalistic methods.
There is not a lot of difference (in presumption, not^ text)
between men making NIVs and men making the ‘updated’ KJV
Easy-Reader or KJV Evidence Bible (Ray Comfort). Is the Holy
Bible God’s words or man’s? There is no middle ground. The
title even says ‘H oly’ Bible. Since when can unholy men make
a wholly holy book? (Chapters 8, 9, and 10 o f In Awe o f Thy Word show the
m athem atically m iraculous nature o f the KJB w hich could not have been instilled by man.)
Another author observes,

“Throughout the twentieth century, a view o f inspiration gained

ascendancy among evangelicals and many fundamentalists that
marked a departure from that which was previously confessed
by believers since New Testament days...Recent scholarship
has shown that men like Princeton professor Benjamin Warfield
(1851-1921) were not as committed to the Biblical doctrine of
verbal inspiration as we are sometimes led to believe. Thinking
to answer rationalist theologians on their own ground and
legitimize textual studies, these men began to suggest that only
the autographs (originals) were inspired; apographs (copies)
were not. For this reason many o f the Statements o f Faith issued
by various bodies now speak o f the Scriptures being inspired ‘as
originally given’ whereas before this time the conviction was
that inspired Scripture was preserved in the copies. All this
took place almost unnoticed, but we are being asked to
swallow a real whopper! The apostle Paul is right, “Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).
What this means is that as the originals have long since

turned to dust, no inspired text exists today...W arfield’s book
on biblical inspiration is still hailed as a ‘classifc,’ but his
viewpoint has done more to undermine confidence in Scripture
than almost any other in the last 150 years or so” (David w. Norris,
The Big Picture, pp. 295-296 as cited in La More, pp. 20-21).
Warfield fought higher criticism, but adopted lower

criticism, which is the rationalistic belief that the inspired
originals had been lost for a millennium and a half and could be
reconstructed by Westcott, Hort, and Schaff on the RV and
ASV committees. Warfield said Westcott and Hort “furnish us
for the first time with a really scientific method” which “will
meet with speedy universal acceptance” (as cited in La M ore, note 13 pp.
17, 27 et al.; also see M ark A. Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1991).
In 1886 Warfield wrote the first book in America promoting

textual criticism (Introduction to the Textual Criticism o f the
New Testament). Calhoun’s history o f Princeton says, “His
positive attitude toward textual criticism influenced many to
appreciate the science and to value the new translations o f the
Bible [RV and A SV ]...” (David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, Vol. 2, “The
M ajestic Testim ony 1869- 1 9 2 9 ” pp. 113-115). Schaff invited Warfield to
contribute his Hortian views on manuscript genealogy to his

heretical Companion to the Greek Testament and English
Version. Sightler says, “Westcott, Hort, Schaff, and
W arfield...all knew that Griesbach openly denied the Deity of
Christ, and yet they followed his methods in preference to those
of Frederick Nolan, who was a believer. They reasoned in
circular fashion that the best readings were in codices B and
Aleph, therefore B and Aleph gave the best textual evidence
[Vaticanus and Sinaiticus]” (Sightler, P. 3 i).
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield should have followed in

his maternal grandfather and namesake’s footsteps. Robert
Breckinridge was a lawyer and Presbyterian minister who
single-handedly stopped the wavering American Bible Society
from printing their own revised version of the KJB thirty years
before the RV. This version was edited and corrupted by men
including John McClintock (of McClintock and (James)
Strong’s Cyclopedia o f Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature). This version omitted such important doctrines as,
“God was manifest in the flesh” (Sightler, P. 35).
Each generation must remember that—
“With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of

days understanding” (Job 12:12).
. .ask for the old paths, where is the good way,

and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your
souls. But they said, We will not walk therein”
(Jer. 6:16).
The Holy Bible has always been recognized as the locus of

inspiration, that is, until the Egyptian locusts saw its fruitful
boughs and swarmed to consume it.
Part 4
“All scripture”
“All scripture is given by inspiration o f God” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Just what does the phrase “is given by inspiration” include?
What is “All scripture”? Why does God begin the sentence with
the word “All”? Linguists call this ‘fronting,’ whereby the
author places the most important point in the front o f the
sentence. “All” modifies and describes “scripture.” The
definition o f ‘A ll’ will be included in the Bible’s definition of
‘scripture.’ Does ‘A ll’ mean ‘the originals from Genesis to
Revelation’? Or does ‘all’ include copies and vernacular
editions also? The Bible’s usage of the word “scripture” will
answer that question.
God purposely placed the sole verse on the inspiration of

scripture in a context identifying the inspired “scripture” as
what a grandmother and a mother (2 Tim. 1:5) had taught to a
child. God placed inspired scriptures within the easy grasp o f a
child. Why? Jesus said, “ ...thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt.
11:25). In the context and verse immediately preceding 2 Tim.
3:16 Paul said to Timothy, “and that from a child thou hast
known the holy scriptures...All scripture is given by inspiration
o f G o d...” In this immediate context the “scripture is

something that Timothy knew as a child. Timothy did not know
what the originals said; he had only heard what the copies said.
Therefore copies, even thousands of years after the originals,
are a part of “All scripture” and are therefore “given by
inspiration of God.” We read about the copies in Deut. 17:18
which state, “he shall write him a copy o f this law m a book out
o f that which is before the priests the Levites” (also see Josh.
8-32) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of
Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied
out.”
Its “life” “is given” as it is transferred on to other media.
Its life “is given” over and over again, and it never
diminishes. It is “the voice o f the living God speaking...
(Deut. 5:26).
Not just the immediate context of 2 Tim. 3:16, but every
usage of the word “scripture[s]” in the New Testament refers to
copies or translations, not the originals. Therefore the word
“scripture” cannot refer to the originals alone. The eunuch read
“scriptures” ; the Bereans searched “scriptures” ; Apollos was
“mighty in the scriptures.” None o f these people had any
‘originals.’ What is included in “All scripture is given by
inspiration of God”? Note the following:
■ In Acts 17:11 we read that the Bereans “searched the

scriptures daily.” They did not search the originals.
- In Acts 18:28 Apollos was, “shewing by the scriptures
that Jesus was the Christ.” He did not have originals
■ In Matt. 21:42 Jesus asked them, “Did ye never read in
the scriptures.” They did not have the originals to read.
■ In Matt. 22:29 Jesus told them, “Ye do err, not knowing

the scriptures.” If the scriptures were only the
inaccessible originals, why would he chide them for not
knowing the scriptures? (See also Mark 12:24.)
■ In Luke 24:45 “opened he their understanding, that they
might understand the scriptures.” What point would
there be in understanding something that neither they,
nor anyone else had.
* In John 5:39 Jesus told them to “Search the
scriptures...” How could they if the scriptures were
only the originals?
■ In Acts 17:2 “Paul...reasoned with them out o f the
scriptures.” He did not have the Old Testament
originals.
■ In Mark 12:10 Jesus asked, “have ye not read this
scripture...” Why would he ask them, if only the
originals were scripture and they did not have them?
■ John 2:22 says that “they believed the scripture.” Who
would believe something they had never seen?
■ Rom. 15:4 says that “we through patience and comfort
o f the scriptures might have hope.” Did only those who
actually saw the originals have this promise?
■ 2 Peter 3:16 warns that some would “wrest, as they do
also the other scriptures.” Did they break into the
Corinthian church at midnight, find their original letter
from Paul, steal it and change it? Or did they read copies
or vernacular editions and “wrest” them?
If “All scripture is given by inspiration o f God,” then all of

the “scripture,” noted in the aforementioned verses, is inspired.
We must conclude that the Bible uses the terms “scripture” and
“scriptures” to describe something other than just the originals.
Therefore the term “All scripture” cannot refer to only the
originals, ‘from Genesis to Revelation.’ It must include copies

of the originals, as well as vernacular versions, as the following
section will prove. Therefore the verse - “All scripture is given
by inspiration of God” — is stating that the originals, the
copies, and the vernacular translations are “given by inspiration
o f God.” When God’s Holy Bible does not match man s
seminary textbook, the latter is wrong.
“All Scripture...to All Nations”
Romans 16:26 refers to “the scriptures of the

prophets...made known to all nations.” One cannot know
something that is in another language. What he does know is
referred to as “scriptures,” “All” of which are given by
inspiration of God” according to 2 Tim. 3:16. Many say that a
Greek translation o f the Hebrew Old Testament was used by
Timothy, who knew the “scriptures” and whose father was a
Greek “Apollos, bom at Alexandria,” and “mighty in the
scriptures” may also have had a Greek translation of the Old
Testament (Acts 18:24-28). (Theirs was certainly not the
Vaticanus sold today as the Septuagint, nor would Jews in
Israel, including Jesus, have used a Greek Bible.)
Other usages of the word “scripture” might also include

vernacular copies. O f the Ethiopian eunuch it says, “The place
o f the scripture which he read...” (Acts 8:32). The Cambridge
History o f the Bible speaks of the Ethiopians, who were
originally converted to Judaism after the Queen o f Sheba me
with Solomon (1 Kings 10:1-13; for details see ^ ter ^
Ginsburg’s Hebrew text). To this day they still have the
ancient Ethiopic version o f the Old and New Testamen •
eunuch may have been reading out of this Ethiopic
Testament. Philip no doubt had the gift of tongues and began
at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” Acts says
that the eunuch had “scripture” and 2 Tim. 3:16 says that “All
scripture” is “given by inspiration.” Therefore vernacular
editions are “given by inspiration.” It “is given” over and over
again by the Spirit o f God. If man can make a computer
program that can translate a document in a split second, could
not God’s Spirit do better?
Word of God = Scriptures
The scriptures are the written words o f God. The Bible

equates “scriptures” with the word o f God.
“the word of God came, and the scripture

cannot be broken...” (John 10:35).
“And ye have not his word abiding in

you...search the scriptures” (John 5:38, 39).
“ ...they received the word with all readiness of

mind, and searched the scriptures...” (Acts
17:11).
The phrase “the word o f God” summarizes and re-iterates

the fact that the Holy Bible is still God’s words, not man’s
words (i.e. not the words o f the KJB translators, etc.). Some
have tried to re-define the few simple words — “the word of
God.” In any other usage the phrase ‘the word of John’ means
that they are John’s words, not someone else’s. The Bible
reiterates:
“when ye received the word of God which ye

heard of us, ye received it not as the word of
men, but as it is in truth, the word o f G od...” (1
Thes. 2:13).
The phrase “the word o f God” says it all, if we will only cease
re-defining it as the meaningless expression, ‘wordofGod.’
“Samaria had received the word of God” (Acts 8:14). The

