THE MAGIC OF EVOLUTIONISM AND MODERN BIBLES
 
 

by Scott Jones
October 13, 2017
Copyright (c) Scott Jones, 2017, All Rights Reserved

If you wish to support this publication, you can purchase it in eBook format HERE.

INTRODUCTION - TOC

It is well known that evolutionists use sleight of hand, simple magic tricks, to misdirect the facts and explain away the mountainous evidence against their dogma. So do modern biblical textual critics, for modern biblical textual critics also use simple magic tricks, sleight of hand, to misdirect the facts and explain away the mountainous evidence against their carnal and unregenerate dogma in support of the Critical Text (CT), which underlies almost all modern "bibles".

Just as evolutionists, for example, use cladistical analysis and homology to INFER fossils and transitional forms and ghost lineages that don’t exist, and never have, so modern biblical textual critics likewise use cladistical analysis (stemmatics) and homology to INFER vapor manuscripts and imaginary text types and textual ghost lineages that don’t actually exist. And never have. In other words, in this and other characteristics of evolutionism, modern biblical textual critics employ the EXACT SAME evolutionary methodologies and philosophies as the evolutionists, for not only are the foundational principles of evolutionism and modern biblical textual criticism identical -- and I do mean identical, as I will demonstrably show -- but the praxis that evolutionists and modern biblical textual critics employ, and the disciplines adhered to by evolutionists and modern biblical textual critics alike who have given us the Critical Text, are also not one whit different. Not an iota, as I will thoroughly demonstrate, with more than NINETY METICULOUSLY EXPOUNDED EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES, for the Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it are all an illusion, a magic trick, a simple sleight of hand performed by charlatans and illusionists, whom I will now expose.

PREAMBLE OF TRUTH - TOC

It is written in John 6:40: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

The true written word of God is first and foremost, and primarily, a portrait of Jesus Christ. That is the overriding purpose and function of the true written word of God, namely, to present and to portray Jesus Christ. That is why the written word of God exists, to portray Jesus Christ (John 5:39). That is why creation itself even exists, to portray Jesus Christ. This was the Father's foundational purpose for ordaining creation in the first place, to portray and to glorify his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. This is the foundational purpose of all creation, to manifest and to glorify God by Jesus Christ, not only in this world, but also in the world to come. Period.

You cannot see Jesus Christ, not the true Jesus Christ, unless you have an accurate portrait of Jesus Christ, and if you cannot see the true Jesus Christ, you cannot believe savingly. Wait and see in the day of judgment just how many souls have failed to believe savingly due to a false image of Jesus Christ. Just wait and see. (Matthew 7:22-23, et. al.)

The Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it portray a false Jesus Christ and a false gospel. Yet the Critical Text contains just enough truth to make it seem benign to its victims, just as the portrait that the Serpent painted for Eve contained enough truth to make it seem benign. Yet the Serpent's portrait was deadly poison, and likewise the portrait of Jesus Christ that the Critical Text paints is equally a deadly poison, so that the Jesus who is seen in the Critical Text is a false Jesus, a degraded Jesus, a Jesus who doesn't exist except in the imaginations of the magicians of the Critical Text. Indeed, the mass unregeneracy within professing Christianity today directly correlates to the Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it, as those of us who are actually born of the Spirit know, for the Critical Text is just an illusion, a fake portrait of the true Jesus Christ, the true Lord of all creation.

For the magicians of the Critical Text employ the exact same pragma, the exact same tricks and illusions, as those adopted by evolutionism, which is why those creationist ministries that employ "bibles" based on the CT are the exact equivalent of theistic evolutionists, who willfully stop their own ears and cover their own eyes, and are thus being either grossly ignorant or grossly hypocritical. One or the other. Indeed, the creationists are very quick to point to the Reformers' and Puritans' literal views of Genesis and a young earth, but then these same creationists turn right around and demonstrate that they want nothing to do with the Reformers' and Puritans' Bibles. Instead, they would rather trust to the modern "science" of textual criticism which has given us the Critical Text, even though, as I will conclusively prove, that "science" is identical to the "science" of evolutionism. So there is no middle ground. Either these creationists are grossly ignorant of the basics of this entire issue, or they are grossly hypocritical. ONE. OR. THE. OTHER.

Moreover, the creationists are fond of pointing out that their message of creation is foundational to the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is true. However, the message of creation is not even REMOTELY as foundational to the gospel of Jesus Christ as is the integrity of God's written word. Not even close, for without the integrity of God's written word, the creationist message evaporates into dust. Furthermore, if the creationist message doesn't end with an accurate portrait of Jesus, then it is utterly for naught.

So that this is a topic - the integrity of the written word of God - where you can literally separate the regenerate from the unregenerate, including those ensconced inside the creationist ministries. ESPECIALLY those ensconced inside the creationist ministries, for they are the ones who are most familiar with the sleights of hand of evolutionism, and therefore they have no excuse whatsoever. None. If, therefore, creationist ministries are using "bibles" based on the Critical Text, as well as the NKJV, which is a fraud and an imposter through and through, then they are either ignorant to the bone or hypocritical to the bone. There is no middle ground, and thus if they don't stand up and take the right side, then their credibility is dung, and nothing but, for they are adopting the EXACT SAME praxis and methodologies of the evolutionists they so ardently decry, regardless of the semantics some of them will undoubtedly try to invoke in order to blind their own eyes and stop their own ears while denying the mounds of empirical evidence against them, thus demonstrating that their own religion is nothing but a religion of the flesh, and not of the Spirit, thereby ultimately leading to their sharing the same fate as the evolutionists they now war against.

Nevertheless, it is an eternal truth, like it or not, that you can't stand on what the written word of God says unless you possess the accurate written word of God to start with, and the Critical Text is anything but, and only willful blindness refuses to acknowledge that, especially after examining even the basics of the actual evidence, for modern biblical textual criticism upholding the Critical Text is nothing but a magic trick, just like evolutionism.

THE FIRST MAGIC TRICK OF EVOLUTIONISM AND MODERN BIBLES - TOC

For example, just as evolutionists weight homologous structures to arbitrarily formulate a virtual (imaginary) clade, whether within or without a range of similar phenotypes, while ignoring or counter-weighting unique or analogous structures within the same fabricated clade so as to marginalize or discount the disparities altogether, so modern biblical textual critics do the EXACT SAME THING with fabricated manuscript genealogies and textual ghost lineages and imaginary text types, all of which are just as mythical, at the very least, as the evolutionists' INFERED clades and INFERED transitional forms and INFERRED ghost lineages, equivocating precisely to INFERRED manuscripts and INFERRED text types and INFERRED textual ghost lineages.

The praxis is identical, so that, for example, the modern biblical textual critic will weight the homologous readings of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph very heavily, while at the same time will utterly disregard the throngs and multitudes of unique and dissonant readings between the two, substantial differences which are significantly more numerous than their agreements, as will be empirically, verifiably demonstrated, so that by this very mechanism they fraudulently come up with a text type. Next, the modern biblical textual critic will give this fraudulently contrived text type a full skeletal makeup by building the aforementioned INFERRENCES into the Critical Text, just like the evolutionist does with his tooth specimen, upon which he has built an entire primate out of his INFERRENCES about the tooth.

