[This book was given to Former Catholics For Christ by Ex-Orthodox For Christ, who offer this book for sale on their website. After reading this book, we do hope to encourage others to do the same. We feel this book is very important and should not be forgotten.]

[John William Burgon was born in Smyrna on August 21, 1813. His immense love for Jesus Christ and the words of God led to a life-long struggle against those that sought to overthrow the church's confidence in the word of God. Chief among these offenders were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, two prominent Biblical critics. John Burgon devoted the last years of his life to the single goal of defeating their fabricated Greek text and the English Revised version that was based upon their text. Dean Burgon, so called because he was the Dean of Chichester, was a master of both Greek and Latin. He personally collated many manuscripts in his relentless pursuit of presenting the facts. He also catalogued more than 86,000 quotations from the Early Church Fathers which undeniably demonstrated that not only was the Traditional Text in existence prior to 400 AD but that it was also quoted the vast majority of the time.]

Burgon’s Revision Revised is one of the most informative books I’ve read concerning the Greek recension as rendered by Doctors Westcott & Hort. This recension is used as the basis for all Bible versions, except the Authorized Version (A.V.) the Textus Receptus, which we call the King James Bible.

As an amateur that has been comparing, verse by verse, the KJB and the NIV (New International Version) for six years, I must agree with Dr. Burgon’s assessment of the translator's handling of the scriptures.

“As translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient, -alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm , they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth, phraseology and their jerky sentences: - their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner: -their fidgetty affectation of accuracy, -and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek; - are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers...the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every Scripture has been hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer’s day. To speak plainly, the book has been made unreadable” (The Revision Revised, Burgon, 225-226).

Let’s start at the beginning. A revision of the text of 1611 (A.V.) was begun in May of 1870 and submitted to public scrutiny in May of 1881.

The purpose of this revision was to correct "plain & clear errors", only "necessary emendations" were to be made, alterations of the AV were to be as few as possible and when they adopted a new reading, alternative readings were to be placed in the margin.

Dean Burgon makes an excellent case showing these guidelines were not followed.

In fact, an entirely different text is insinuated upon the body of revisers by Doctors Westcott (above left) & Hort (above right). They had constructed a new Greek recension which they purposed would be the underlying text for the new English version. The traditional text has been changed approximately 6000 times. And although there are alternative readings in the margin, most are errors that have long since been abandoned by scholars. Those that should have been included have not even been mentioned. From what could this bias stem? Westcott & Hort’s systematic reliance on a handful of corrupt manuscripts (MSS) in defiance of a body of evidence that includes 95% of MSS, versions and the testimony of Fathers from every part of ancient Christendom. Always referring to “ancient authorities,” we are never told which ones, nor are we told which “ancient authorities” may be found to weigh in on the opposite side of the balance.

Their Greek text is marred by unlearned renderings of tenses, articles, pronouns and particles, which in turn violate proprieties of the English language in their translation of the Greek. Dean Burgon regards their ignorant renderings as “the schoolboy method of translation...we are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of scholars who are altogether masters of their own language” (ibid., 155).

The substitution of “through” for “by” is used improperly. For instance, in Matt.26:24, the prophecy “was spoken by the prophet” (an article of the Faith) not “through” as they have rendered it. There are multitudes of instances, a few would be, 1 Cor.8:6, Heb.1:2 and John 1:3 & 10.

If you’re looking for miracles, you won’t find them, nor will you find the word “doctrine” (p.199). Evidently they offend these men. Miracles are now called “signs”. All “signs” are not “miracles”, though all “miracles” are undeniably “signs”.

Take the case of the lunatic in Matt.17:15-21. “Lunaticus” is the reading of all Latin copies. “Epileptic” is a gloss, not a translation. What the revisionists THINK was wrong with the child is beside the point. What matters is what the child’s father actually SAID was wrong with him. But they don’t stop there. They go further in their denial of their miracle by eliminating the means of spiritual healing by faith in verse 21; “But this kind (devil) goeth not out save by prayer and fasting.” These 12 very important words severed from the text by the good Doctors are attested by all the copies except 3, and at least a dozen of the Fathers of Christendom. But they have followed Codices B & Sinaiticus, untrustworthy witnesses.

Listen to what Burgon says about their rendition of John 10:14:

“...where the good Shepherd says, -‘I know mine and am known of mine, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father.’ By thrusting in here the Manichaean depravation (‘and mine own know me’) our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original, - which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the FATHER and the SON is identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character, “N [Sinaiticus] B D L” (p. 220).