Samarian villagers spoke Samaritan; only a moderate number of
those who lived in the cities spoke Greek. Therefore the word of
God was given in their vernacular language. (For details, see
chapter “The Wobbly G reek...” and “The Scriptures to All
Nations”).
The vernacular versions continue to be God’s living spirit

communicating to each reader through his own culture, using
Biblical language. For example, in the Greek Bible in the book
o f Acts the heathen were described as worshipping the Greek
goddess Artemis. In the English Bible, she is called Diana
because that is the name by which she was known to “all Asia
and the world” (Acts 19:27). Any witch today in America,
France or Germany identifies Diana as her goddess, not the
strictly Greek national goddess Artemis.
What is Biblical language? The word ‘holpen,’ for example,

is G od’s Biblical English word for ‘helped.’ The word was
historically used only in the Bible. The word ‘help is much
more archaic (800 A.D.) than ‘holpen. (See the unabridged
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. holpen, s.v. help; See In Awe o f
Thy Word for many more examples).
The Holy Ghost himself could have given any gift at

Pentecost. The ability to fly would have greatly benefited Paul
and the disciples, allowing for quick and safe journeys. Yet he
gave the gift o f the word o f God in the vernacular. Men from
“every nation under heaven” heard men speak in their own
language (Acts 2). The vernacular word of God would be the
vehicle by which they would “go into all the world and preach
the gospel.” Holy Ghost-given languages, other than Greek,

were the power that the disciples needed and for which they had
to wait (Acts 1:8, Heb. 4:12). They were not learned languages
and dictionary equivalencies, but words given by the Spirit
(inspiration) o f God. My book, In Awe o f Thy Word, traces the
words from the Gothic language (extant at Pentecost) which are
readable and now found in the King James Bible. The English
Bible, as are other Germanic Bibles, is also derived from other
Acts 2 languages, such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew and others, just
as the Romance language Bibles, such as the Spanish, French,
and Italian, came from the Latin, given in Acts 2.
Part 5
Wycliffe & Coverdale Say God Was English Bible’s Author
Miles Coverdale was the editor o f one o f the early English

Bibles; the words o f the Coverdale Bible are still seen in today’s
KJB, particularly in the Old Testament. He was intimately
involved in the process of the Bible’s being “given” (2 Tim.
3:16) and “purified” (Psa. 12:6, 7) in English. He said the
English Bible is authored directly by the Holy Ghost. To those
who say God did not directly author the English Bible,
Coverdale said,
“No, the Holy Ghost is as much the author o f it

in Hebrew, Greek, French, Dutch, and English,
as in Latin” (In A w e, p. 846).
Coverdale said in the preface of his Bible that—
“ ...the scriptures... leaveth no poor man

unhelped...And why? because it is given by the
inspiration of God” (in Aw e, p. 847).
He knew that the poor men who read only English Bibles had
the “scriptures” “given by the inspiration of God.” God is not a
respecter of persons.
Coverdale was echoing the beliefs of his predecessor, John

Wycliffe, who had penned one of the early English Bibles and
who believed that the word “scripture” referred to the English
as well as other vernacular Bibles. Wycliffe was accused of
heresy for believing that the English Bible was actually Holy
Ghost-given scriptures. He said,
“The clergy cry aloud that it is heresy to speak

o f the Holy Scriptures in English, and so they
would condemn the Holy Ghost, who gave
tongues to the Apostles of Christ to speak the
word of God in all languages under heaven. (For
these and more such quotes see G.A. Riplinger, In A w e o f Thy Word, e.g.
pp. 8 4 6 ,8 4 7 ,7 5 7 ,7 5 8 ).
“You say it is heresy to speak o f the Holy

Scriptures in English. You call me a heretic
because I have translated the Bible into the
common tongue of the people. Do you know
whom you blaspheme? Did not the Holy Ghost
give the word o f God at first in the mother-
tongue of the nations to whom it was
addressed? Why do you speak against the Holy
Ghost? (In Awe, p. 758 et al).
Wycliffe said that the word of God was addressed to Romans

(Latin), Hebrews (Hebrew) and others besides Greeks.
Remember, there were three languages on the cross.
God entrusted Wycliffe and Coverdale with the transmission

o f the text. He would not trust it to those whose views he did
not share. I am a Wycliffite in this regard and so is every one
sitting in the pews. It is erring ‘clergy’ who want to place
themselves between man and the Spirit of God. Wycliffe
continued his theme o f “Scriptures in tongues” in his book
Wycket, saying,
“ ...such a charge is condemnation o f the Holy

Ghost, who first gave the Scriptures in tongues
to the Apostles o f Christ, to speak that word in
all languages that were under heaven” (In Awe, p.
758).
Wycliffe would be burned at the stake in today’s colleges for

believing in the Dictation Theory of the originals. He said,
“Holy Scripture is the unique word o f God and

our authors are only G od’s scribes or heralds
charged with the duty of inscribing the law he
has dictated to them .. .[H]e himself had dictated
it within the hearts o f the humble scribes, stirring
them to follow that form o f writing and
description which he had chosen...and not
because it was their own w ord...(inAwe,p. 759 ).
When God said he would “preserve” his words “for ever,”

what was he preserving (Ps. 12:6, 7)? The inspired word which
is “forever settled in heaven” includes, by his will and
foreknowledge, the vernacular Holy Bibles, by which each man
will be judged on the last day.
Part 6
Word of God Glorified & the Disciples Multiplied
What does the Bible teach that will be the result o f an

increased focus on the word of God ? It gives a very simple
formula:
Acts 6:7 says, “And the word of God increased;

and the number of the disciples multiplied in
Jerusalem.”
Notice that the increased use o f the true word of God

resulted in an increased number of converts. The seed planted
resulted in fruit (Luke 8:11). Souls were bom again, “not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word o f God...”
Even corrupt new versions mix their leaven with the real
scriptures. New versions always plagiarize the living words of
the KJB. I collated the original NASB and found that most of
the sentences in much o f their book of Romans were taken
directly from the KJB. Even the word “Jesus” is a KJB word.
Though some will be saved by using the living KJB words

under new version covers, Paul thought it was important to
warn people about “many which corrupt the word of God (2
Cor. 2:17). Warning soldiers o f the location of land mines is not
a diversionary tactic. Tearfully Paul warned night and day of
those who spoke “perverse things.”
“For I know this, that after my departing shall

grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing
the flock. Also of your own selves shall men
arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them. Therefore watch, and
remember, that by the space of three years I

ceased not to warn every one night and day
with tears” (Acts 20:29-31).
Such “perverse things” pock the pages o f new versions.

Warning about the “perverse” places in new versions is a part o f
Paul’s charge to, “be ye followers of me” (1 Cor. 4:16). The
only person such warnings will harm is the devil. The new
versions have created such deep craters in the Bible that Ryrie
says in his Basic Theology that if he had to have Bible “p ro o f’
texts, “I could never teach the doctrines o f the Trinity or the
Deity o f Christ or the Deity o f the Holy Spirit...” (Chicago: Moody,
1999, pp. 89, 90,). His NIV and NASB omit these vital doctrines as
documented in New Age Bible Versions.
What was the final bottom line for Paul?
2 Thes. 3:1, 2 “Finally, brethren, pray for us,

that the word of the Lord may have free course,
and be glorified...for all men have not faith...”
Unbelievers and new converts must hear the word

“glorified” (2 Thes. 3:1). Certainly God’s living and life-giving
words must be free from deadly doubting comments. This is not
accomplished when someone says, “That word in Greek
actually m eans...” The listener will naturally conclude, ‘I do
not have what God actually said ...’ When the word is not
“glorified” it is difficult for unbelievers and new Christians to
have “faith” in it.
It is critical in these days of multiplied versions that we

sometimes say ‘King James Bible,’ not just ‘Bible.’ Given the
fact that he has magnified his word above his “name” and above
“all blessing and praise,” the King James Bible can hardly be
“glorified” too much. It alone is the vehicle to communicate the

gospel to nearly two billion of the world’s six billion souls.
High ground: We know it is a blessing and praise when

someone gets saved.
“ ...there is joy in the presence o f the angels of

God over one sinner that repenteth” (Luke
15:10).
Higher ground: But “exalted above” salvation is God’s name,
“blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted

above all blessing and praise” (Neh. 9:5).
Highest ground: His word is magnified above his name,
“thou hast magnified thy word above all thy

name” (Ps. 138:2).
The Challenge vs. The Textbooks
Finally, I have a challenge for Bible teachers who do not

believe that the KJB “is given” by the Spirit, even while it was
being “purified,” and even as it is read today. The Bible says
that we are to “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the
church” (1 Cor. 6:4). Poll the people in the pews asking, “Please
stand up if you believe the Bible in your hands is inspired.”
Now count the standing people in front o f the pulpit and
compare that to the number o f people behind the pulpit. Case
closed. Even Bible critic and ASV chairman Philip Schaft
confessed that —
“ ...to the great mass o f English readers King

James’s Version is virtually the inspired Word
Of G od... (Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek New Testament

and the English Version, 4'h ed. rev. NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers,
1903, p. 413).
The church members have gotten the impression that the Bible
is inspired from their Bibles. Could the whole body o f Christ
have gotten such a wrong impression from the Bible? One
could write an entire book citing the Bible passages which give
this impression. Page after page of the Bible says that it is the
word o f God. Only theology textbooks could re-defme those
three simple words. Verses such as 1 Peter 1:25 are
characteristic in their personal address:
“But the word o f the Lord endureth for ever.