Then the two will go one step further, the evolutionist next fleshing out the skeletal makeup he has built and turning it into a living face, even sprucing up the image affably enough to appear as a world class photo in National Geographic, even though the photo is totally, irrevocably imaginary. But this is what the evolutionists do to justify their illusions and deceits, and modern biblical textual critics likewise do the exact same thing to justify their illusions and deceits, only instead of a fabricated half-ape, half-human face in sixteen million colors on the cover of a magazine, modern biblical textual critics proudly come forth with a wholly fabricated Critical Text upon which to base their fraudulently contrived portraits for public consumption, namely, an ESV, or a NIV, or a NASB, ad nauseam. In other words, their "bibles" are no less imaginary than the ape-man on the magazine, wholly contrived as they are, for it's all the exact same thing with the evolutionist and the modern biblical textual critic, with the exact same result: a MIRAGE. An ILLUSION. A mirage and an illusion which every kool-aid drinker worth his blissful ignorance is enthralled by.

Behold! All it takes is the sleight of hand of cladistical and genealogical analysis to perform the illusion, with a few subtle INFERENCES thrown in! That's all it takes, at least for the kool-aid drinkers, and then... POOF!... now you see them, now you don't... for they never actually existed, either the fossils and transitional forms, or the manuscripts and text types and ghost lineages, they never actually existed... except in the weak and darkened imaginations of the evolutionist and the modern biblical textual critic... and in the weak and darkened imaginations of the kool-aid drinkers who lap up their iniquity like thirsty dogs. Indeed, trying to convince the kool-aid drinkers that the images aren't real is a complete exercise in futility. You might as well try to fish Lake Michigan from the space station.

Just as evolutionists can make an imaginary transitional ancestor out of a few fragments of teeth, so can modern biblical textual critics make an imaginary text type out of a few selective readings, while at the same time completely ignoring the stultifying number of unique and dissonant readings among the same set. It's all just misdirection, and just as with evolution, it's all nothing but a sham. A magic trick for kool-aid drinking junkies.

Nevertheless, having fraudulently contrived a few text types with arbitrarily selected readings and INFERRED ghost lineages that don't actually exist, and never did, just like the evolutionists' INFERRED ancestors that don't actually exist, and never did, all in order to surreptitiously obscure the explosive radiation and universal saltation of the uniquely monolithic Traditional Text (TT) throughout the known world literally overnight, as it were, so that by assigning "text types" and thus nullifying the overwhelming numbers of the manuscripts of the Traditional Text, and the barrages of empirical evidence that support the veracity of those numbers, as you will see, I say, having invalidated the colossal advantage of the massive numerical superiority of the manuscripts of the Traditional Text by performing the slick illusion of "text types" -- in other words, just as the evolutionist weaponizes his fabricated clades in order to negate the fact that no ancestral fossils or forms actually empirically exist, but are merely INFERRED by his imaginary clades, so the modern biblical textual critic weaponizes his fabricated "text type" in order to obscure the actual empirical evidence of the immense numbers of harmonious manuscripts all over the known world, so that, having nullified these numbers by grouping them into a singular "text type" -- the modern biblical textual critic can now wave his arrogant and imperious arm and declare that THIS text type (imaginary though it is), is superior to THAT text type (also imaginary), and thus, VIOLA!, the Critical Text and its corrupt and fraudulent "bibles" magically appear.

That is precisely how it works. But I will soon dismantle this illusion piecemeal. Though unlike the evolutionist and the modern biblical textual critic, I will deploy actual empirical evidence that actually exits, as opposed to the wholly imaginary evidence of the evolutionist and the modern biblical textual critic, with their INFERRED mythical clades and their INFERRED imaginary text types and their INFERRED vapor manuscripts and their INFERRED textual ghost lineages, along with a few other magic tricks they have up their sleeves, which I will also expose and demolish, including their farcical and empirically inaccurate boasts of possessing an earlier text than that of the monolithic Traditional Text, for as I will openly demonstrate, it is the empirically ratified Traditional Text, not the fabricated illusory Critical Text, that goes directly back to the autographa, to the original authors of the New Testament, and nothing less. Accordingly, as we will demonstrably see, when you bring the battle down to manuscripts against manuscripts testifying to individual readings, where the battle belongs, then neither Vaticanus B nor Sinaiticus Aleph can even even pay the ring fee to get into the fight, much less stand. AS. I. WILL. SHOW.

I will also explain in more detail what I mean by the Traditional Text further down. For now, just understand that the Traditional Text -- not to be confused with the putative Majority Text, which is also nothing but an illusion contrived by textual critics based on egregiously inaccurate data -- represents the overwhelming mass of extant biblical Greek manuscripts. That is essentially what I mean by the Traditional Text.

THE SECOND MAGIC TRICK OF EVOLUTIONISM AND MODERN BIBLES - TOC

Moreover, and in addition to the above, just as the entire paradigm of evolutionism stands or falls on the principle that, "the simple proceeded to the complex", so the entire paradigm of modern biblical textual criticism upholding the Critical Text also stands or falls on the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE, as I will effortlessly demonstrate.

For the disgusting fact is, when you boil it all down, in their praxis and in the darkened and unregenerate recesses of the minds of the magicians of the Critical Text, the authors of the New Testament were basically just barely above cave men, pretty much as primitive as their estimation of Adam and Eve, assuming any of them believe Adam and Eve actually even existed.

For you see, according to the carnally minded textual critics upholding the Critical Text, the original writers of the New Testament were so dense that they couldn't compose a coherent thought without making a mess of the doctrine or the Greek, along with their intent to convey it, as represented by the handful of manuscripts underlying the Critical Text, as will be demonstrated, while at the same time they were also so stupid that they didn't even know the geography of the land in which they lived and wrote about, as also represented by the handful of manuscripts underlying the Critical Text, and as will also be demonstrated, along with a whole host of additional categories of blunders which I won't address at the moment, but will demonstrate further down as well. Rather, it was only later, according to these very darkened, very fleshly-minded biblical textual critics, that scribes who were more erudite and more sophisticated than the original authors of the New Testament, were able to correct the myriads of blunders and the legions of solecisms that the original authors of the New Testament (apparently) infested their writings with, as is represented by the handful of manuscripts making up the CT, and which I will demonstrate like wet on water.

In other words, these myriads of blunders and legions of solecisms in the handful of manuscripts underlying the CT are blunders and solecisms which the magicians of the CT attribute to the work of the original authors of the New Testament. But later -- about two or four or five or nine hundred years later (they don't even know themselves), so the story goes -- erudite and sophisticated scribes all over the known geographic world, according to the legend, came along in unison and corrected the original authors of the New Testament. Then, even more startling, after correcting the literally legions and legions and legions of blunders and boondoggles made by the original authors of the New Testament, blunders and boondoggles which are found throughout the handful of manuscripts comprising the CT, then, again as the tale tells it, these erudite and sophisticated scribes -- well before the age of electricity, mind you, or even the printing press, let alone computers and the internet -- were yet somehow suddenly able to also communicate and coordinate this massive overlay of corrections onto manuscripts all over the known geographic world all at once, so that this unprecedented - before or since - literary conspiracy was simultaneously transmitted throughout the known geographic world in a virtual moment of time, for this mystic change, which supposedly transplanted and replaced the true autographa, occurred so rapidly, according to the illusion, and so effectively and so efficiently, that the resulting monolithic Traditional Text somehow just sprang forth onto the scene out of nowhere a few hundred years after the New Testament was written, like a sheet of lightning flashing out of a clear sky, totally wiping out the putative autographa of the Critical Text and simultaneously replacing it with the monolithic Traditional Text instantly, leaving no traces or remnants of the putative Critical Text which it supposedly replaced, at least not until some sixteen or seventeen centuries later when a few clearly discarded and depraved and decadent manuscripts were revived by a handful of idolaters and haughtily hailed as the Holy Grail of biblical textual criticism. In other words, the Traditional Text, pejoratively called the Ecclesiastical Text by the seedy magicians of the CT, suddenly came out of nowhere after a few hundred years, and, like the mother of all bombs, instantly obliterated the true text of the New Testament in a moment of time, so that it all happened even faster than the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record, it was so swift and efficient.