How do we conclude what is or is not of “bad character”? We must look at all the information we have. This includes MANUSCRIPTS, of which there are many. They represent documents much older than themselves. We also have VERSIONS which can be checked against one another. WE must also take into consideration the writings of the early “CHURCH FATHERS” to see what was accepted as Scripture. When all has been considered, the reading that is attested by overwhelming historical evidence is the true reading. But this method is systematically side-stepped by the revisionists in favor of the choice of a handful of depraved texts that have never been accepted by the Church, and so fell into disuse, and was cast aside.

Another problem is Dr. Hort’s theory of conflation, which attempts to prove that the Received Text is the result of a deliberate recension foisted on an unsuspecting Church between 250 & 350 A.D., and in some way established itself all over the world (with no one lifting their voice against it) and thus became the model for every copy of the N.T. in existence. In this way he justifies his use of a handful of mss over against 95% that say the opposite by changing their antiquity.

The Received Text he designates as “Syrian”, other readings are headed as either “Western” or “Neutral”, these he calls the “ancient authorities” (258).

What does Dr. Burgon say about this novel theory?

“We demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be called ‘a Theory’,) on every ground...They assume everything. They prove nothing” (264).

In a footnote on page 95 he further states:

“We take leave to point out that however favorable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favorite guide. They pass by whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is ‘Syrian,’ ‘Western,’ ‘Western and Syrian,’ as the case may be. But we respectfully submit that ‘Syrian,’ ‘Western,’ ‘Western and Syrian,’ as critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning...They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, and always unreasonable. They are Dictation, not Criticism.”

We may pause here to ask this question: How did the body of revisionists react to this new Greek Text? The rare attendance of some of the Bishops speaks for itself. In eight years,

“Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop French (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on only one...The Bishop of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us...he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded...the Bishop of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted” (228-230).

“Another learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapproved the method of his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations” (230).

"Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives...of the extraordinary method by which the New Greek Text was 'settled,'...and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently formed opinions of 16 experts,...but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it, 'The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgement?' 'In most cases,' 'a simple majority' determined what the text should be...whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it was plainly and clearly erroneous was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, insomuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all. [An example would be…]'Dr. G. Smith, a Unitarian who denied the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the inspiration of scripture, was invited to join Westcott and Hort in working on the revision. When furor arose regarding his participation, Westcott and Hort said they would resign if he was not included'" (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 432).

"Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific, -to speak truly, a coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit...it would be impossible, in my judgement, to devise” (502,503).

1Tim.3:16 is dealt with at length and shows the disregard for the testimony of the Textus Receptus and the Fathers in favor of two uncial copies (N and D) and one cursive copy (17) of corrupt nature. The Scripture reads thus:

“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS: - GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY.”

Insisting this is a “plain and clear error” they have rendered it instead:

GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,” etc.

Dr. Burgon explains:

“...inasmuch as theos (God) is invariably written [we do not have the Greek font...however, the Greek shows an OC with the O having a line in the middle of it and a line over both letters] in manuscript, the only difference between the word ‘God’ and the word ‘who’(OC) consists of two horizontal strokes, (-) which distinguishes an O with a line through it from O; and another similar stroke...(above the letter OC)...which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter [O with the line though it] is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter O" (425-426).

Another point is that,

“… ‘mystery’ [musthrion] being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (os) — ‘who.’ Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic, —is intolerable, in Greek as in English. by consequence, os (‘who’) [the o has two " above it] is found to have been early exchanged for o (‘which’) [the "o" also has two marks above it]. From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation of the Latin exhibits ‘quod.’ Greek authorities for this reading (o) are few enough” (426).

Well then, who are the authorities that read the verse as “God was manifest in the flesh”?

“Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus Theordoret, John Damascene, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus (455)...Dionysius of Alexandria (461)...Ignatius, Barnabas, Hippolytus, on two occasions...Once, while engaged in proving that Christ is God...Gregory Thaumaturgus (463)...Cyril of Alexandria...In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our Lord is very and eternal God (464)...In another treatise to Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, [Cyril states] ‘If the Word, being God, could be said to inhabit Man’s nature without ceasing to be God, but remained for ever what He was before, —then great indeed is the mystery of Godliness...What then means 'was manifested in the flesh'? It means that the Word of God the Father was made flesh...In this way therefore we say that He was both God and Man...Thus is He God and Lord of all’” (465-466).

Cyril said, “I consider the mystery of godliness to be no other thing but the word of God the Father, who Himself was manifested in the flesh” (428).

Now let’s look at the copies (since there are no originals, every record of Scripture will be a copy).

“...lo, out of two hundred and fifty-four copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than two hundred and fifty-two are discovered to have preserved that expression [God was manifest in the flesh]. Such ‘Consent’ amounts to Unanimity; and...unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive” (494).