And this is the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you.”
Those who believe the Bible is inspired have only read the
Bible. Those who do not believe this have read textbooks in
addition to the Bible. Therefore, one can logically conclude that
the ideas introduced by Barth and Warfield, under pressure
from the higher critics, have now become traditions which
tarnish the textbooks and “make the word o f God o f none
effect.” These textbooks are not written by fundamentalists.
They already have a textbook — the Bible — and are busy
telling others about Jesus Christ. When a Christian college feels
a need to teach Systematic Theology or Biblical Introduction,
the faculty will use the best textbook they can find. Even the
best o f them echoes W arfield’s disjunction o f inspiration and
preservation. This disjunction o f inspiration and preservation is
nowhere given in the scriptures, as it is delineated in textbooks.
God said, he would preserve “them.” (Psa. 12:6, 7). What is
“them’? What is preserved but the very inspired words o f God?
(See Answers Minton 1 and 2, available from A.V. Publications,

for a discussion of the Hebrew in that verse.)
The problem lies in the fact that the liberal does not know
HOW scripture “is given” and “purified” and this bothers him.
He did not see it and will not believe. The naturalistic
empiricism adopted by higher critics and the neo-Orthodox
demanded, as did their counterparts in the natural sciences (e.g.
evolution), evidence of linear causation. God left no such
signs o f how and where he did his work. He merely said he
would “do wonders” to preserve his word (Josh. 3:5-4:7).
Today there is no physical proof that the waters o f the Jordan
opened to allow the passage of the ark containing the word of
God, yet we have those words today. Likewise, God has not
marked the mileposts along the path of his intervention, yet we
have the word of God today.
“As thou knowest not what is the way o f the

spirit...” (Eccl. 11:5).
If a book was in the library in the morning and was in my office

in the evening, could you prove that I did not carry it there? If I
said that I did, would you believe me? Why will some not
believe that God said, “I speak” “other tongues” to carry the
word forward so that it is “nigh unto thee, even in thy mouth,
and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (Deut. 30:14)? “[H]ow
is it that ye have no faith?” (Mark 4:40).
“ [B]lessed are they that have not seen, and yet

have believed” (John 20:29).
Textbooks further muddy the waters, giving non-scnptural

definitions and terms. Many textbook formulas are abstracte
from liberal and Calvinist Augustus Strong’s Systematic
Theology. He was a higher critic and evolutionist. His

discussion o f inspiration is echoed in today’s textbooks by
Herbert Lockyer, Charles Ryrie and all others. (Calvinists spend
their time writing theology books, instead o f evangelizing.
Their prolific views then become integrated into textbooks used
by non-Calvinists). Such textbooks contain mounds o f pure
speculation about inspiration. For example, they include the
word “illumination,” a word which occurs nowhere in the Bible
in that form at all (and only once as “illuminated” in Heb.
10:32, where it refers to persons being “illuminated”; the
scriptures are not a part of that context.) One verse is hardly a
cause to elevate ‘illumination’ to a doctrine. In fact their
textbook definition o f “illumination” matches one o f the Bible’s
definitions of “inspiration.” Job 32:8 says,
“The inspiration o f the Almighty giveth them

understanding.”
According to the Bible ‘inspiration,’ not ‘illumination,’ gives

understanding. That may not be the view o f those who have
been reprogrammed by textbooks, but that is what the Bible
says. It is interesting that the word ‘giveth’ [present] and ‘is
given’ [present] are used in the only two verses using the word
“inspiration.”
All textbook discussions o f inspiration and preservation

neglect the important concept o f “interpretation,” which means
‘translation’ in every usage in the New Testament. In fact, even
the Bishops’ Bible, which was used before the KJB said,
“Emmanuel, which being translated, is God with us” (Matt.
1:23). The meaning o f “interpretation” effects the understanding
o f the verse which says that “scripture” is not “o f any private
interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). The word “interpretation” is
covered thoroughly in the chapter “Very Wary of George

Ricker Berry” which also discusses his questionable Interlinear
Greek-English New Testament.
Too many are seeing the Bible through the dark lens of
groping blind men. The classroom has become a handholding
seance with the heretics of generations past, all o f whom are
somewhat unknown entities to most teachers and certainly to all
students. Has the college think-tank become the skeptic tank?
The Bible says, “not in the words which m an’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing
spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13). A humble man of
God and a Bible are all that is needed to “commit thou to
faithful men” (2 Tim. 2:2).
No textbooks define “scripture” which “is given by

inspiration” by citing the Bible’s usage o f the word “scripture.”
Ryrie’s textbook on Basic Theology is typical o f the double-talk
and unscriptural character of textbooks. He says,
“ ...inspiration can only be predicated ol the

original w ritings...God breathed it; men wrote
it; we possess it” (Ryrie, p. 82).
If only the originals were, in his words, “God breathed, we

don’t have “it.” In one sentence he says only the originals
“were breathed out” [past tense] but scriptures “are” [present
tense] without error. (His NIV has removed 64,000 words from
the KJV text. Which is “without error”?) He adds,
“ ...its words were [past tense] breathed out from

God and are therefore [present tense] without
errors...” (Ryrie, p. 108).
Either the current copies are “breathed out” or Ryrie has the
originals in his office and needs to let us see them. He continues
his double-talk in his definition o f inspiration saying,
“Inspiration concerns the method God employed

[past tense] to actually record the content in the
Scriptures” (Ryrie, p. 75).
The past tense occurs nowhere in the Bible verse which uses the
word “inspiration” It says it “is given by inspiration.”
It gets funnier. He adds,
“He allowed the human writers to compose His

message using their freedom o f expression. But
He breathed out the total product” (Ryrie, P. 8i).
To Ryrie, they wrote it for him and he breathed it out. It would

be humorous, if this NIV and NASB based textbook on
‘Theology’ were not being used in otherwise conservative
Christian colleges today. (See his copyright page). NIV and
NASB ‘theology’ is completely different from KJB theology.
Ryrie, knowing less than an elementary school child in a good
Christian school, says,
“It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly

teach the doctrine o f the Trinity, if by clearly one
means there are proof texts for the doctrine. In
fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof
text we mean a verse or passage that “clearly”
states that there is one God who exists in three
persons” (Ryrie, p. 89).
His corrupt version omits the entire Trinitarian proof text verse,
1 John 5:7, which has his required, “For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and
these three are one.”
It is difficult for a seminary graduate to unlearn what

articulate men taught him when he was an impressionable
young student. Unless he has permanently tightened the lid on
his jar, he should humble himself, cast off “the traditions of
men,” and simply “compare spiritual things with spiritual.
After Christ’s death, the closed-jar ‘clergy’ were hiding in

the upper room. Mary Magdalene, out o f whom Christ had cast
seven devils, gratefully left the lid off. In Mark we read, “Now
when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast
seven devils.” She does not seem to have been the most credible
person to whom THE most important news in history should be
given and first spread. Yet she was told to “tell his disciples that
he is risen from the dead.. .bring his disciples w ord.. .go tell my
brethren” “And she went and told them ...that he was alive...”
And they “believed not” (16:11).
Likewise, today some of the very closest men to Jesus, the

‘clergy,’ doubt the resurrection o f the written word. To them it
died only to be entombed on the material on which it was
originally written, to rise no more. If the “Word” died and was
buried and rose again, would not the “word” also be buried and
rise again by “the Spirit o f him that raised up Jesus from the
dead” (Rom. 8:11)?
“After that he appeared in another form” (Mark 16.12). If

the living Word could appear in another form, could not his
written word do likewise - in Chinese characters, Roman fonts,
or Arabic script? “The Word was made flesh” for many

languishing; could not the ‘w ord’ be made fluent for many
languages?
God promised in Ps. 12:6, 7 to “preserve” his inspired word.

In his wisdom he destroyed the originals. If they no longer
exist, they are not preserved and are therefore not what he calls
his inspired word which “liveth and abideth forever.” Did
God’s spirit evaporate with the originals; is it inspired or did it
expire? G od’s word is the only food that never needs a ‘Sell by’
date.
Part 7
Christians Must Have Inspired Scriptures
1.) The new birth is given by the incorruptible seed o f the word
of God. A man-made storybook does not have eternal life,
such as the scripture imparts. The “scripture” which “is
given by inspiration” is described as “profitable” and that
which is “able to make thee wise unto salvation.” If only
those who had the originals or could read Greek could be
made wise unto salvation, few could ever be saved.
Inspired scripture must be something that all men must

have, not just those who had the originals or can read Greek.
The Bible is above all a practical book. “For ye see your calling,
brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the
foolish things o f the world to confound the w ise...” (1 Cor.
1:26). (Greek verb endings present a challenge even to the
wise.)
“ ...and so the poor o f the flock that waited upon
me knew that it was the word of the LORD”
(Zech. 11:11).
2.) The pastoral epistles and the book of Acts do not include a
charge that men become linguists to be qualified as pastors.
God’s instructions are given in the Bible and are meant to
describe God’s qualifications to all generations. There is no
mention o f being conversant in four languages, (Greek,
Hebrew, Aramaic, and one’s native tongue). This would
place Christians in subjection to linguists and contravene the
priesthood of the believer. If only Greek and Hebrew
communicated God’s true intended meaning, linguistics
would be given as a qualification for ministry. Or if
language study was even deemed useful, it would have been
mentioned by Paul as helpful. In the New Testament’s
instructions to pastors, no admonition to study Hebrew is
given. Paul never told Timothy to study it. Timothy may not
have been able to read Hebrew. If he needed to learn it to
teach, Paul would have said this. When he spoke of the
inspiration of the scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:16 he did not
mention ‘original languages.’ When Jesus read from the
temple scroll he never said, ‘That word in Hebrew m eans...
Herbert Lockyer said, “The humblest believer, in simple

dependence upon the Holy Spirit, can receive the insight
into Holy Scripture that baffles and escapes the scholar who,
with all his intellectual endowments, and knowledge of the
original languages of the Bible, fails to possess...” He adds,
“ ...W . Robertson Nicol expresses the matter thus, .--it
seems to us that in these latter days Christians have taken to
believing that it is by the use of the grammar and
commentary that they can understand the New Testam ^
Nothing is understood in the New Testament without the
spirit o f God (Herbert Lockyer, A ll the Doctrines o f the Bible, Grand Rapids, M I,
Zondervan, 1964, p. 5).
3.) The Bible says that our battle requires the “sword of the
Spirit” (i.e. inspiration).
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war

after the flesh: (For the weapons o f our warfare
are not carnal, but mighty through G o d ...” (2
Cor. 10:3,4).
Our weapon is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of

God” (Eph. 6:17). Our Bible cannot be a product o f translators’
carnal minds; “we have the mind of Christ” in the Bible (1 Cor.
2:16). Today’s believers certainly need a God-wrought weapon,
just as much as those who received the originals or who
understood Koine Greek.
“But God hath revealed them unto us by his

Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things o f G od...even so the things of God
knoweth no man, but the Spirit o f G od...which
things also we speak, not in the words which
man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy
Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual” 1 Cor. 2:10-13
In Closing
The KJB must be the word o f God which “liveth and

abideth forever,” because the English words o f men in critical
Greek and Hebrew editions and lexicons are certainly not
inspired and hardly contain God’s intended meaning. I have
written a 1,200 page book, In Awe o f Thy Word: Understanding
the King James Bible, Its Mystery and History, Letter By Letter.
It documents that the King James Bible is and has historically
been considered “scripture” and therefore is included in the
scripture “given by inspiration of God.” That which is merely

touched upon in this chapter is expounded thoroughly m that
book. It also gives answers to the myriad of questions which
attempt to nudge believers off target and away from the bull s
eye. Inspiration is discussed particularly in Chapters 9, 22, 24
and o n p p . 537-563, 751 -771, 843-851, and 865-870. (The book is
available from A.V. Publications, P.O. Box 280 Ararat, VA, USA, 1-800-
435-4535, and http://www.avpublications.com.)
The King James Bible is the only book in world history to

exceed one billion copies in print. Oh, how our generation pales
next to the powerful voices o f the past in glorifying the word of
the Lord.
■ In the 1940s H.W. Robinson’s, The Bible in Its Ancient and