So you see, for the magicians of the Critical Text, the simple proceeded to the complex, just like evolution. For the magicians of the Critical Text believe that the dumb, dense, stupid, almost illiterate writings in the handful of manuscripts which make up the Critical Text is in fact the true product of the authors of the New Testament, and thus these dumb, dense, stupid, almost illiterate writings of the authors of the New Testament then proceeded to be transformed into the erudite, sophisticated, orderly writings of an entire army of scribes who somehow produced a unified and monolithic Traditional Text all over the world in a virtual moment of time, and all the while somehow finding a way to spread it throughout the known world in a calculated and coordinated assault that wiped out the Critical Text like some sort of cosmic air strike, just like the mythical air strike that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs, yet all of this occurred without the advantage of email, or even typewriters, and all of it taking place literally almost overnight, so that no legitimate manuscript ancestors of the Traditional Text can be found anywhere on the planet, just like no legitimate ancestral fossils can be traced to the Cambrian explosion. Which is to say, just like the fossils in the Cambrian explosion, the manuscripts of the Traditional Text just suddenly appeared, without even the whisper of manuscript ancestors.

So in other words, POOF!, one moment the Traditional Text wasn't there, then PRESTO!, a few hundred years later, so the story goes, suddenly the Traditional Text appears out of thin air, utterly obliterating the true text of the New Testament, and then somehow radiates all over the world in an abrupt and universal saltation, and all without leaving even a tiny, miniscule trace of the conspiracy. This is beyond amazing, for somehow this monolithic Traditional Text -- it should be noted that the uniformity, the monolithicity, of the Traditional Text suddenly instantiating itself due to an ecclesiastical conspiracy all over the known world in a moment of time, only stretches the credulity of the mind of those who actually possess a sound and uncluttered mind to begin with, which is to say, this massive and amazing conspiracy only stretches the credulity of the mind in non kool-aid drinkers -- yet somehow, according to the magicians of the CT, this monolithic Traditional Text INSTANTANEOUSLY wipes out and replaces the Critical Text -- the true autographa, according to the magicians -- in one fell swoop in virtually every known geographical province in civilization in a tiny and miraculous slice of time. Somehow. Truly, truly, utterly amazing.

Apparently the God of Israel who neither slumbers nor sleeps must have been slumbering and sleeping and therefore unable to protect his true written word, for one day the Critical Text was here, the next it was wiped out all over the world in a single torrential blitzkrieg by the Traditional Text. Instantly. And without a trace.

For the record, that's just how the story goes according to the magicians of the Critical Text, and they can prove it with their INFERRED mythical clades and their INFERRED imaginary genealogies and their INFERRED vapor manuscripts and their INFERRED ghost lineages and text types, all of which exist only in their own deluded imaginations, if only your mind has been anesthetized and you are therefore kool-aid addicted enough to follow them.

Believe it or not, millions and millions and millions of grown men and women are ingesting this fantasy every day, a fantasy and a fairy tale which is nothing less than an illusion, the illusion of a "bible" based on the ever mythical and ever changing Critical Text and the magicians who keep recycling it for the next show, which is the next sale.

Indeed, just as only weak, darkened minds buy into the INFERRENCES of evolutionism, so only weak, darkened minds buy into the INFERRENCES of the magicians of the Critical Text.

Of course, there is an alternative to these two illusions, to these two magic tricks. Namely, if the phyla in the Cambrian explosion were actually created by God after their own kind, then the global radiation and saltation of those phyla in the Cambrian explosion makes perfect sense. Likewise, if the uniquely uniform and monolithic Traditional Text is the direct offspring of the true autographa, then the universal radiation and saltation of the massive numbers of manuscripts of the Traditional Text throughout the known world in a mere blip of time also makes perfect sense. At least for those who possess critical thinking skills. But I'll address this issue more substantially in the demonstrations, such as from geography, archaeology, history, doctrine, and other empirical measures. And remember that word, "EMPIRICAL", for that word is like the plague to evolutionists and modern biblical textual critics. As you will clearly and unmistakably see.

BASIC BIBLE INSPIRATION - TOC

In the meantime, forget about where the Holy Spirit was during the composition of the New Testament, for the Holy Spirit doesn't figure in any way, shape or form in the praxis of the modern biblical textual critic. But then, that's only natural, since the Holy Spirit likewise doesn't actually indwell any of them (Romans 8:9).

You see, according to the unregenerate magicians of the Critical Text, the Holy Spirit didn't know that the pool was called "Bethesda", as archaeology has conclusively corroborated (and as only an eyewitness would have known about, by the way), and, according to the magicians of the Critical Text, the Holy Spirit didn't know that the Sea of Galilee is actually up north in Galilee, and not down south in Judea as the manuscripts of the CT avow, or that Nazareth was also up north in Galilee and not down south in Judea as the manuscripts of the CT assert, nor, according to the magicians, did the Holy Spirit know that Jesus died supernaturally as he promised, rather than being killed by someone with a spear as the corrupt manuscripts of the CT avow, and even though he actually gave Jesus the words of his prayers, yet -- again, according to the kool-aid dispensers -- the Holy Spirit didn't know that Jesus did NOT pray to keep the disciples OUT of Satan's power, but rather asked the Father to keep the disciples WITHIN Satan's power as the depraved manuscripts of the CT avow, et cetera, et cetera, AD INFINITUM. For this is not EVEN the tip of the iceberg. Not even, as we will certainly, demonstrably, experimentally, empirically see. And note: these and the legions of other blunders are not merely INFERRED, but are rather EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS. AS. WE. WILL. SEE.

Alas, the heresies and blasphemies of the Critical Text and the "bibles" which are based on it are palpable in the regenerated spirits of the truly born again. Yet the truth is, so many people today who profess to be Christians know nothing of the new birth, nor of how radical the true new birth truly is. So briefly, and apropos of this discussion, suffice it to say that there isn't a genuinely born again Christian anywhere on the surface of this earth who, having been made aware of the distinction and claiming to know the facts, would accept a "bible" which omits "Theos", or "God", in 1 Timothy 3:16, nor of the many other blunders and heresies in modern "bibles" and the Critical Text. Not one, after seeing the distinctions and claiming to know the facts, and anyone who disagrees with that only demonstrates that he is himself utterly clueless of the new birth and of how radical the true new birth truly is. Absolutely, utterly clueless. He knows nothing whatsoever about how JEALOUS the Holy Spirit is for the glory of Jesus Christ, nor of how the Holy Spirit actually supernaturally communicates truth to those whom he indwells, of how the Holy Spirit LITERALLY bears supernatural witness to his own words in the text, such as GOD in 1 Timothy 3:16, as well as -- in this case in particular -- providing overwhelming empirical evidence on top of it, actual empirical evidence such as I've written about many years before concerning this verse HERE. In other words, in that article I actually deal with EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS, unlike the outright lies and fantasies and illusions and naked assertions of modern biblical textual critics in this verse... and many others.

