Professional Documents
Culture Documents
uring the last several years of the life of the Apostle Paul, heresy already was developing a stronghold in an attempt to thwart the
sacred teachings and doctrines as the very books of the New Testament of the Holy Scriptures were being penned through the verbal
inspiration of God. Wrote Paul about six to seven years before his martyrdom, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (I Timothy 6:20). Paul also spoke against
several heretics, among them Hymenaeus and Philetus (II Timothy 2:17), and Alexander the coppersmith (II Timothy 4:14). In Titus 3:10 Paul
wrote, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” And also the Apostle Peter, who wrote in II Peter 2:1, “But there
were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Some of these “heretics” represented the early yield of “Gnosticism,” a movement comprising an amalgamation of various sects whose
chief belief was that special secret knowledge was apportioned to some elect persons, who thereby were allocated special spiritual status and
glory.a The word gnosis means knowledge,b hence Paul’s early reference to a “science falsely so called.” Thriving during the Second and Third
centuries, Gnosticism was designated by Third Century Church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus as an aberrant Christian heresy
resulting from the syncretism of unsound Christian doctrine with pagan philosophy, or even astrology and Greek mystery religions. These three
Church fathers attributed Gnosticism to the magician Simon Magus, who is mentioned in Acts 8. c
By the Fourth Century, however, 37 fathers’ written contributions outweighed those represented in the misguidedly celebrated Greek
manuscripts Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), dated 325-360 A.D., by 65.7 percent to 34.3 percent. d Nevertheless, heretical teachings based
on this tiny sampling of tainted documents (about 43 all told, eventually) evolved into not only the accepted Christian teachings of the day, but
also the establishment of the fledgling Roman Catholic Church (Fifth Century). However, this false doctrine embedded within this minuscule
collection of manuscripts was abandoned almost entirely by the Church Universal by about the end of the Seventh Century. Hence, the
manuscripts and critical text editions underlying nearly every contemporary Bible version published today were abandoned from the Seventh
Century until a textual critic named Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf first discovered the NT manuscript Aleph in a waste heap in the St.
Catherine’s Monastery, on Mt. Sinai in Egypt, in 1844.e Vaticanus B was the first entry appearing in the Vatican Library, back in 1475.f
Now, only about 43 of these minority manuscripts, represented foremostly by Aleph and B, remain the foundation of critically edited
Greek versions used by modern translators to produce contemporary Bibles. This has been the case since the release of the first new-age pseudo-
Bible in 1881, the English Revised Version (or “RV”) New Testament. g Modern biblical critics and linguists remain entangled in the Fourth
Century web perpetuated by some heretics and scribes of that time, but the inspired real truth of God’s Word has incontrovertibly been proved.
Never has any opponent triumphed over God’s wisdom having appeared in the unanswered and unanswerable arguments of the few stalwart
orthodox Christian scholars of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries—John W. Burgon, Edward Miller, F.H.A. Scrivener, Herman Hoskier (all
Nineteenth Century—Hoskier d. 1938), Edward F. Hills (d. 1980), Floyd Nolan Jones, D.A. Waite, and others.
a
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), p. 22.
b
Ibid.
c
Ibid.
d
J.A. Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), p. 116.
e
James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 86.
f
William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Plate XIV (description).
g
Wilbur N. Pickering, “The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Floyd Nolan Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, AZ:
KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 163.
I. Cover Page ............................................................................................................... 1
II. Preface ..................................................................................................................... 2
III. Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... 3
IV. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4
V. Verse Comparison .................................................................................................... 4
VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 39
VII. Colophon ............................................................................................................... 40
6Documented Discrepancies between the Majority Text/Textus Receptus and6
the Critical Text Editions Underlying Modern Bible Versions (4th Ed.): NLT Version
By EDWARD E. SCOTT
This notated comparison chart serves to clearly identify and clarify some of the documented differences (here in 105 verses/passages) existing between the King
James Version—and its “legacy” precursors—and virtually every other New Testament version commercially available since the controversial 1881 release of the
English Revised Version (ERV). Many of these alterations have been noted previously by both liberal and conservative theological scholars of the past and
present. The author of this document has invested portions of thirteen months in conducting research, inputting data, and proofing and editing this document. This
comparison assemblage has been produced to the glory of God and for the edification of redeemed believers through Jesus Christ, that the latter may be en
lightened about the long-standing, well-disguised and -hidden activities transpiring beneath the massive, deceptive and misguided overarching mechanisms of
modern Bible translation and the Bible societies. Since largely the Eighteenth Century, liberal, naturalistic and spiritually remiss biblical and theological scholars
have attempted to undermine and even overturn the NT “Byzantine” text underlying classical Bibles—the KJV and those preceding it in the Sixteenth Century.
Many of these modern theological “naturalists” simply have perpetuated the twisted theories and the deplorable manuscripts and texts which led to the alarming
production of the new-age pseudo-Bible, the ERV. From this unholy spring has flowed the multitudinous new tradition of false Bibles. For this comparison the
NLT, NASB and NIV were selected for contrast to the KJV (and its underlying Greek texts) because of their popularity, contemporary representativeness and
identical NT textual base.(Other editions of this document will be produced to include modern alternatives to the NLT version.)
(The columns below illustrate the textual—and often doctrinal—differences among numerous selected verses of the New Testament.)
He currently is a freelance computer graphics specialist and writer, and one who has written published feature articles for online content
providers, as well as on professional athletes for newspapers and magazines. Mr. Scott once produced 3D, still and motion graphics for
the US Marine Corps, and he has done some post visual effects for film. He has worked with computer graphics in virtually every
capacity since 1995, and he has been a published writer since 1988.
It is the writer’s goal—only God willing—to publish further material similar and complementary to that contained in this document.
This assemblage partially may represent a capsulization of future bound works exposing the truth behind the translation, emergence,
promulgation, and pervasive public use of contemporary “pseudo-Bibles.” All honor and glory go to the Lord Jesus Christ, and I thank Him for implanting the
insatiable desire to consume and apply the aforementioned content. God be praised.
I am grateful for and indebted to the following publications: The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983] (Fort Worth: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991);
Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, AZ: KingsWord Press, 2006); Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Lafay
ette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985); Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today Press, 2005);
Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 2005); The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame (Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Liter
ature, 2005); The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007); Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance
(Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004); Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002); Theological Dic
tionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985); and several others.
May god richly bless you in all your affairs as you endeavor to please and Honor Him.
Yours in Christ,