English Versions, reminds us, “The Authorized Version is a
miracle and a landmark” (Oxford: clarendon, 1940, p. 204).
■ G. Hammond, in The Making o f the English Bible, records

one historian as saying, “its text acquired a sanctity properly
ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to
multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed
little less than blasphemy to tamper with its words”
(Philadelphia, PA: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1983, p. 263).
■ In 1911, W. M uir’s book, Our Grand Old Bible, states,
“The Authorized V ersion...has the Divine

touch...Like a rare jewel fitly set, the sacred
truths o f Scripture have found such suitable
expression in it, that we can hardly doubt that
they filled those who made it with reverence and
awe, so that they walked softly in the Holy
P r e s e n c e ” (second edition; London: M organ and Scott, Ltd).
Consider the Sparrows
“Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,

and not one o f them is forgotten before God? But
the very hairs o f your head are all numbered.
Fear not therefore: ye are o f more value than
many sparrows.” Luke 12:6, 7
The following analysis is for your consideration. God tells

us that the very hairs o f our heads are all numbered. A sparrow
does not fall to the ground without his attention. Hairs and
sparrows both fall from their place unnoticed by us, but marked
by God. How much more would he attend to the most important
tangible thing on earth— the Holy Bible, the repository o f his
very words. He has presented it in various letterforms, such as
Hebrew, Roman, Greek, Chinese, Arabic, and other alphabets.
Even words within our Roman alphabet have been represented
by various spellings. ‘Christ’ can be spelled ‘Christus’ in
German and ‘Christo’ in Italian. The English Bible before
Wycliffe spelled ‘begotten’ as ‘bigetn’ pronounced ‘begetten.’
The living quality o f the word adapts to its living receptors.
Even in the midst o f this and other varieties, G od’s hair-
counting care evidences itself.
No doubt myriads of miraculous phenomenon can be

observed by someone who will pause and pray. Jesus said that
“if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory o f God”
(John 11:40). For example, Missionary Robert Breaker says the
word “sin” occurs 447 times and the word “blood” occurs 447
times in the King James Bible. God’s math is perfect because
“without shedding o f blood is no remission” o f sin (Heb. 9:22).
The following miraculous phenomenon was discovered

some years ago by Periander A. Esplana, a Christian from
Camarines Norte, Philippines. It may be, perhaps, God’s way

of confounding “the wise and prudent,” who suggest that the
Trinity of 1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible. From the
following we can draw no other conclusions than that the Holy
Bible, even in one of its many forms, reveals the glory o f God.
There are no books in the world, let alone other English Bible
versions, or do-it-yourself translations from Greek and Hebrew
lexicons (done by bible schools students), that will exhibit this:
Example I
This example is just for the FIRST VERSE and the LAST
VERSE o f the King James Bible. (Who knows what lies in
between!)
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1.1
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.’ Rev. 22:21
Count the number of letters in the first verse of the KJB--------- 44--------
Count the numbers of letters in the last verse of the KJB--------- 44--------
Count the number of vowels in the first verse of the KJB--------- 17---------
Count the number of vowels in the last verse of the KJB--------- 17---------
Count the number of consonants in the first verse of the KJB----27------ -

Count the number of consonants in the last verse of the KJB ----27------ _
Jesus Christ is the Word. He also said, “I am Alpha and Omega

(letters), the first and the last: and What thou seest, write in a
bo o k ...” (Rev. 1:11).
Example II
One o f the most important verses in the Holy Bible is 1 John

5:7. It distinguishes the Christian religion from all false
religions (The chapter ends saying, “This is the true G o d ...”).

This verse identifies the Trinity and states that Jesus is God.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
Because this verse is so important, it has been removed in new

versions and was removed by the Greek Orthodox church from
almost all Greek manuscripts. It is in all pure vernacular Bibles.
Jesus is not only “the first and the last,” he is “in the midst” of
the New Testament in 1 John 5:7 (Matt. 14:24, 25; 18:2; Luke
5:19, 6:8, 9; 24:36 “Jesus himself stood in the midst.” John 8:9,
8:59; 18:19 “Jesus in the midst,” 20:19; 20:26.
Count the number of letters in the first verse of the KJB 44

Count the numbers of letters in the last verse of the KJB +44
Count the number of letters in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 88
When the letters in the first and last verse are totaled, they equal
the same number of letters in 1 John 5:7.
Count the number of vow els in the first verse of the KJB 17
Count the number of vow els in the last verse of the KJB +17
Count the number of vow els in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 34
When the number o f vowels in the first and last verse are
totaled, they equal the number o f vowels in 1 John 5:7.
Count the number of consonants in the first verse of the KJB 27

Count the number of consonants in the last verse of the KJB +27
Count the number of consonants in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 54
The number o f consonants in the first and last verse equals the
same number o f consonants in 1 John 5:7.
Example III
As if the fact that the first and last verses o f the Bible match
identically were not enough, (and they also match 1 John 5.7), it
gets more interesting.
First verse letters = 44

Last verse letters = 44 Total 88
First verse vowels =17

Last verse vowels = 17 Total 34
First verse consonants = 27

Last verse consonants = 27 Total 54
First verse words = 10

Last verse words =12
W ords in 1 John 5:7 = 22 Total 22
Therefore, the total letters, consonants, vowels, and words in 1

John 5:7 equal the total o f those in “the first and the last” verses
in the Holy Bible.
And some need a man-made lexicon to check what?...when

Jesus Christ, “the first and the last” is also “in the midst ?
The two verses most often used in a discussion o f the

Bible’s inspiration are parallel.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of G od... (2 Tim. 3:16)

“ ...holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).
The words parallel:

“moved by the Holy Ghost”
“given by inspiration o f God.”
Summary: Seven Proofs of the KJB’s Inspiration
1.) The Bible teaches the inspiration of vernacular Bibles, as

demonstrated in Acts 2 and described in 1 Cor. 14:21, when
God said, “I speak” “other tongues.”
2.) The Bible teaches it is “purified seven times” in the “earth”
by God himself (“Thou shalt”; Psalm 12:6, 7).
3.) Even the Greek word underlying “is given by inspiration of
God” (theopneustos) is translated 322 times as “spirit” (i.e.
inspiration) and never as the tangible word ‘breath,’ a word
which would require a tangible miracle, rather than the
normal leading of the Spirit of God.
4.) The Bible’s normal usage of each word in 2 Tim. 3:16 must
determine its meaning. For example, the verb “is given” is
usually used in the scriptures to refer to an ongoing event
(e.g. Job 37:10 and 1 Cor. 11:15). The word “scripture” is
always used in the Bible to mean accessible and readable
editions, not originals (e.g. Rom. 16:26, Acts 8:35).
5.) The recent neologisms (new definitions) for the words
“Bible” and “word(s) of God” are the product of liberals,
such as Barth and Warfield. These words can have no
meaning other than their normal dictionary, semantic, and
grammatical sense. The Bible (the book used by Christians)
is the words of God (his words, not words “chosen by men”
(W illiam s, p. 54)). The Holy Bible, in whatever language, has
always been regarded as a unique book, in that it is the
words of God, and not those of men.
6.) The men God entrusted with the scriptures, such as
Coverdale and Wycliffe, called it “blaspheme” of the “Holy
Ghost” to deny the inspiration of vernacular Bibles.
7.) God has covered the earth with his “word” in vernacular
Bibles (Col. 1:5, 6; Rom. 10:17, 18); yet he has kept, as
generally inaccessible throughout a large part of history,
any entirely infallible Greek or Hebrew originals, which,
even when found, would be unreadable by most of the
people in the world. Their translation into vernacular
languages has been almost universally established long ago
and is not open to the “private interpretation” of
unregenerate translators and authors of lexicons and
grammars.
Epilogue
£0*>G 3
Summary: Questions And Answers
Critics Cornered with Questions
Where Is All of This Leading?
Acknowledgements
EPILOGUE, SUMMARY & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1187
SUMMARY: Questions and Answers
here are only a few questions a reader might have after
T skimming this book:
1.) Are there any totally reliable Greek and Hebrew

lexicons or dictionaries?
The answer is “No.”
2.) What about the lexicons the KJB translators used?

They had the entire original writings of early Greek authors,
not snippets o f quotes cited in lexicons. The few lexicons
the KJB translators did use were generally in Latin, not
English. They are no longer generally available, since they
fulfilled their purpose. (See In Awe o f Thy Word for details.)
3.) Are any Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old

Testament editions available that can be used as a final
authority?
Those who bind themselves to any one printed, digital, or
antiquarian edition are working in chains o f their own
forging. Why struggle? All lexicons and grammars which
might interpret these editions are corrupt; the Holy Bible
(KJB) has God’s chosen words for the English speaker.
4.) How then does one find the meaning of a Bible word?
0 “Seek ye out o f the book o f the LORD, and read:” (Isa.

34:16). The Bible defines its own words, as
demonstrated in the first chapters o f both The Language
o f the King James Bible and In A we o f Thy Word. God
“used similitudes,” “line upon line” (Hosea 12:10; Isa.
28:10, 13).
0 Appendix C of New Age Bible Versions and chapter 26

of In Awe o f Thy Word explain the Bible’s methods and
criteria for understanding its words. The Bible gives
many criteria for understanding God’s word, none of
which include linguistics. For example:
• “the meek will he teach his way” (Ps. 25:9).

• “[H]is secret is with the righteous (Prov. 3:32).
• “Receive with meekness the engrafted word” (James
1 :2 1 ).
Editors o f corrupt versions even must admit, “Not only do

most readers of the King James Version suppose it to be the
original English Bible; they are actually unconscious that there
is any more ultimate form of the Bible to translate or consult.
Would God lead all Christians into such widespread delusion, if
they truly had a need to access lost originals? (e . j. Goodspeed, Thesis on
The Translators to the Reader, Preface to the K ing Jam es Version 1611, Chicago, IL: The
University o f Chicago Press, 1935).
Things at a distance appear smaller than they really are.