Yes, all you unregenerate vipers like Metzger and Hort and Iscariot, the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears witness to GOD in 1 Timothy 3:16 in those whom he truly indwells, and the fact that you don't know that, Caiaphas, says it all. In fact, all that have been genuinely born again have EXPERIENCED the EXACT SAME INSPIRATION in reading the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bestowed upon the original authors of the New Testament in writing the Scriptures, especially in definitive passages like this one, and there is no more definitive passage in all the Bible than 1 Timothy 3:16. Not one.

Furthermore, the actual empirical evidence -- empirical evidence which Metzger and the magicians of the CT have literally lied about, which is a habitual practice with these wicked hypocrites -- yet the actual empirical evidence so overwhelmingly and conclusively corroborates GOD in this verse, as my aforementioned linked article demonstrates in spades, HERE, that only a radically dishonest and radically evil soul would refuse to admit it. Certainly not one single person born of the Spirit would. Not one single regenerate person on this earth who is JEALOUS for the glory of Jesus Christ would accept any other reading after seeing the distinction. And there are other verses which are just as definitive, as I will show.

Tell you what, let the magicians of the Critical Text come forth and try to refute GOD in 1 Timothy 3:16 with ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS. They can't do so, and they know it, which is why they resort to outright lies and naked, wholly unfounded assertions, along with blatant half-truths and deceitful inferences and complete fabrications and misrepresentations, none of which can withstand a moment's empirical, verifiable scrutiny. Accordingly, every word they've written on this verse will be nothing but an epithet on their gravestones over the lake of fire for all eternity. For as I will show, deceit and misdirection is standard operating procedure for these wicked proponents of the Critical Text, and there are MANY more examples of this very kind, as we shall see.

In fact, other very diligent textual investigators have in the past few years been meticulously documenting the outright lies and misrepresentations of proponents of the Critical Text in passages such as the last twelve verses of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, and more, in which the lies and misrepresentations are not only significant, but patently willful. As I said, all of these lies and misrepresentations will be nothing but epithets on their fateful seal over the lake of fire in eternity for their intentional corruption of the written word of God.

In any case, moving on, in contrast to the magic of evolutionism and the magic and sleight of hand of modern biblical textual criticism, it couldn't possibly be -- could it? -- that the monolithic Traditional Text just happens to be both root and branch, as represented by hordes of manuscripts throughout the known and yet very diverse geographic world, just like the Cambrian explosion as represented by fossils of complex phyla throughout the known world can't possibly be the result of God, especially the God of Genesis, could it?. Nah, can't be... at least not in the minds of the unregenerate.

In fact, that is exactly what it is, so let me go ahead and settle it for you right here at the start, before I even demonstrate it. Namely, as I will plainly and bluntly show, the Traditional Text appeared so suddenly because it sprang forth from the grass roots of the real authors of the New Testament, from the actual autographa, and did not in any way evolve, but was in fact the true baseline of the universal radiation and saltation of manuscripts all over the known geographic world in an extremely rapid period of time, just like the phyla in the Cambrian explosion appeared so suddenly because they were each created by God after their own kind, and also did not in any way evolve, but rather radiated and instantiated suddenly in a globe-wide saltation. Of course, to fend off the kool-aid drinkers who can't think critically, I suppose I ought to clarify that I am using the word "evolve" to refer to macro-evolution, and not micro-evolution or adaptation or speciation, or any other conjured term of that sort. Not that any evolutionist would even know that selective breeding and speciation go all the way back to the book of Genesis in the first place. Such as ringstraked cattle and mules in the wilderness, for example.

But now, let's drill down a bit.

APOLOGY FOR THE DEMONSTRATIONS - TOC

As of the early part of this century, as far as I know, I was the only person alive who had collated Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in significant portions of the New Testament. These two manuscripts, of course, are the primary manuscripts that make up the Critical Text. I am thus intimately familiar with the text of these two witnesses, which means I am intimately familiar with the UTTER DEPRAVITY of these two witnesses, for no two primary witnesses anywhere in the entire pantheon of biblical Greek manuscripts known to man are as completely, categorically, blasphemously DEPRAVED as these two witnesses, as I will demonstrate in spades. None. Yet without these two manuscripts, the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it would vanish into thin air, just like the huckster and illusionist it is.

Moreover, I collated these two manuscripts by hand from printed copies of the text of each manuscript, well before they were available on computer, much less online. However, these two utterly depraved monstrosities have now been widely disseminated in computer format, and are publicly available online, so that there is no longer any excuse for someone who wants to know how corrupt these two liars really and truly are. Not that there was ever any excuse to begin with, but you can't get a kool-aid drinker off the juice very easily, and most of them have too much invested in their sullied reputations of error and iniquity in this matter to ever turn back now. And they'll take those sullied reputations with their souls all the way into the lake of fire unless they repent and become genuinely born again before it's too late.

Before giving the demonstration, in which more than NINETY examples will be fully expounded, note at the outset that I will not be inserting Greek into the examples, but only their English equivalents. The reason for this is simple: one, for those who can't read Greek, exhibiting the examples in Greek, even next to the English, would only be distracting and probably intimidating, not to mention taking up a lot more space and time. Secondly, for those who can read Greek, all you have to do is look it up if you want to examine the individual elements of the Greek. Real simple. Moreover, if you're not convinced that the Greek of B and Aleph is being accurately represented here, then go inspect the horse's mouth for yourself, for the images of both B and Aleph have been online for a number of years now.

TEXT TYPES DEMYTHOLOGIZED - TOC

I will dispense with the nomenclature of dividing up various text types within, when referring to the Traditional Text, for all of the putative text types within the Traditional Text itself are merely stemmatics, cladistic INFERRENCES fabricated by the magicians of the CT, and are not actual text types by nature. In other words, not empirical. For example, modern textual critics INFER the Byzantine Text (although this denomination can be confused or equated with the Traditional Text, but I deny its geographical limitations, so I will not use the term), INFER the Caesarean Text, INFER the Western Text, et cetera, when referring to the bulk or to portions of the bulk of the extant Greek manuscripts, all of which, even if there are only mostly minor differences in some of them -- differences which are not even in the same galaxy of the discrepancies and discontinuities of the manuscripts of the Critical Text -- so that these minor differences do not legitimately even begin to constitute any valid text type, even with a few obvious cultural alterations in random manuscripts here and there, almost none of which ever affect the meaning, unlike B and Aleph and the Critical Text. Nor do grammatical conventions intrude into this fiction. For example, to use the most famous convention of this type, the insertion or omission of the moveable nu does not a text type make. Et cetera.

So I utterly deny their INFERRED text types altogether, text types INFERRED by cladistics, and especially do I deny the INFERRED Alexandrian text type in the Greek as comprised primarily of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, for as I will openly demonstrate, B and Aleph are too catastrophically different from each other in the Greek to sustain a text type.

The magicians of the CT may scoff at this, but that's all they can do is scoff, or nakedly assert, for that is what they are best at -- naked assertions. Empirical evidence is another matter entirely, for that is an animal which is utterly unknown to modern biblical textual critics upholding the Critical Text. Nevertheless, I will empirically demonstrate that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph did not even REMOTELY descend from a common Greek ancestor. Not even REMOTELY. They both perhaps descended from a common Egyptian version, written perhaps in a Coptic dialect, portions of them having to thus be reverse engineered from the Coptic into the Greek, as Herman Hoskier strongly suggested and methodically and systematically demonstrated, but neither manuscript even comes close to a common Greek ancestor, which only militates even more for their extreme corruption, as I will conclusively demonstrate, whereas the Traditional Text was derived explicitly from Greek copies, as their monolithicity unfailingly shows, unlike the catastrophic and immeasurable differences in the Greek text between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.