What of versions? God chose to write the New Testament in Greek, but it was also translated into other languages, one of which was Latin. “The agreement of the Latin copies is absolute” (448). The Syriac Version is called the Peschitto and it…“yields the same testimony as the Latin…” (449). The Harkleian Version of the seventh century also agrees. The Versions of Lower and Upper Egypt (Memphitic or Coptic and Thebaic or Sahidic) concur. The Ethiopic Version “...presents no variety of text. The antecedent, as well as the relative, is masculine in all...The Ethiopic must therefore be considered to represent the same Greek text which underlines the Latin and the Peschitto Versions” (453). Both the Georgian of the sixth century, and the Slavonic of the ninth, both witness theos.

Rev. Samuel C. Gipp explains Westcott and Horts’ lop-sided view of the use of MSS:

“...they believed that the orthodox Christian scribes had altered the New Testament manuscripts in the interest of orthodoxy...But at the same time they were very zealous to deny that heretics had made any intentional changes in the New Testament text...The effect of this one-sided theory was to condemn the text found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts and exonerate that of B and Aleph” (An Understandable History of the Bible, Gipp, 111).

How is it that good Christian men could throw out such weighty evidence in favor of a few corrupt MSS? Did they feel since these MSS were “older” they were better? That can’t be since “...Hort admitted that the Antiochan or Universal Text [Textus Receptus] was equal in antiquity” (An Understandable History of the Bible, Gipp, 117).

What then, was the purpose underlying Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort’s New Greek Text? To demote Jesus Christ from His throne of Deity. Why? Because they did not believe Jesus was God.

For thirty years these men collaborated on their New Greek Recension (1851-1881). During that time they were involved in secret activities unbecoming of Bible-reading men.

In 1851 they started the Ghostly Guild, a small group of men interested in spiritualism, delving into the supernatural, something God specifically prohibits. (Lev.19:26, 31, Ex. 22:18, II Kings 17:17-24, Deut.18:10, Gal.5:19) He warns us to protect us from the devils that would try to deceive us by allowing us to believe we’ve made contact with a dead loved one or historic person. Because of their active participation in this sin, their spiritual eyes became darkened and Scripture became abhorrent to them. Let them speak for themselves.

“Christ was and is perfectly man.” “He never spoke directly of himself as God.” “He does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ” [B.F. Westcott] (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, 304). “The divine anointing or Christhood...the prophet, the people...and the dimly seen Head...are all partakers of the divine anointing and messiahship” (ibid., 304).

Hort states in a letter to Westcott,

“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus...Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (An Understandable History of the Bible, Gipp, 118).

These “early” MSS we’ve already seen to be no older than the Received Text. Besides, this handful of depraved copies do not agree even among themselves! Westcott and Hort were well aware of this as they mutilated the Greek Revision.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’….ever existed…” (ibid., 119). He believed the Bible is not infallible, “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, [on the revising committee] I fear I could not join you” (ibid., 120).

What was Hort’s view of Hell?

“Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I ‘held’ the doctrine” (ibid., 123).

On the atonement:

“The fact is, I do not see how God’s justice can be satisfied without every man’s suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy...I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father” (ibid., 125).

Westcott felt Jesus’ second coming was spiritual, not literal:

“As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the ‘Lord’s coming’ in my little book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lord’s words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is ‘coming’ to us now” (ibid., 132).

Westcott’s stand on the second coming of Christ and heaven being a state of mind, are a direct reflection of not only his religious train of thought, but also the political. His ideas of communal living with state control bordered closely on Communism,

“...He was a devout socialist and post-millenialist. Socialism and postmillenialism go hand in hand. Postmillenialism is the belief that we shall bring in the millenial reign of Christ ourselves, without Christs’ help. Socialism is usually the means of establishing that thousand-year reign of peace” (ibid., 135).

How did Hort feel about the issue?

“...I dare not prophesy about America, but I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms” (ibid., 127).

He also said of America as an independent nation, “...a standing menace to the whole civilization” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 418).

Horts’ view of Christians?

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible” (ibid., 120).

Hort wrote to Westcott on 1861,

“This may sound cowardice — I have a craving that our text [New Greek Testment] should be cast upon that world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men who are already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulty in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms...If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offense to….the miscalled orthodoxy of the day” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 407-408).

Thus it becomes clearer how these men could make over 6,000 changes in an accepted text that had been used by all Christendom for over 1500 years, without batting an eyelash.

If I came to you, a Christian, with these credentials and wanted to change your Bible, you wouldn’t even allow me in your home, let alone your heart. And yet, that’s exactly what has occurred. Every time you read another version besides the Received Text you’re letting deceptive words filter through your soul.