When someone is distant from Christ and his word, both appear
to be less than they really are. When someone moves away from
them, and towards man-made books and software, the word
shrinks from its grandeur. But if one draws nigh unto Christ and
his word, their glories will unfold. The half has not been told.
5.) Isn’t enthusiasm for Greek and Hebrew an historic

position?
“Luther was not so enthusiastic, “how I hate people,’ he
complained, “who lug in so many languages as Zwingli does;
he spoke Greek and Hebrew in the pulpit at Marburg.”” The
Reformers and the KJB translators were working with
already existing vernacular Bibles and merely accessed
Greek and Hebrew texts to corroborate readings which had

flooded England and the continent for a millennium in
many living languages (Newman, Louis I. Jew ish Influence on Christian Reform
M ovem ents, N .Y., 1925, p. 473 as cited in Will Durant, The Reform ation, NY: M JF Books,
1957, p. 726).
However, diversions away from the word o f God are historic.
Private Interpretation Who The Charge The Results

1.) The serpent Adam, G od’s son God’s words not enough Fall o f mankind
“Yea, hath God sa id ...? ” and Eve
Interpretation (shall not die
by proud L ucifer (Isa. 14).
2.) K abbala (Interpretation by G od’s children, God’s words not enough Reject Christ;
proud carnal rabbis Hebrews Allegorical
interpretation
3.) Origen & ‘Church Fathers’; Gentiles G od’s w ord not enough Catholic Church
A llegorical interpretation
4.) Latin only (Jerom e’s, Gentiles G od’s w ord not enough M ysticism
Vulgate) interpreted by
unsaved priest
5.) Greek only (interpreted G od’s children, G od’s word not enough Apostasy;
using books which follow Christians Pride; Spewed
pagan & secular ideas) Lukewarm
6.) W eren’t a few of these editors ‘good men’?
Some may have been good in other areas, but certainly not
in the area o f reverence for the Holy Bible. Peter was a ‘good’
man and he was used as a mouthpiece for Satan (Matt. 16:23).
A few men may have been good, but they were deceived men,
like Joshua. He was “beguiled” by “bread” he was told was
“old” and had “come from a far country,” instead o f seeking
“counsel at the mouth o f the Lord” for the bread of life (Joshua
9). Likewise, ancient and “dry” manuscripts from “a far
country” have deceived some good men. The majority o f these

scribes “feigned themselves just men that they may take hold
of his words.” Wolves wear “sheep’s clothing” not devil’s
Halloween masks. The Bible says men have “crept in
unawares.” Paul said, “Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things...” (Acts 20:30).
Most of the men discussed in this book made their living

from congregations containing real Christians. They were
archbishops, pastors, and ‘Christian’ college professors; they
were supported by the donations o f the simple Christian in the
pew. As such, these wolves had woven their sheep’s clothing of
the finest wool. The lines o f their writings weave a proper
Sunday-best wool suit o f clothes. Sometimes, however, when
they open their mouths to speak, the wolves’ fangs flash and the
finery fades.
Those critics who are warmed by a like-woven wool suit

will want to parade the ‘church’ finery o f these men, found
frequently in their writings. Harvard’s Kirsopp Lake observed
that “ ...the skill o f the writer is so great that the reader often
fails to perceive that the words o f the historic theology
somehow mean exactly what they were intended to deny” (Kirsopp
Lake, The Religion o f Yesterday and Tomorrow, Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1925 pp. 49-55 as
Such liberals U Se
cited in Jam es Sightler A Testimony Founded F orever, p. 29).
Christian terms, but re-define them to include the broad way.

O f one such liberal someone said, he “would not have declined
to worship in the same place with the most obtuse and illiterate
o f ploughboys, but the ideas which that great philosopher
connected with such words as God the Father, God the Son, and
God the Holy Ghost were surely as different from those o f the
ploughboy by his side as two ideas can well be that are
expressed by the same words (F. Max Muller, 77ie Complete Works o f M ax
M uller, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1898, p. 374).
Their rhetoric pales to sheepskin white when compared to

what these blood-covered wolves did — ravaging to shreds the
words of the Lamb.
What about the critics, the complacent, and the imprecise?
Unfortunately some o f those who have been exposed to the

viruses picked-up on the internet or at liberal Bible colleges will
be too proud to thoroughly read a book that will prove them
wrong or will glorify God instead o f MAN. They will waste
away as they succumb to deadly pride and a distant relationship
with the Saviour. But maybe ‘distant’ is just the way they want
the relationship to be. The Holy Bible is holy and meant to
make men holy. Jesus said, “Now ye are clean through the
w ord...” (John 15:3). Reading lexicons, like Vine’s and
Strong’s, do not chafe, like immersing oneself in the Holy Bible
which cleans with its “sharp” edges and “is a discemer o f the
thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Ignorance is only
short-term bliss, however.
The critics and the correctors of the words in the KJB have
involved themselves in a maze, and can be left where they find
themselves. They hide in the shadows o f the language labyrinth
where the spirit o f God is not welcome. They fill their maze
with imaginary game and then invite you to hunt for it. Why
cross swords and fill thousands o f pages with discussions when
convincing data is available, but goes unread? They close their
eyes to the strength o f the adverse case and stumble as they go.
This book will provoke grave silence, as none can answer it,
except with trite and tiny vagaries. It may provoke the
backbiting bark o f watchdogs who cared not to read it
thoroughly and be unsettled in their baseless opinions. The devil
does not want those in a position o f influence (pastor, professor,
writer, and publisher) to read this book. The “king over all the
children o f pride” would like the prince of Grecia to crown their
minds with thoughts such as,
S ‘Some o f this is too dry to read and my flesh is too lazy to

‘w ork’ through it. It would be easier simply to call Dr. ‘so
and so’ and see what he thinks.’ [If he has made his living
using Greek lexicons, do not count on him to thoroughly
read the material or to have a humble reaction to it if he
does. He has too much to lose.]
✓ ‘I am a solid fundamental Christian, therefore I could not be

wrong about anything', God wouldn’t give this author this
information before giving it to me. [Maybe it was given to
this disabled author, with a heart for ‘helps,’ because you
were rightfully busy doing important things which this
author cannot do.]
/ ‘I must quickly skim for some small error to prove this

wrong. I couldn’t have been wrong all these years. I must
find something somewhere in the book to show that I know
something that this author does not seem to know.’ [This
may be a test o f your humility. “Humble yourselves
therefore under the mighty hand o f G od... (1 Peter 5.6).]
y ‘What will so-and-so think? Will this put me “without the

camp” or denomination I currently follow?’ [Maybe God
has plans for you to help them].
S T don’t believe that Greek and Hebrew study is wrong

(although I have not read this book, documenting its
problems, nor can I refute it).’ [“He that answereth a matter
before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Prov.
18:13)].
Critics Cornered with Questions
Those who will not pray before they read and will not chew
the meat may choke on it to their own hurt and crumble in
defeat. May I humbly ask the following questions o f the critic,
the complacent, and the imprecise?
1.) Define the specific text indicated when you say “in the
Greek” or “in the Hebrew,” with full bibliographic
information.
2.) Give the Christian testimony o f the man whose English

mind and English mouth created the so-called English
equivalents in your Greek lexicon. (This testimony must be
from the originator of the word, not the copy-cat who
plagiarized it.)
3.) Give one Bible verse that states that these man-made
lexicons and critical editions are an authority above the
Holy Bible. One will be sufficient.
4.) Give one Bible verse that says that the New Testament was
originally written to the Greeks only.
5.) Give one sentence from a professional linguist or

professional translator that proves scientifically that a Greek
word must be translated differently from that o f the KJB.
There are hundreds o f different translations o f the Bible
because translation is not a science.
6.) Give one spiritually edifying insight found in the ancient

Koine Greek New Testament (not the English in a lexicon)
that cannot be found in the English Bible or another widely
available vernacular Bible.
7.) Give one Bible verse that says to “understand,” “study,”

“search,” “preach,” or “teach” the Bible involves using
another language. It is a shame that David did not speak
Hebrew. In the Psalms he said five times, “Give me
understanding.” David not only spoke Hebrew, he wrote a
part o f the Hebrew text. Yet he said such things in Psalm
119:34, 73, 125, 144, 169 as,
“Give me understanding” . ..
“give me understanding” ...
“give me understanding” ...
“give me understanding” . ..
“give me understanding” . ..
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your

tradition?...Thus have ye made the commandment o f God of
none effect by your tradition.” (Matt. 15:3, 6).
Time For Fun!
If you have patiently read the whole o f this book and have
reached this Epilogue, you deserve a relaxing project. (The following
handym an’s ‘Idea’ is also included to aid the critics. It will make it unnecessary for them to read
this book to look for am m unition. It will provide them with ‘som ething’ silly to quote so that
they can pretend I am as puddle-deep as they are. They will be at a loss as to how to deal with
the rest o f the book. The dots below are provided free o f charge; they can be cut and pasted into
any o f the quotes in this book to make the quotes read differently. Also, when this ‘Idea’ is
quoted, it will make the critics look as dishonest as they actually are.)
Let’s build a table on which to place the Holy Bible, so that it

might be where it belongs —on topi
What to do with unwanted Lexicons:
Take a 30 inch high stack of useless...lexicons and liberal

commentaries...and apply a layer...of Elmer’s glue
between each book... to stabilize the tower of Babel books.
Be sure to coat each cover ...with glue completely before
laying...them on top of each other. When the glue...is
thoroughly dry, paint the entire tower, on all...five visible
sides with clear decoupage. If the books are too small, this
tower...can be used as a base and a 1/2 inch thick... round
glass top can be set on top. Look up ‘Glass’...in the yellow
pages for dealers. If your books are of various sizes, be...
sure to stack the larger ones on the bottom or it will fall
down, just like the tower of Babel. C ra s^!
The Bible has a better blueprint for these books, lest

someday the grandchildren read them. The very books o f the
pagan Greeks, which are referenced by lexicons, were burned
and then the word o f God grew. They “brought their books
together, and burned them before all m en...So mightily grew
the word o f God and prevailed” (Acts 19:19, 20).
Where Is All This Leading?
What is the result o f the use o f Greek and Hebrew study

tools? They —
* Elevate the English words in lexicons by unsaved

liberals above the English words in our Holy Bible.
* Demote the words o f the Holy Bible resulting in a loss
o f confidence in it.
x Establish an elevated priest-class o f a few Greek and
Hebrew scholars and incite a rebellious anarchism in the
pews, where everym an’s own interpretation, taken from
stacks o f software, supersedes that in the Holy Bible.
* Give false doctrines and the heresies o f history past a

voice (e.g. hell dissolved, women deacons, the end of
the ‘world’ updated to the end of the ‘age,’ Jesus
reduced to a servant, not a Son et al.).
x Bring Christians in contact with pagan and secular
interpretations, thoughts, views, heresies, and
translations.
x Provide a dangerous shortcut which leads Christians to
believe that understanding the Bible is a linguistic feat,
not a time when they meet with God as they “labour in
the word” (1 Tim. 5:17). “Let the word o f Christ dwell
in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing
one another...” (Col. 3:16). This has been replaced by
solitary surfing in dangerous tides o f software, books,
and on the web.
x Lead to time spent away from the Holy Bible.
Isn’t it strange that only the current weak and carnal