The magicians of the CT may scream that they never claimed that B and Aleph were derived from the same or a similar Greek exemplar. Fair enough. But they cannot have it both ways. They group the other text types by GREEK MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY. Therefore, they must use a just balance. Ergo, if they're going to group the other manuscripts by GREEK MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY, then they must do the same with B and Aleph.

Accordingly, they cannot group these two manuscripts into a unified text type BASED ON THE GREEK, as I will prove beyond the shadow of any doubt. And consequently, they cannot legitimately use those two manuscripts, B and Aleph, which differ radically and catastrophically from each other IN THE GREEK, as a hammer against the unified and monolithic Traditional Text which DOES agree substantially IN THE GREEK.

In other words, the testimony of two habitual liars, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, who disagree with each other relentlessly both in form and substance, cannot be mythically bound together as a legitimate testimony against the unified testimony of the Traditional Text, which is precisely what the magicians of the Critical Text attempt to do. That is, just as no decent lawyer would place two contradictory witnesses on the stand, so no person of any integrity would accept the profoundly different testimony of B and Aleph. This will be plainly demonstrated in the examples below, for unlike the modern biblical textual critic, I traffic in empirical evidence. The magicians of the Critical Text traffic in naked assertions, imaginary clades, and fictional text types and ghost lineages, which all the kool-aid drinkers weak-mindedly mistake for fact.

Based on this standard, the magicians of the CT cannot empirically prove a single one of these INFERRED text types in the Greek, especially in the hapless and arbitrary way that the magicians of the CT clade them with their selective readings and subjective categories, so that, in the main, it is those manuscripts which are representative of the bulk of the extant Greek manuscripts to which I am referring as the Traditional Text, which is an EMPIRICAL text type occurring INNATELY and INHERENTLY, a NATURAL ENTITY all by itself, which is as different from the INFERRED text types of modern biblical textual critics as a lifeless chemical is from a living organism.

Nor am I equating the Traditional Text with the putative Majority Text, which is itself a farce, also contrived by the imaginary clades of textual critics, and by rabidly inaccurate and incomplete data, but I won't deal with that particular in this article. Suffice it to say that the Traditional Text, as I am referring to it, is the monolithic, uniform text of the mass of Greek manuscripts that permeated the early New Testament age, confirmed by the verifiable data of testimony, archaeology, geography, history, and other empirical means, immovable and monolithic in the main, with minor differences due to cultural variations or small errors in a few random manuscripts here or there, but yet, on the whole, a uniform and monolithic text with an instantaneous radiation and saltation in the known world at that time. This is the true text which all true Bibles have been primarily based on.

Within this saltation, there is also the Textus Receptus, which the King James Bible is based on, and which is the text of the Reformers and the Puritans, as well as the entire Protestant church up until 1881. Yet unlike the Critical Text, the Textus Receptus was compiled and codified naturally by the simple force of the witness of the Traditional Text, and not by the INFERENCES of imaginary cladistical analyses with no empirical evidence behind them, so that the Textus Receptus is therefore based primarily -- not entirely, but almost entirely -- on the overwhelming number of extant Greek manuscripts, so that the Textus Receptus is, in the main, simply representative of the Traditional Text in general. And while I could also show that the relatively few minority readings in the Textus Receptus likewise properly belong to the Traditional Text, I'm not going to get into the minutia of the compilation of the Textus Receptus because it is totally irrelevant to the current matter. What IS relevant to the current matter is exposing the fraudulent hybrid and evolutionary character of the Critical Text and the two debauched manuscripts it is principally based on, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.

So suffice it to say that while the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are both assembled texts, and therefore neither the Textus Receptus nor the Critical Text can properly be called a text type, yet the Textus Receptus is based on the empirical evidence of the Traditional Text. The Critical Text is based on imaginary clades and capricious arbitrations, which are in turn based principally on two manuscripts which disagree with each other as much as, or more than, they agree. Furthermore, the Textus Receptus and the Traditional Text it is based on are -- like the Holy Spirit himself -- JEALOUS for the glory of Jesus Christ, whereas the Critical Text and the manuscripts it is based on are not, but are in fact degrading to the glory of Jesus Christ. Watch and see.

Naturally, like moths on light bulbs, I've seen a few clowns pull out two different editions of the Textus Receptus and try to make large hay out of the extremely minor differences between the two editions of the TR, when those extremely minor differences aren't even in the same universe of the monstrous discrepancies and blunders and discontinuities and contradictions and blasphemies among the manuscripts of the Critical Text, as you are about to see, not even in the same universe, so that instead of making hay, all these clowns are doing is making fools of themselves by straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

But I'll let that go for now as well, since my aim in this publication is not to defend every word in the Textus Receptus, or to demonstrate that a particular minority reading is empirically supported so as to legitimately list it as an inclusive member of the Traditional Text, but rather my aim in this publication is to demolish and destroy the Satanic presentation of the FALSE Jesus of Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it by demonstrating how utterly depraved and empirically inaccurate these witnesses are. That is my primary focus in this publication.

Therefore, to conclude this branch, it is enough to say that the Traditional Text itself is not a contrived text, like the various imaginary text types of the modern magicians of the CT, but rather, the Traditional Text is a monolithic text type in and of itself by mere virtue of its own natural empirical existence, by virtue of its massive numbers and by virtue of its instantaneous radiation and saltation all over the known world in a virtual moment of time, and by a uniformity that spontaneously materialized and reflexively stabilized like no other literature in the history of the world. In other words, the Traditional Text is not a contrived text type created by the INFERENCES of fictional clades fabricated out of thin air based on selective readings by the vivid imaginations of blind textual critics, like the Critical Text and the manuscripts it is based on, but is rather, to use a colloquial term, a force of nature all on its own, based simply on the fact that the Traditional Text arose and radiated all over the known world solely and utterly apart from any contrivance or calculated mechanisms of men.

In reality, of course, the Traditional Text is not so much a force of nature as a force of God, who in the Traditional Text was honoring his only begotten Son's promise: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35)

And there is ample evidence -- actual empirical evidence -- historical, archaeological, geographical, early testimonial, doctrinal, and more -- to corroborate the Traditional Text against all comers, including Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph and the Critical Text. To say it another way, there is empirical evidence for the Traditional Text, and for the Textus Receptus based on it, as will be conclusively demonstrated. There is none for the Critical Text or the manuscripts it is based on, for the Critical Text is nothing but a mirage, an illusion, definitively so, as we shall see, just like the imaginary ancestors and ghost lineages of transitional forms for the Cambrian explosion.

THE FOUR AXIOMS - TOC

So I will proceed by presenting the four axioms of this demonstration, and then I will substantiate them... with actual hard, empirical, verifiable evidence, a thing which evolutionists and modern biblical textual critics know nothing about.

AXIOM 1: The Traditional Text is the true text of the New Testament, which fully accounts for its comprehensive radiation and saltation throughout the known geographic world in a virtual moment of time, and for its persistent and resilient uniformity and monolithicity throughout the centuries, unlike the text of Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and the Critical Text, all three of which are radically different from each other, and all three of which lay dormant and unseen for some eighteen hundred years.