God’s word is not to be meddled with. The apostle John sounds a solemn warning to those who would put personal opinion and emotional experience above Scripture:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19)

Sometimes there are more immediate judgments. When someone rejects the authority of the Bible in favor of doctrines of devils, God does not protect them. This leaves them open to the seductive whisperings of evil spirits.

One symptom of devil possession is the inability to speak. The Bible calls it a “dumb spirit’. (Matt.9:32, 33, 12:22, 15:30-31 and Mark 9:17, 25)

In the book, Life of Westcott, his biographer said that “he was quite inaudible” in 1858 and “His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer” by the year 1870. (Vol. 1, 198)

Kenneth Taylor, worked on the Living Bible and

“...Mysteriously half way though the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the word of God” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 447).

J. B. Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English also used the “new” Greek Recension for his version of God’s Word. He states in his autobiography that in the late summer of 1961…“quite suddenly my speaking, writing and communication powers stopped” (The Price of Success, J. B. Phillips, 163)

Another symptom of possession can be insanity. Matthew 17:15-18 says “he is a lunatic...And Jesus rebuked the devil and he departed out of him.” That this was also a “dumb spirit” can be seen from Mark 9:17.

“The ‘dumb’ spirit may plague its host with an accompanying ‘lunacy’. J. B. Phillips necromancy and the ‘dumb spirit’ it generated harassed Philips with life-long bouts of insanity...It began with what he calls a ‘nervous illness,’ after his ordination to the priesthood of the church of England. He resigned a pastor’s assistant job…” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 449).

A friend knew Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist, and arranged for Phillips to see him. Phillips says… “Following the Jungian techniques I lay on a couch…[and] came to see for myself that the seeds of my present distress were sewn in early childhood” (The Price of Success, Phillips, 71).

As his condition grew more severe, he became what is today called “clinically depressed”. Please bear with me as I give you his own account, as it is rather lengthy. Christians should be able to discern the source of his depression.

“I found the mental pain more than I could bear and I went as a voluntary patient to a psychiatric clinic. I was at the point of breakdown...which in popular parlance is called a nervous breakdown...The hardest thing of all to bear is what I can only describe as a nameless mental pain, which is, as far as I know, beyond the reach of any drug and which I have tried in vain to describe to anyone. One of the psychiatrists asked me to write down as far as I could the nature of the almost intolerable pain…[This is what he wrote]

“1. There is a slow but inevitable diminution of the self and it is apparently leading to self-extinction.
2. Familiar things become somehow touched with horror...the sense of alienation means that one is not in one’s own country or has strayed into a strange country by mistake.
3. [A] roaring galloping torrent of condemnation (“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus….” Rom.8:1) [is] directed against the self’s achievement. With remorseless energy this particular ‘demon’ rushes to and fro up and down in one’s mind and with savage cruelty exposes everything that the self has done as being useless and worthless” (197-203).

Later he writes:

“...the hellish torments of mind...utter despair...frightening experiences...seized by irrational panic...despite the use of drugs...the fears of childhood re-appear with monstrous force...The experiences are really evil and they sometimes are terrifyingly so (197-210)...you may ask where does the Christian faith come in all this. The answer is that probably emotionally it is of little help at all (205)...God Himself appears to be far away (215)…[He then speaks of]...praying to an empty heaven (196)...I do not believe that there is any substitute for the long unhurried conversations between the sufferer and a compassionate trained psychiatrist (203)...I set myself down for what must be a long siege and so it has proved...I never thought for example, that I should ever know the type of despair that leads people to destruction. I know it now” (210-213).

“Jungian analysis can include the use of spirit guides. Phillips use of the word “demon” to describe the source of his psychosis is confirmed by Jung himself. Jung’s COLLECTED LETTERS, Vol. 1 records his discussion with the president of the American S.P.R. William James. He admits, spirits, not the unconscious, were the source of the psychic phenomenon he had experienced since he was three years old and living with his father, a medium and a minister. The official British PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH (S. P. R.) published Jung’s views about spirit phenomena in 1920...Jung’s experiences ranged from a six-year mental breakdown during which a spirit entity named Philemon began to channel writings through him, to seeing ‘the head of an old woman on the bed next to him when he opened his eyes” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 451).

Manifestations such as these should not be the faithful Christian’s experience, nor should heresy. Yet a man who was not just a lay person in religion was brought up on heresy charges. Who was he?

President of the Old and New Testament Committees, Philip Schaff used Westcott and Hort’s New Greek Recension for his American Standard Version.