Laodicean-type church has had wide access to Greek and
Hebrew study tools (Rev. 3:14)? Could it be they are weak for
this very reason? The martyrs throughout history loved the word
o f God and actually died rather than re-defme it (See In A w e o f Thy
Word, Chapters 25 and 26, “W arning From Translators & Martyrs: Lexicons = Burning Bibles,”
“Understanding the Bible: M ethods o f Translators and M artyrs,” et al.).
All roads lead to Rome, it is said. The broad way away from
the Bible, quickly leads to this originator of lexicons, Greek and
Hebrew focus, and Romish extra-biblical interpretation. The
first widely popularized lexicon was published in the early
1500s in a Catholic produced Bible, the Complutensian
Polyglot. Little has changed since then. The Catholics saw the
advantage o f placing before the reader conflicting authorities
which call for a man to arbitrate, whether pope, priest, or
professor (Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism o f the New Testament, Eugene,
Oregon: W ip f and Stock Publishers, 4th ed., 1997 reprint o f 1894 George Bell and Sons, vol. 2,
p. 178).
The Index o f forbidden books, published by the Catholic

church, lists “books and authors either wholly prohibited, or
censured and corrected, by the Romish Church.” The Index
Librorum Prohibitorum lists books which are totally prohibited.
Its widely distributed A.D. 1564 edition forbids vernacular
Bibles, which it charges cannot possibly be on par with “the
sacred text.” It says,
“But translations o f the New Testament, made

by authors o f the first class o f this index, are
allowed to no one, since little advantage, but
much danger, generally arises from reading
them ... Inasmuch as it is manifest from
experience that if the Holy Bible, translated
into the vulgar, be indiscriminately allowed to
everyone, the temerity o f men will cause more
evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point,
referred to the judgment o f the bishops or
inquisitors...” (M cClintock and Strong, vol. 4, p. 550).
On the other hand, the same document says “lexicons” are

“allowed.” It adds, “ ...the works o f antiquity, written by the
heathens, are permitted to be read, because o f the elegance and
propriety o f the language.” The direction taken by The Index, in
lowering the view o f the vernacular Bible and elevating
lexicons, is identical to a movement manifest today. Too many
would-be Popes charge that vernacular Holy Bibles are not
inspired, and therefore must be interpreted through lexicons,
built from “heathen” “propriety” (M cClintock and strong, vol. 4 , 550). Men
must stand on a stack of books to appear bigger than our “one
mediator,” the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Comforter, who will
lead us into all truth.
A Catholic pope is a man who places himself above the

words in the Holy Bible. There is no fence on which to sit. A
‘Christian’ pope is a man who places himself above the words
in the Holy Bible. When someone says that the ‘Greek word
means’ something other than the word placed in the Holy Bible,
he actually is correcting the Bible.
The lynch pin that will determine if fundamental and

evangelical Christianity is to survive rests in the Christian’s
attitude toward the Holy Bible. Many renegade groups, such as
Roman Catholics, ‘profess’ the same doctrines as saved
Christians. Both profess the virgin birth, the Trinity, the deity of
Christ, and salvation through Christ. Both promote ‘family
values,’ Judeo-Christian morals, and modest clothing (e.g.
nuns). The major difference lies in what each group believes to
be the final authority to interpret the Bible. Does the Bible
interpret itself or is a man with a man-made book its interpreter?
Catholics have the Pope and the writings o f the dead church
‘fathers’; the Greek Orthodox church has its Patriarch and the
tales o f their dead ‘saints’; the Mormons have dead Joseph
Smith and his Book o f Mormon; the Presbyterians interpret the
Bible through the dead eyes o f John Calvin and his Institutes.
And now far too many evangelical and fundamental Christians
are joining those who look to some ‘medium’ outside of the
Holy Bible. They are having a hand-holding seance with James
Strong and the twelve non-canonical apostles: Liddell, Trench,
Vincent, Wuest, Thayer, Moulton, Gesenius, Brown, Driver,
Briggs, Bauer and Danker. They offer nothing but a widow’s
peek at their reeking Greek and a boiling cauldron o f their ‘me
brew’ Hebrew. Both the apostates and the new apostles are a
part o f the falling away, wherein a man, not the Holy Bible, is
the final authority. Now both the apostate and the believer use
Bibles, software, or Greek study tools that deny the Trinity (1
John 5:7), deny the blood atonement (Col. 1:14), and the deity
o f Christ (“God was manifest in the flesh” 1 Tim. 3:16). These
are all doctrines that they profess to believe. But each o f the
above thinks that a man and his words, whether pope, patriarch,
prophet, or professor o f Greek is the final authority above the
words o f God. Are fundamentalists and evangelicals being
edged farther from the straight and narrow than they realize?
Continuing, abiding, and searching the scriptures daily or
having a seance with dead m en’s lexicons and texts— what was
the command? Jesus said,
“If ye continue in my w ord...
and my words abide in y o u ...”

(John 8:31, 15:7).
Bordering on Blasphemy
It jars a Christian to hear the name o f the Lord taken in vain.

The antichrist “opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to
blaspheme his nam e...” (Rev. 13:6). Yet the Bible says “for
thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Ps. 138:2).
How then must it jar and offend God when someone corrects his
words in the Holy Bible?
That the Holy Bible is a living book is attested to by the fact

that it has endured the apathy o f the masses and the active
antagonism o f Satan’s penmen, exposed in this book. Jeremiah
said,
h LEAR ye the word of the LO R D ...”
‘. . .whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs..
.. .my words shall surely stand...’

Jer. 44:26, 28, 29
And —
“What a word is this!”

Luke 4:36
SO ❖ 0 8
A cknow ledgem ents
his book would not have been possible without the help
T o f Dennis Palmu o f the North American Conference on

British Studies. His original contributions to that group
and to this project set him apart as one o f the world’s leading
experts in the field o f 19th century British theology. He not only
wrote the entire chapter, “Moral Hazard,” but scoured the
world’s libraries and antiquarian booksellers, with his patient
wife Ingrid, to secure the books and articles which served as the
foundation for the research for many other chapters. He alone is
responsible for researching and securing all o f the rare
photographs in this book. Many o f them have never before been
published. Should this book serve as a help and a warning,
grateful thanks belongs to him.
Dr. James Sightler’s book, A Testimony Founded

Forever, was a constant companion, complemented by his
generous availability to answer in-depth queries, not to mention
his racing off to Clemson University for me to get a needed
book. My chapter on C.J. Vaughan o f the RV committee owes
a great deal to his research and proficiencies as a board certified
medical doctor. Other friends and colleagues provided much
help in research. Dr. C. Winsor Wheeler, Classics Professor at
the Louisiana State University, graciously gave his time and
extraordinary translation skills to examine several old
documents. Linguist Dr. Nico Verhoef o f Switzerland, kindly
and laboriously collated many rare antique foreign editions o f
the Bible as a part o f the research for this book, particularly the
chapter on Scrivener. Nadine Stratford o f France kindly
provided her skills when French research was needed. I am
indebted to Bible translator and textual expert William Park for
taking time from his busy schedule to answer inquiries. Dr.
John Hinton, Ph.D. recipient from Harvard University, provided

the impetus for the research on Bauer, and kindly made him self
available for research questions. To the Greek professors, such
as Ron Forte and Dean Hays, who offered corroborating advice
and proofreading help along the way, I owe special
appreciation. Scott Line lent his extraordinary library, hand-
picked from the archives of England, which proved very
helpful. Keith and Cheryl Whitlock contributed valuable
research on the Greek Orthodox church. Author Dusty Peterson
o f England contributed necessary volumes and research for the
chapter on W.E. Vine. My proofreaders, Bryn Riplinger, Bob
and Sandy Kasten, David Parton, and Polly Powell, former
professor o f English at Clemson University, saved this author
much eye straining and the reader many faux pas. Dr. Norris
Belcher was the first to read each chapter and served as an
encouragement all along the way. I am grateful to R.B.
Ouellette for his permission to use his stirring poem, seen in the
introduction.
Frederick Danker graciously gave permission to include

extended quotes from his books, even though he would likely
not be an advocate of the thesis of this book. It is hoped that the
broad quotations from his writings will allow the reader to fairly
appraise his views and make their own decisions about them.
He is an example of a man who stands by what he has said and
is not afraid to let his views spar in the arena o f Christian
debate. Such grace is lacking in the new generation o f bloggers,
who lash and bash and chop quotes into hash. Upon a visit by
Danker and his wife to his sometime adversary, The Christian
News, its editor observed with awe the attentive manner in
which Danker cared for his disabled wife. He said it propelled
him to write an article extolling the graces o f his old adversary.
Without the help and support o f my family, this book

would not have been possible. My daughter Bryn’s editing
talent, Bible knowledge, suggestions, and constant helpfulness
made this hard job a joy.
Most importantly, all praise and glory go to my Lord

and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who washed me in his
precious blood and saved my unworthy soul. “The LORD of
hosts mustereth the host o f the battle.” He daily rallied and
enabled this feeble vessel to accomplish this study and brought
just the very resources necessary (2 Kings 25:19; Isa. 13:4).
“ [F]or without me ye can do nothing” Jesus Christ said (John
15:5). May the author and finisher o f our faith, the true “scribe
o f the host, which mustered the people o f the land,” through his
words, encourage the reader to—
“ ...praise his word”

Ps. 56:4
ATALOGUE•
TO ORDER
BY PHONE: 1'800-435-4535 (credit card only)
BY FAX: 1-276-251-1734 (other callers 1-276-251-1734)
BY MAIL: Send check or Money Order or VISA,
MasterCard, American Express, or Discover Card Number
and Expiration Date to: A.V. Publications
P.O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053 USA
SHIPPING: $1.01-$10.00 add $4.00 $30.01-$40.00 add $7.00
$10.01-$20.00 add $5.00 $40.01-$70.00 add $9.00
$20.01 -$30.00 add $6.00 $70.01-$100.00 add $11.00
$101.00 and over add 12%
VA RESIDENTS: Add 5% sales tax
FOREIGN ORDERS: Send check payable through a U.S. Bank in U.S. funds
or send a Postal Money Order. Double shipping on orders under $50.00. Add
30% on orders over $50.00.
V isit O u r W ebsite
www.avpublications.com
• View complete and updated catalogue of KJV Bibles and books, DVDs,
videos, and tracts supporting the KJV. Place secure credit card orders
• Download verse comparison tract; see research updates.
King lames Bibles____________

We have searched for King James Bibles that avoid the misleading marginal
notes and careless spelling seen in some. Call for specifics.
Cambridge Regular or Large Print $34.95 to $98.95

Leather, gilt edge, ribbon, black or burgundy
Reproduction of KJV 1611 New Testament V inyl cover $29.95

T he L anguage of the K ing J a m es B ible
by Gail Ripiinger
this book helps you discover the K JV ’s built-in dictionary.