AXIOM 2: The Traditional Text is the baseline text which B and Aleph struggled to adhere to in the overwhelming number of instances where B and Aleph differ fundamentally from each other, consequently forcing either B or Aleph to side with the Traditional Text in opposition to each other in those multitudinous instances where B and Aleph diverged, the one from the other, thus demonstrating conclusively that B and Aleph are both LATER texts than the Traditional Text, and that the empirical evidence from archaeology, geography, history, and other areas unanimously supports this conclusion, thereby further corroborating the prima facie accuracy and dominance and superiority of the Traditional Text, and therefore that the Critical Text which is based principally on B and Aleph is accordingly a hybrid and illusory text fabricated strictly out of inferences and storied fantasies and imaginations, just like evolutionism.

AXIOM 3: Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are radically and catastrophically different from each other throughout, the Critical Text therefore being mostly only a monstrous HYBRID of the two, thus demonstrating conclusively that B and Aleph were not only NOT copied from the same exemplar, but further, that B and Aleph did not even remotely descend from a common Greek ghost ancestor -- perhaps a common Coptic versional ancestor, but not a Greek ancestor by any means -- thus further demonstrating conclusively that B and Aleph cannot legitimately be considered a genuine or valid Greek text type.

AXIOM 4: The ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. That is, since the Holy Spirit INFALLIBLY inspired the text of the New Testament INFALLIBLY, therefore the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. QED. And thus any empirical, verifiable errors found in a particular text CANNOT be the OLDEST text, but is rather a LATER perversion of the truth. Accordingly, since archaeology, geography, history, doctrine, and other empirical platforms unanimously corroborate the Traditional Text and simultaneously repudiate Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and the Critical Text when these are in disagreement with the Traditional Text in these empirically verifiable platforms, therefore the Traditional Text is the OLDER text, and B, Aleph, and the Critical Text are LATER perversions of the truth.

OPPOSING THE FOUR AXIOMS - TOC

Note very carefully: the architects of the Critical Text assert the EXACT OPPOSITE POSITION of the fourth axiom, in that the architects of the Critical Text EXPLICITLY STATE and CATEGORICALLY TESTIFY that the authors of the New Testament -- and by extension the Holy Spirit -- in fact COMMITTED INUMERABLE BLUNDERS and FOISTED REAMS OF ERRORS into their original writings, ERRORS AND BLUNDERS which are EMPRICALLY, VERIFIABLY EXHIBITED in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, which is why -- and remember this -- which is fundamentally why two of their own (supposedly) rigorous axioms are, "the shorter reading is to be preferred" and also, "the harder reading is to be preferred". Remember that, for it will be important when you see the demonstrations.

So once again, the architects of the Critical Text deny the fourth axiom above and rather EXPLICITLY STATE and CATEGORICALLY TESTIFY in their commentaries that the original authors of the New Testament made ERRORS AND BLUNDERS throughout their writings. These statements and implications will be EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATED. Consequently, according to this brood of vipers, the ERRONEOUS text is the OLDEST text. QED.

Indeed, this principle -- that the original authors of the New Testament INFESTED their writings with ERROR -- is the FOUNDATION of the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it -- THE FOUNDATION -- and that is an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT, which you will see demonstrated systematically, for as stated before, according to the architects of the Critical Text, the authors of the New Testament were mostly -- practically speaking -- dumb, dense, stupid, and almost illiterate imbeciles, for that is the EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE CHARACTER of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. AS. YOU. WILL. SEE. And thus knowing this, there isn't a genuinely born again Christian on earth or in heaven who would follow these serpents or read their "bibles". Not a single, solitary one.

ESTABLISHING THE BASIS OF THE FOUR AXIOMS - TOC

John Burgon, who carefully collated Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in the last part of the nineteenth century, made this statement about these two manuscripts: "How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codices B and Aleph... it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. Now this is a plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince himself." John Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark, p 77-78

"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." Mark 14:56

I will also soon demonstrate to the hilt these following words which Burgon went on to say: “Aleph B and D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” John Burgon, The Revision Revised, p 16

Herman Hoskier, who meticulously collated B and Aleph and a host of other manuscripts in the early twentieth century, actually DOCUMENTED over three thousand differences between B and Aleph in the gospels alone, and they are on record, which I have. THREE THOUSAND DIFFERENCES between B and Aleph in the gospels alone. But Hoskier did these two manuscripts a favor by ONLY documenting the three thousand plus differences, for Hoskier likewise ENUMBERATED AND OMITTED SEVENTEEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DIFFERENCES which he DIDN'T tabulate. Those differences, while very much real, were slightly less significant than the other categories of differences, and thus had Hoskier tabulated and documented ALL of the REAL, ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between B and Aleph, only in the gospels alone, mind you, then the number would have simply been STAGGERING, as in MANY TIMES MORE than the THREE THOUSAND PLUS differences between B and Aleph in the gospels alone. That is also a matter of PLAIN, EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT.

However, the ostrich has nothing on the modern biblical textual critic, for a few, at least, of the magicians of the Critical Text are aware of this phenomenon documented by Burgon, Hoskier and others, but, like the ostrich, they ignore it, they ignore this ACTUAL EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE with its searing implications, just like the evolutionist ignores the searing implications of the sudden appearance of highly complex arthropods in the Cambrian explosion. Albeit, in the same way as the evolutionist employs cladistical analysis and other contrived mechanisms to make these searing implications magically disappear -- POOF! -- so the modern magicians of the Critical Text do the exact same thing, for in the mere blink of an eye, those THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENCES between B and Aleph suddenly vanish into thin air. PRESTO! CHANGO! Gone.

Have another shot of kool-aid, brother, and if you can't spare a dime, it's on the house... the whole house of cards of modern biblical textual criticism.

PRELUDE TO THE DEMONSTRATIONS - TOC

In the broad stroke, Burgon stated the question very appropriately: "Strange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the whole of the controversy may be reduced to the following narrow issue: Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvellous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses, and, strange to say, also amongst themselves?" John Burgon, The Traditional Text, p 16-17.

Accordingly, this is what we will now examine, namely, some of the myriad differences between B and Aleph, as well as the sordid and literally blasphemous and heretical depravity of these two witnesses, and I will show you where B, contra Aleph, follows the TT here, and then where Aleph, contra B, follows the TT there, and where the CT consequently follows B and the TT, contra Aleph, here, and where the CT consequently follows Aleph and the TT, contra B, there, with the twain -- B And Aleph -- rarely agreeing together in these myriads of places, while one or the other is simultaneously forced in so many instances to follow the Traditional Text, so that you may see, firstly, that the Traditional Text is the genuine baseline and root, and secondly, just how utterly convoluted and artificial the monstrously hybrid Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it truly are.

THE DEMONSTRATION - PART I - GENERAL - TOC

***    "And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about GALILEE." Mark 1:28
***    "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Luke 1:26

Aleph = JUDEA, Vat B = GALILEE = TT. These two instances are of course two of a number of bald geographical blunders by Aleph, so B and the CT had no choice but to agree with the TT in these two readings of GALILEE, since that is where Nazareth and Capernaum are actually empirically geographically located. But according to Aleph, Luke, Mark, and the Holy Spirit didn't know that. So Aleph DISAGREES with B in these two verses, whereas B and the CT agree with the TT.

It should also be noted that B and Aleph DISAGREE in their spelling THROUGHOUT, in literally too many places to count, legions, such as in proper names, with words like "Galilee", "John", "Pilate", et cetera, along with reams of other spelling differences between these two corrupt witnesses. So that this fact, along with all of the other textual differences between them, which you are going to see demonstrated indefinitely, empirically shuts the door on any assertion that they were copied from the same or a similar Greek exemplar, or a similar Greek ancestor, regardless of how many generations are INFERRED.