His colleagues from the University of Berlin called him, "the theological mediator between East and West." Schaff chided Christians saying, "they vainly imagine that they possess the monopoly on truth." As a result, "Shocked churchmen brought Schaff before the Pennsylvania Synod for heresy," notes one of his biographers. Schaff’s own son admits, "the people associated all manner of doctrinal evil with [him] and referred to him as a 'traitor'". Referring to Schaff’s theology, his son writes: '...it was at that time considered by most [Christians] in the United States dangerous and by many heretical’” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 458).

He declared…“the church must adjust her...doctrinal statements...to natural science” (The Life of Schaff, Walter R. Houghton, 488).

“Schaff himself writes of S. P. Tregelles, author of a ‘New’ Greek Text which succeeded and strongly influenced the Westcott and Hort revision. Of Tregelles Schaff writes, he was ‘scarcely able to speak audibly’” (New Age Versions, Riplinger, 448).

Judgments from an all-high God who discerns the innermost thoughts of those he has created. God will not be mocked.

Satan’s desire to be God has not diminished. You can hear his voice echo through the ages, “Jesus is not God, I am; worship me.”

From Theosophy’s Helena P. Blavatsky of whom Westcott and Hort were such admirers, to present-day so-called evangelists such as Kenneth Copeland, demonic propaganda spews forth as though from a well-oiled machine.

Luciferian Blavatsky states:

“There is not a word in so-called sacred scriptures to show that Jesus was actually regarded as God by his disciples. Neither before nor after his death did they pay him divine honours...there is not a single act of adoration recorded on their part…” (Isis Unveiled, Vol.II, 193).

What about Matt.8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20 or Mark 5:6? The new versions’ substitution of “bowed” or “knelt” for “worshipped” is more indicative of a physical position, rather than the spiritual discernment of, and worshipful praise for the object of the sentence; Christ.

Really? John 14:1-9 records a conversation between Jesus and Philip that went like this:

“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

Kenneth Copeland assures us:

“He never made the assertion that He was the most High God….He didn’t claim to be God when He lived on earth...Search the Gospels for yourself. If you do, you will find what I say is true” (The Agony of Deceit, Horton, 101-102,114).

Edwin Palmer, an NIV editor feels: “[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God” (Toward a World Religion for the New Age, 10).

New Age doctrine dovetails harmoniously with these statements, Jesus Christ being rejected as God paves the way for another to come, the Antichrist. Jesus said: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” (John 5:43)

The prophecy regarding the many titles given by God to the Saviour that would be born by a miraculous virgin birth are self-explanatory of who he really is. Remember, Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name….”

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6 )

From what we've learned, we can now easily see why they’re so industrious about obliterating any verse that even hints at Christs’ deity. For example, when they martyred Stephen in Acts 7:59 it’s recorded…“they stoned Stephen, [who was] calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Their water-downed version? “While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (NIV)

Whose blood was shed to save us from our sins? Acts 20:27-28 tells us:

“For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

I John 3:16 concurs: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us….”

Their obscure version reads, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.” (NIV)

The fact of Jesus being God is proclaimed throughout scripture for all who care to see.

When instructing Israel about commandments, statutes and judgments, it was paramount these must be observed so it would go well with them on their spiritual journey.

Of prime importance was this scripture: “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD….” (Deut.6:4)

The refain is echoed in Isa.43:10-13:

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?”

Jesus himself said, “...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (Jn.8:24) And in verse 58, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

This is reminiscent of how Moses was to explain to Pharoah who had sent him to free the Israelites from bondage.

“And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:13-14)

The scriptures of the New & Old Testaments both testify interchangeably to the deity of Jesus: (This is God speaking in the Old Testament) “Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.” (Isaiah 41:4)

In the New Testament, Jesus declared…“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last….” (Rev.1:11)

(Old Testament) “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6)

(New Testament; Jesus speaking) “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)

(God in the Old Testament) “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.” (Isaiah 48:11-12)

God said he would not give his glory to another, yet we see in the New Testament the twenty-four elders worshipping him that sat on the throne [Jesus] and saying, “Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Rev.4:11)

So there can be no doubt as to who is speaking to us from the pages of Revelation, Jesus included one very pertinent detail: “I am he that liveth, and was dead: and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Rev.1:18)

“...few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God.” [?]

Only if you insist on reading the versions based on the New Greek Revision penned by those two deceitful unbelievers, Westcott and Hort.

The handful of verses we have dealt with barely scratches the surface of this wonderful mystery, “God was manifest in the flesh….” If your heart has been stirred to find out the truth for yourself, go treasure-hunting; read the KJB and trust the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth so that your “...hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col.2:2,3)

By Debbie Rucker