It also proves that, unlike new versions, the vocabulary o f
the KJV is precise, internationally recognizable, and contains
powerful sound symbolism to communicate meaning. It
reveals the discovery o f the world’s oldest N ew Testament
fragment which proves the KJV is correct and the new
versions are wrong. Also exposed are the corrupt Dead Sea
scrolls and lexicons used to create the NIV, ESV, NKJV,
H CSB andN A SB .
THE BOOK $12.95

D em on strates the precision
an d p ow er o f the K JV
30% discount o ff 5 or more ($ 9 .0 7 )
40% discount o f f 14 or more ($7-77)
THE VIDEO (or dvd ) $ 19.95

Many charts shown and included in
Xerox format 2 Hrs
30% discount off 5 or more ($14-00)
PowerPoint CD-ROM $ 1 9 .9 5
THE AUDIOS (le c tu re s aSSCtte)

The Language of the KJV $5.95
More Language of the KJV $9.95
Language & Corrupt Lexicons:
Roots of the New Versions $5.95
Shows how to answer those who say,
‘But the G reek says.’ Answers the tough-
AUDIO CD SET $9.95
est critics. Set includes both:
• The Language of the KJV
• Language & Corrupt Lexicons
In Awe of Thy Word
U n d e rs ta n d in g th e K in g Ja m e s B ib le
Its M y s te ry & H isto ry
L e tte r b y L e tte r
by Gail Riplinger $29.95
1200 P a g e H a rd co v er, c o lo r-c o d e d
Discounts:
• B u y 3 at th e re g u la r p ric e , g e t o n e free.
• B u y 5 at th e re g u la r p ric e , g e t 3 free.
( B O O K is the first and only documented h isto ry o f the
V words o f th e H oly B ible.
• It is based on word-for-word and letter-by-letter analysis o f a vault
o f ancient, rare and valuable Bibles. Ten thousand hours o f collation
rescued echoes from these documents almost dissolved by time.
• See for yourself the unbroken preservation o f the pure holy scriptures,
from the first century to today’s beloved King James Bible. Watch the
English language and its Holy Bible unfold before your very eyes.
• Exam ine the letters and sounds, shown in red, which bind the words
o f each successive Bible from the Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, pre-Wycliffe,
Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, and Bishops’ to the King James
Bible.
• Uncover time-buried eyewitness reports, views and Bible study secrets
o f history’s great translators and martyrs.
• S ee word-for-word collations, aided by the KJV translators’ newly
discovered notes, revealing exactly how the KJV translators polished
the sword o f the Spirit.
• W atch in horror as the destroyer, through the NIV, TNIV, HCSB,
NKJV, NASB and ESY teams up with Jehovah Witness and Catholic
versions to silence the utterances o f the Holy Ghost. H istory’s Bibles
and their champions defeat their challengers, as they meet on this
book’s pages.
JSCOVER what translators and past generations knew-

exactly how to find the meaning of each Bible word,
inside the Bible itself.
• U nderstand also what translators, such as Erasmus and Coverdale,
meant when they spoke o f the vernacular Bible’s “holy letters” and
“syllables.”
• See how these God-set alphabet building blocks build a word’s mean
ing and automatically define words for faithful readers o f the King
James Bible— which alone brings forward the fountainhead o f letter
meanings discovered by computational linguists from the world’s lead
ing universities.
• L earn about the latest research tools from the University o f Toronto
(EMEDD) and Edinburgh University, which prove the purity o f the
KJV and the depravity o f the new versions.
• Find out how only the King James Bible teaches and comforts through
its “miraculous” mathematically ordered sounds.
• M e e t the K JV ’s build-in English teacher, ministering to children and
over a billion people around the globe.
• Journey around the world and see that only the KJV matches the pure
scriptures preserved “to all generations” including the Greek, Hebrew,
Old Italia, Italian, Danish, German, French, Spanish and others.
CD-ROMS
■/ n AWE of THY C ^ O R D
The book is also searchable on
3 CD-ROMS
$39.95
These include:
• The King James Bible searchable
by words, letter groups and phrases.
• In Awe of Thy Word by G. A. Riplinger (searchable!).
Plus exact photographic facsimiles o f three complete
documents used in the book’s research:
• The Nuremberg Polyglot (A.D. 1599) containing the
Gospels o f the New Testament in 12 languages, as they
appeared before the King James Bible (approx. 1100
pages). The Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, French,
Spanish, Italian, German, English, Bohemian, Polish
and Danish match the KJV precisely and prove the
TNIV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB and ESV in error.
This documents verse comparisons in In Awe o f Thy
Word, chapter 28.
• The Tome of the Paraphrase of Erasmus Upon
the New Testament (1548-1549) Vol. 1 and Vol. 2
Erasm us’ commentary on the New Testament (the orig
inal English translation), valued at over $30,000 today,
has never before been made available to everyone. It is
about 1880 pages, accompanied by the English New
Testament o f the Great Bible o f 1540. It provides an
addition to chapter 27 o f In Awe o f Thy Word.
• The Acts and M onuments by John Foxe
This is the rare entire 8 volumes o f Foxe’s Book o f
Martyrs, nearing 6000 pages long. It was originally
written in 1563; this is the 1837-49 printing. Reading
this is a spiritual experience o f a lifetime. It documents
quotes in chapters 1 5 - 2 8 o f In Awe o f Thy Word. Print
a page a day for 16 years o f devotionals.
System requirements: PC with Windows 95/98/NT4; 486 processor (Pentium or bet

ter recommended), 16 MB RAM (24 MB+ recommended), 10 MB free hard disk space,
NT4 should have Service Pack 3 or higher, PC with Windows 2000/Me: Pentium 90 or
better, 32 MB RAM (64 MB recommended), 10 MB free hard disk space. Macintosh:
Power PC or better processor, OS 9 or better system software, 8 MB RAM, 10 MB
free hard disc space. Windows XP and Macintosh OS X computers meet all systems
requirements.
Audio Tapes & CDs
In A w e o f T h y W ord
by Gail Riplinger
$21.95
Four Audio Tapes or 5 CDs / 4 Hours
Discussing the material in the new classic book.
Also available:
Pow erPoint DVDs (12) w m . 2 c d . r o m workbooks,
presented by British trained Dan Wooldridge, demonstrating the KJB’s
built-in dictionary (or present it yourself without the audio.)
Volumes 1 & 2 $39.95
Tract
I n A w e o f T h y W o rd : A S u m m a ry 40^
Share with others over 100 comparisons from the
book proving why only the King James Bible is the
pure word o f G od for English speakers. Help them
learn how to understand the words in the Bible.
Folds into an envelope, th en opens into a 16” x 26” poster,
w hich demonstrates errors in the NIV, TNIV, NKJV, NASB,
ESV, New Living Translation, and H olm an C hristian
Standard Bible, w hich often m atch the Jehovah W itness and
C atholic versions. Demonstrates 12 reasons why ‘O nly the
King James Bible’ is pure.
Tracts
NIV, NASV Verse Comparison 200

Compares 78 critical NIV or NASV verses, which clearly
shows their substitution o f liberal and New Age teachings for the
historical Christian doctrines seen in the KJV.
NKJV Death Certificate 330

Compares over 200 verses with the KJV. Shows 2 1 verses in
which the N K JV demotes Jesus Christ, several dozen where it
follows the Jehovah Witness Version and dozens and dozens
where the N K JV supports New Age philosophy. A comparison
o f 138 words proves the KJV is easier to read than the NKJV.
Folds out to 11 x 17 poster.
N ew Living Translation: A Critique 500
Compares over 100 verses with the KJV. This translation says
the “number o f the beast” should be called the "number o f
humanity”! Millions o f unwary Christians are watching Pat
Robertson promote this new corrupt ‘bible’ which he calls
‘The B ook’.
Book
N ew A ge B ible Versions
by G .A . R ip lin g er $16.95
B estseller
• Over 2,500 verses

compared
• 1,480 referenced
footnotes
• 700 pages, 42 chapters
30% discount o ff 5 or more ($ 1 1 .8 7 ea.)
40% discount o ff case o f 14 ($ 1 0 .1 7 ea.;
$160.00 includes shipping)
N ew ! Word and Nam e Index to N ew Age Bible Versions
Scripture Location Index for N ew Age Bible Versions
New Boo\s!
The Only Authorized Picture of Christ:
is the Holy Bible by Russ &. Riplinger
Critiques the m ovie, ‘T he P assion .’
Hazardous Materials
G reek and Hebrew Study Dangers, The Voice o f Strangers, The
Men Behind the Smokescreen, Burning Bibles Word By Word
by Gail Riplinger $29.95
Video, DVD, CD, and Audio Tapes
R esearch U pdate
by G . A. Riplinger
Double Videos (or DVD) $24.95

3 CDs $9.95 Double Audio Cassettes $9.95
INFORMATION OVER-LOAD! Over three
hours of lectures are presented on these two
videos. They begin with a half hour overview
presenting problems in the NKJV, followed by
nearly an hour update and overview of errors
in the NIV, NASB and other new versions.
Listeners will leam that 1) Rupert Murdoch,
owner of the Bart Simpson television program,
now owns the NIV’s printing rights, 2) Roman
Catholic Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the
man Time magazine said is most likely to be the
next pope, now edits the Greek text underlying
the NIV and NASV, 3) Martin Woudstra,
a supporter o f the homosexual movement,
was the NIV’s Old Testament chairman!
TAPE TWO IS A 2 HOUR PUBLIC QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION. The
following are just a few of the many questions answered: What is the origin o f the Catholic
edition1 Why do “good men” unknowingly use corrupt versions? Why is “Easter" the correct
rendering in Acts 12:4? How is the KJV’s own self contained dictionary superior to definitions
given in Greek and Hebrew lexicons written by unsaved liberals like Thayer and Briggs1 Why
is “Lucifer” etymologically the correct rendering in Isaiah 14:121 What are the Satanic parallels
to NKJV's logo! Why is the KJ21 more difficult to read than the real KJV ? Why are the so-called
"literal” translations in Berry’s, Green’s, and Kohlenburger’s Interlinears in error? What are the
parallels between the Jehovah Witness version and the NKJV ?
Riplinger also discusses many other subjects such as: I) The KJV’s use of cognitive scaffold-
ing which makes it a perfect tool for teaching “little folks” to read, 2)thedangerous Dead Sea
Scrolls 3) the recent discovery by the world’s pre-eminent mathematicians of names imbedded in
the KJV’s Hebrew text. (Nothing could be found when they tried their statistical analysis with
the texts underlying the NKJV, NIV and NASB) and 4) Lucis Trust (Lucifer Publishing Co.)
documents discussing their planned infiltration of the church.
These lectures were televised on Scripps Howard cable network and WPMC-TV. They were
taped at Temple Baptist Church.
Video and DVD
T ra n spa ren t T ranslations

& T ra n sla to rs
DVD $ 2 5 .0 0
P ow erPoin t $ 3 9 .9 5
H andout M aster $ 1 4 .9 5
Summary of Version Issue $ 1 .5 0
(12 Xerox pages)
Thousands o f participants in nearly a

dozen o f the major U.S. cities viewed this
presentation filmed at a TV station or
heard it aired on radio. Dr. Riplinger
lectured 2V2 hours, presenting on a
huge screen, nearly 100 actual pictures
and charts documenting the new age and
occult influence in the counterfeit new
versions. The audience often gasped in
shock, seeing such things as the N K JV ’s
666 logo— now on the forehead o f the
latest smart card owners. This “picture
show” is one-of-a-kind.
This is the b est video to share with

friends who need a thorough analysis
o f the thousands o f errors in the NIV,
N ASB & NKJV.
N K JV L ogo E xposed video or d v d $ 14.95
Participants flew from France, Australia, and Canada and watched this pictorial
history o f the N K JV logo as Dr. Riplinger traced it from its origin in Baal worship and
through its migration to the Druids, the church o f Rome, the Masons, and the
Satanists.
Testimony: Mrs. Waite Interviews Dr. Riplinger DVD or 3 Audio CDs $ 1 4 .9 5