In addition to the above two examples, BOTH Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph make the SAME GEOGRAPHICAL BLUNDER in Luke 4:44, as follows.

***    "And he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE. And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the LAKE OF GENNESARET." Luke 4:44-5:1

Vat B, Aleph = JUDEA. Like Aleph above, both manuscripts err in plain contradiction of EMPIRICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL FACT, especially since both sides of Luke 4:44 -- the verses preceding and the verses following -- are speaking SPECIFICALLY about GALILEE, not JUDEA, for Capernaum and Gennesaret and the Sea of Galilee are actually IN GALILEE, which is where the entire narrative in these verses is taking place. How utterly pathetic that modern "bibles" follow this pulsating ignorance. In fact, when I see a creationist using an ESV or a NIV or a NASB pontificating about standing on the word of God, my reply is that he is either ignorant of these facts or a liar, one of the two, and not one iota different than a theistic evolutionist, who is simply  a liar, and blind. Not one iota different. And we have barely started.

In the meantime, if you come across a PROFESSING Christian who won't admit that this is a plain geographical blunder by both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, as well as the "bibles" that follow them, then just recognize the caliber of person you're dealing with and do as the Lord Jesus said and leave the unregenerate heretic alone. He is a blind leader -- or follower -- of the blind, and they'll all fall into the pit together. Especially since even the architects of the CT admit that this reading is an ERROR, which they believe Luke actually committed. More on this topic anon.

These geographical blunders by B and Aleph are only one of a legion of confirmations of their LATE and ERRONEOUS text, in opposition to the EARLY and ACCURATE text of the Traditional Text, as you will see over and over and over again, for the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text, even as the Holy Spirit HIMSELF testifies INFALLIBLY in those whom he truly indwells.

So as the EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE demonstrates, the scribes of B and Aleph were utterly ignorant of the geography of Israel and its surrounding locales (and there are more inaccuracies than just these that have so far been exhibited), so if you believe that these two witnesses and the Critical Text that is based on them are a reflection of the authors of the New Testament, then you also believe that the authors of the New Testament, and by extension the Holy Spirit, were likewise ignorant of the geography of Israel and its surrounding locales. QED. Which means you know nothing whatsoever about the Holy Spirit or the true new birth. Nothing whatsoever.

***    "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD, BUT THAT THOU SHOULDEST KEEP THEM from the evil." John 17:15

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph, P66 = TT. In other words, Vaticanus B literally renders this verse: "I DO NOT PRAY THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE THEM FROM THE EVIL"

Blunders of this nature, homoeoteleuton, along with grammatical solecisms and other types of ridiculous gaffes, including outright blasphemies and heresies, are legion in B and Aleph. So according to Vaticanus B, neither John nor the Holy Spirit knew that Jesus implicitly prayed for the disciples to remain in the power of Satan. Obviously, Vaticanus B DISAGREES with Aleph in this verse, whereas Aleph and the CT agree with the TT, thus also adopting the LONGER text and the EASIER text. For now, note that Metzger and the NET Notes are silent about this corruption. More anon.

But Vat B isn't the only one which is confused in this passage in John. Now it's Aleph's turn...

***    "Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH." John 17:17

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. Not only does Aleph omit this portion, but its reading is nonsensical, because it retains the verb "IS" at the end, so that Aleph actually reads, "Sanctify them through they truth, IS." Just one of a number of senseless readings in these two decadent witnesses.

This kind of sloppiness and carelessness is PANDEMIC in these two manuscripts THROUGHOUT.

***    "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the PROPHET..." Matthew 13:35

Aleph = PROPHET ISAIAH, Vat B = PROPHET = TT. Once again, B and the CT had no choice but to follow the TT, for this quotation in Matthew comes from Psalm 78:2, not from Isaiah. But the scribe of Aleph didn't know that, being almost illiterate in Greek himself, just like the scribe of B. So according to Aleph, neither Matthew nor the Holy Spirit knew that this verse came from the Psalms and not from Isaiah. As usual, Aleph DISAGREES with B in this verse, whereas B and the CT agree with the TT.

On the other hand, Vat B, Aleph, and the CT all three make this EXACT SAME BLUNDER in Mark 1:2-3. Observe.

***    "As it is written in the PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Mark 1:2-3

Vat B, Aleph = PROPHET ISAIAH. Both manuscripts egregiously err here, and so do the "bibles" that are based on the CT. For in Mark 1:2-3 it is not only Isaiah that is being quoted, but Malachi as well. Thus, the reading of Aleph, B, and the Critical Text is yet again EMPIRICALLY, VERIFIABLY FALSE. So also yet again, the Traditional Text is clearly the OLDER text, for the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text, at least for those who believe that the Holy Spirit INFALLIBLY inspired the text of the New Testament INFALLIBLY. And for those who don't believe that, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for them, for they are utterly oblivious to the power and ways of the Holy Spirit. Utterly.

***    "And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way THEREFORE, AND WASHED, AND CAME seeing." John 9:7

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph, P75, P66 = TT. Vat B stands ALONE among Greek manuscripts in omitting this clause. This kind of omission is a routine occurrence in Vaticanus B, as we will see plenty more of. To expose the variety of differences among the papyri and the uncials, P75, P66, Aleph, and Vat B ALL spell the word "SILOAM" differently. This type of diversity occurs throughout. So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph again, and Aleph and P75 and P66 and the HYBRID CT of course follow the BASELINE TT here, thus once again adopting the LONGER and EASIER reading.

And while I won't get into the commentaries of the architects of the CT too much, note that in this verse both Metzger and the NET Notes are utterly silent about this omission. This is on purpose, for their neglect in mentioning the myriad depravities of B and Aleph is systematic. Anything to conceal the truth of the rampant corruption of these two witnesses. I will visit this again at times, but it would take an entire book to address the lies, half-truths, misrepresentations, naked assertions, and flat out omissions of evidence in the commentaries of the architects of the Critical Text. This is only one omission of legions. They're never shy about commenting on the textual evidence when it suits their purpose. Only when it doesn't, when the textual corruption trumpets the appalling decadence of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. Along with the decadence of the papyri. Beware.

***    "And he charged him to tell no man: but go, AND SHEW THYSELF TO THE PRIEST, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." Luke 5:14

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. All of the gospels have been perverted exceedingly by B and Aleph, but Luke and John are the worst, because of doctrinal tampering, as we will see. The omission by Aleph in this case, as in reams of others, cannot be ascribed to homoeoteleuton, but is simply a habit, a characteristic, of the carelessness of the scribes of B and Aleph. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and Vat B and the CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading.

Get used to DISAGREEMENTS between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, for they are endless, as will be conclusively demonstrated, and we have only just barely begun. Metzger and the NET Notes are silent about this omission.

***    "And THE ANGEL came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN." Luke 1:28

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. So Vat B omits BOTH highlights above, whereas Aleph agrees with the Traditional Text, albeit changing the word order somewhat. The CT and modern "bibles" foolishly follow Vaticanus B in these distortions. So once again, Vaticanus B DISAGREES with Sinaiticus Aleph, a habitual occurrence between these two witnesses. And as will be demonstrated over and over and over again, the HYBRID CT is built on the sheer caprice of the architects of the CT, without a SHRED of EMPIRICAL discipline whatsoever. Not a shred.