Answering The Skeptics
Cutting Edge Lodged in the Groves $12.95
By Dennis Palmu Defending illustrations in the 1611
Blind Guides $8.95

30% discount off 5 or more ($6.27 ea.)
Riplinger’s detailed and scholarly responses— unanswerable by
skeptics like James White, Hunt, Cloud, Hanagraaff, House,
Morey and Passantino.
Answers Minton I & IL niv, nasb, nkjv errors $5.00

Ripiinger answers KJV critic Ron Minton, providing support
for the unwisely criticized KJV readings in Titus 2:13,11 Peter
1:1 and Psalm 12:6,7'. Includes Harvard professor’s concur-
rence regarding B. F. Westcott’s denial o f the creed. Adds
data about the earliest papyri and the NKJV’s faulty Hodges-
Farstad so-called Majority Text. Proves KJV superior to
NKJV at every point. Riplinger’s defence o f the use of the
KJV’s words ‘G od’ and ‘blood’— omitted numerous times
by the NKJV. Proves conclusively that the NKJV ignores the
Hebrew text, uses weaker renderings, paraphrase and new age
buzz words.
By Divine Order $12.95

The King James Code $14.95
By Michael Hoggard
These two books by Hoggard explore the miraculous order
ing and number patterns in the KJV, as seen in Hazardous
Materials chapter 31 on the inspirations o f the KJV.
Words in the Word

by Barry Goddard of Great Britain $19.95
T h e King James Bible’s B uilt-in D ictionary
See T h ou san ds o f the B ib le’s ow n definitions
437 pages
Book
J4ew Release!
W hich B ib l e I s G od ’ s W o rd ? U pdate
by G .A . R ip lin g er $12.95
Updated transcript o f the series o f interviews
with G .A . Riplinger by Noah Hutchings o f the
nationally syndicated program Southwest Radio
Church. Answers these and many other common
questions concerning bible versions.
• How do new versions change the gospel?

• How do the NIV and NASB support New
Age philosophy ?
• What about the NKJV, KJ21, and others
which say they merely update the KJV ?
• Where was the bible before the KJV 1611?
• What errors are the KJV critics making?
30% discount off 5 or more ($9.07 ea.)

40% discount off case of 14 ($7-77 ea.;
$124-00 includes shipping)
The Audios 2 CDs Audio transcript of Which Bible-. $9.95

The best audio CDs available on the KJV issue. Thoroughly
exposes the corrupt NKJV, as well as the NIV and NASB.
HYMNS & C
Bryn Riplinger Music CDs $14.95
BOOKBy Bryn Riplinger
Take Heed What Ye Hear $6.95
Discusses the principles
o f Godly music and what
music is pleasing unto the
Lord.
God Hath Done Ask for the

All Things Well Old Paths
Video, DVD, Audio CD and Tapes
O v e r v ie w by G. A. Riplinger
Single Video or DVD $16.95
3 Audio CDs $9.95 Double Audio Cassettes $9.95
This single two hour video clearly presents the differences between the corrupt new versions
and our beloved King James Bible. It presents the history o f the Bible chronobgically— its
inspiration and perfect preservation by God—as well as attempted corruptions, past,
present, and planned.
The material is presented simply and slowly for viewers who would like an overview and
introduction to the subject. It is excellent for beginning a discussion with Sunday School
classes, youth groups or precious friends who unknowingly use new corrupt versions like
the NIV, NKJV, NASV, NRSV, CEV , TEV, REB, KJ2', RV, N A B , G ood News,
N ew Living, Phillips, N ew Jerusalem, Message or N ew Century versions.
These lectures o f Dr. Riplinger’s were televised over W BFX and aired over WPIP radio
from The Berean Baptist Church.
0 VERVIE\ y
2 H O U R S
I n t er v ie w s
Nationally syndicated Christian programs in which host interviews G. A. Riplinger
about the book N ew Age Bible Versions. Discussions thoroughly cover the contents
and topics in the book.
DVD \<l»» SKt»r>
Niteline ...... ■ $19.95

This video has gone all around the world converting many A
precious souls to the KJV. 90 min.
Action Sixties ...$24.95
Used successfully in scores o f churches as a teaching series to educate members
regarding the errors in corrupt new versions. One pastor commented that his
most hardened new version fan “melted like a popsicle in a microwave” after
viewing these 4 programs. (4 hours)
AUDIOS
KNIS Radio Interview on CD $5.95
N ew Age Bible Versions Album $35.95
30 interviews with the author by talk show hosts across the nation. Lots o f ideas for
answering tough questions. 16 CDs
Detailed Update (Best! Audio 2 CDs) $9.95
UESTIONING the word of God came first with the serpent's skeptical query,
"Yea, hath God said...?" (Gen.3). Questioning today's Holy Bible is just as
rebellious, as questioning ones gender. God did it right the first time. A
man-made makeover brings "confusion" and defaces and mutilates God's
creation. Only pride and perversion would propel men to presume that
they could improve upon God's own handiwork. This book will bring Greek
and Hebrew study out of the closet for the first time. Tumbling out come
the starving skeletons of the authors of Greek and Hebrew study tools,
lexicons and editions, the sordid sources from which new versions, such as
the NIV,TNIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and HCSB, take their corrupt words. These are the very same
study 'aids'which kill a sermon or Bible study whgn used to 'define' a word in the Holy Bible.
Lexicon and Bible dictionary authors dug down into the depths of pagan lore, then ransacked
the English dictionary to find a match which could burn the Bible word-by-word. The smoke
darkens the directing light of the holy scriptures. This book will document that men who
want to change and redefine the Holy Bible are likely to want to change anything - even
Bible doctrine, their own gender, and their god. For example, Luciferian connections shadow
Trench's Synonyms o f the New Testament and Ginsburg's TBS Hebrew Masoretic text.
IN THIS BOOK you will learn such things as the connection between new version
editor and child molester C.J. Vaughan, whose all 'boys' school parades their cross-dressing
perversion in this photo, and tools such as Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Dictionary,
the Unitarian J.H. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Moulton's Lexicon and Vincent and Wuest's
Word Studies. Heresy trials defrocked editors of the popular Hebrew-English Lexicon by
Brown, Driver, and Briggs and the New Testament Greek-English Lexicon by Frederick Danker.
All Greek-English New Testament lexicons plagiarize the first Greek-English lexicon written
by Scott and Liddell, who harbored the pedophile author of Alice in Wonderland who took
improper photographs of Liddell's child and remains a suspect in the Jack the Ripper murder
case. The book demonstrates that Greek texts from UBS to TBS fail to reach the perfection
of the Holy Bible, where God's words shall not pass away. Why are good Christians putting
aside their inspired Holy Bibles to look for light in these conflicting and uninspired Greek
and Hebrew tools, made by men who all denied the very truths of the Bible?

Book - Bible - Gail Riplinger - Hazardous Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book - Bible - Gail Riplinger - Hazardous Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book - Bible - Gail Riplinger - Hazardous Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H azardous M a t er ia ls

G reek & H ebrew

Bible Dictionaries by Vine, Zodhiates

Word Studies By Vincent, Wuest, Trench

Hebrew-English Dictionaries by Brown, Driver, Briggs

Greek-English Lexicons by Moulton, Thayer, Danker, Liddell

and all Greek and Hebrew Study Tools & Interlinears

Greek & H ebrew

B e h in d the S m o k esc r een

Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers, The Voice o f

© G.A. Riplinger and Bryn Riplinger, 2008

ISBN-13 978-0-9794117-6-2 ISBN-10 0-9794117-6-9

C ontact the publisher for the following:

Additional copies o f Hazardous Materials

Other books and videos by the same author, such as:

A Free Catalogue o f King James Bibles, and books, videos,CDs,

A.V. Publications, Corp.

Inquiries and Fax: 276-251-1734

Credit Card Orders: 1-800-435-4535

Quotations from Lexicographica Graeca by John Chadwick (1996) used by

Quotations from Lewis Carroll - A Biography by Morton N. Cohen, copyright ©

Lewis Carroll: A Portrait with Background by Donald Thomas, published by John

Photo of J. Henry Thayer used by permission of Picture History.

Photo of James Strong printed with permission of stanklos.com.

Chapter 1 “Hazardous Materials” Introduction to Greek

P roblem s w it h G reek L e x ic o n s &

Chapter 2 “Lexicon Death Certificates — Signed by the

Chapter 3 “The 7 Deadly Sins: How Greek and Hebrew

Chapter 4 “The Battle: The Spirit vs. The Desires of the

Chapter 5 “Mortal Sins: Living Verbs Wounded in

Chapter 6 “Metzger’s Lexical Aids and Greek Text Are

G r e e k & H e b r e w L e x ic o n s : W h o 's Who

Greek Lexicons by Members of the Corrupt Westcott-Hort

Chapter 7 “Strong Delusion”: James Strong’s Dangerous

Chapter 8 “Logos Bible Software’s Liddell-Scott Greek-

Appendix A Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon editor

Chapter 9 “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon” reflects his

The Early Corrupters of New Testament Lexicons

Chapter 10 “R. C. Trench: Synonyms o f the New

Lexicons Defending Their Father’s Westcott-Hort Revised

Chapter 11 “Moulton & Milligan’s Vocabulary o f the

Chapter 12 “Vine’s Expository Dictionary” defines words

Chapter 13 “Copycat: Kenneth S. Wuest ” editor o f Word

Chapter 14 “Marvin Vincent, Marred and Sin-Bent” His

Nazi/Heresy Trial Connection

Chapter 15 “Walter Bauer’s Lexicon”: The keywords

Chapter 16 “Frederick W. Danker,” editor of A Greek-

G reek N ew T estam ent T exts

The following chapters will document problems relating to the

Chapter 17 “The Textual Heresies of F.H.A. Scrivener”

Chapter 18 “The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Little

Chapter 19 “Very Wary of George Ricker Berry”

Chapter 20 “The Wobble Unorthodox Greek Orthodox

Chapter 21 “Zodhiates Byzantine Empire Strikes Back”

NIV editors. Shows his use o f a corrupt Greek

Chapter 22 “Child Molester on New Version Committee”

Chapter 23 “Moral Hazard: The Pederast on Westcott

Chapter 24 “Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon,”

Hebrew Lexicon by Member of the Corrupt Westcott-Hort

Chapter 25 “Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English