***    "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, lest his deeds should be reproved." John 3:20

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT, P66 = TT (+ conflation). That is, P66 adds to the end of the verse, "because his deeds are evil." So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and Vat B and the CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER and EASIER reading. ZIG and ZAG. According to the magicians of the CT, axioms aren't always axioms. And thus the HYBRID CT is the rope-a-dope of biblical textual criticism, always bouncing back into itself like a drunken sailor. And once again, Metzger and the NET Notes are a no-show with respect to this depravity by Aleph. Now watch the very next verse...

***    "BUT HE THAT DOETH TRUTH COMETH TO THE LIGHT, THAT HIS DEEDS MAY BE MADE MANIFEST, that they are wrought in God." John 3:21

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P75 = TT, P66 = TT (partially). So here is how Aleph reads literally from the previous verse into this one, "...LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULD BE REPROVED, THAT THEY ARE WROUGHT IN GOD." It's possible that the scribe of Aleph knew the Latin term, non sequitur, but even if he did, he certainly didn't know Greek. P66 is by no means guiltless in this verse, as in so many others, for P66 omits "THAT HIS DEEDS MAY BE MANIFEST".

So you can see the confusion that Vat B, Aleph, and the papyri are continuously engaged in THROUGHOUT. None of this is even hinted at by Metzger or the NET Notes, of course. Onward, kool-aid drinkers of the world.

Vat B and the CT once again follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER and EASIER reading.

***    "HE ANSWERED AND SAID, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?" John 9:36

Vat B, P75 = OMITS, Aleph = TT, P66 = TT (partially). Though Aleph places "LORD" before "WHO IS HE", which the CT does not follow, but rather follows the BASELINE Traditional Text. But the real trouble here is with Vat B, for not only does B omit this clause, but its illiterate scribe also added "HE SAID" after "WHO IS HE", (so does P66), thus totally incinerating any plain sense of the text, and thus once again demonstrating how ignorant the scribe of B was in the Greek language. Aleph also has some Greek warps here and in the succeeding verses, as we'll see, but I'll pass them by for the moment. So again, Vat B fundamentally DISAGREES TWICE with Aleph (an ad infinitum occurrence throughout, proof of which follows ad infinitum), so Aleph (fully) and the HYBRID CT (partially) follow the TT in this verse. They could do no other considering the mess that B left them.

Yet the CT, ignorantly and foolishly followed by modern "bibles", actually follows NEITHER Vat B nor Aleph here, NOR the Traditional Text fully, but only partially, for the CT omits the first part of the clause, "HE ANSWERED" -- an Aramaism which only further corroborates an EARLY Traditional Text -- deserting Vat B, Aleph and the TT altogether. So just be advised that this patchwork approach is yet another frequent praxis of the Critical Text, but if you're a kool-aid drinker, that won't set off any alarm bells for you.

But to prove the point of B's debauchery (and P75's debauchery as well) and their scribes' infertility in Greek, here is the entire verse, literally, as Vaticanus B and P75 render it, "AND WHO IS HE, HE SAID, LORD, THAT I MIGHT BELIEVE IN HIM."

My, what wordsmiths the scribes of B and Aleph have shown themselves to be, as you'll see MUCH more of. Eat your heart out, Homer. Read the previous verse for even better context, and you will see just how bizarre B and P75 are here (and P66, in a moment), which is standard operating procedure for the scribes of B and Aleph, for Vat B and Aleph are INFESTED with these types of nonsensical readings, especially in the Greek. I say again, Aleph and B are INFESTED with these kinds of nonsensical readings, especially in the Greek. Yet according to the architects of the Critical Text, this linguistic incompetence and ineptitude is the product of the original authors of the New Testament, who therefore must truly have been the dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate scribes that B and Aleph make them out to be. At least if you're drinking the kool-aid.

To top if off, in case anyone is foolish enough to side with the papyri against the Traditional Text -- albeit the papyri side with the TT against B and Aleph in throngs of places, this hybrid witness of the papyri thereby revealing their corruption to be no different than the corruption of B and Aleph -- yet here is the exact literal reading of the entire verse of P66, "HE ANSWERED, AND WHO IS HE, HE SAID, LORD, THAT I MIGHT BELIEVE IN HIM." Tip your hat to utter nonsense, and let the kool-aid flow.

Moreover, Metzger's squalid commentary here, along with the NET Notes, is illusory, as is the case in a preponderance of instances in these commentaries, where they very often conceal the plain depravity of B or Aleph, along with the depravity of the papyri, depending on the verse, for this particular debauchery by Vaticanus B once again goes unmentioned by Metzger and his deceitful cohorts. I warn you again: Beware, for this deception permeates their works.

The next example, only two verses later, will demonstrate the disunity and confusion by B and Aleph in this brief section of the narrative, as an illustration of how ZIG and ZAG the manuscripts deploy themselves in short little sections of the text THROUGHOUT, and of how pathetically ignorant the scribes of B and Aleph were in the Greek, for these two examples are representative of the whole.

***    "AND HE SAID, LORD, I BELIEVE. AND HE WORSHIPPED HIM." John 9:38

Aleph, P75 = OMITS, Vat B = TT. So P75 does a one-eighty and switches horses and sides with Aleph this time, whereas P75 opposed Aleph and sided with Vat B in the previous example. Are you getting this down? Because this ZIG and ZAG is par for the course. So P75 and Aleph not only omit this entire verse, but the first part of the next as well. But it's Aleph's turn to omit, for Vat B did the same in the previous portion, as shown above. But note the context: Aleph and P75 left off with Jesus' question in verse 35 not yet answered, and then Aleph and P75 simply skip over this verse where the answer is actually provided. Naturally, the whole passage in Aleph and P75 is yet again nonsensical, just like B and P66 in the above example are nonsensical. So Aleph and Vat B DISAGREE again, with Vat B and the HYBRID CT thus following the MANIFEST BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER and EASIER reading.

This ZIG and ZAG of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph -- which you will see continuously in the examples to follow -- goes on perpetually throughout the New Testament, at least up to the book of Hebrews, for Vaticanus B properly ends in the ninth chapter of Hebrews.

For those who possess clarity, therefore, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of the ZIG and ZAG of B and Aleph -- the demonstration of which has only just begun -- utterly forbids and thoroughly contradicts ANY attempt to group Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph together into a legitimate unified opponent of the BASELINE Traditional Text, and any endeavor to actually do so among those who possess these EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS will only fail, at least for all who are born of the Spirit and who have an honest and sound mind.

***    "Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to SPEAK, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel." Matthew 15:31

Vat B = HEAR, Aleph = TT. In other words, Vat B reads, "the dumb to HEAR". Uh-huh. Leave it to Vaticanus B to fabricate a miracle out of a MUTE man HEARING. Thus the utter idiocy, or dumbness, I should say, of Vaticanus B needs no explanation. But now look in the very same verse...

***    "Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, THE MAIMED TO BE WHOLE, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel." Matthew 15:31

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. This time Aleph gets it wrong in the same passage, and thus in this single verse the Critical Text deserts BOTH Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. So in case you missed it, both Aleph and Vat B DISAGREE TWICE once again in the same verse, not to mention word order and spelling differences between the two. And once again the BASELINE Traditional Text is followed.

ZIG and ZAG. Not only do B and Aleph DISAGREE, but the CT likewise does a pirouette here (one of many), deserting B in the first part of the verse and going with Aleph and the BASELINE TRADITIONAL TEXT, then deserting Aleph in the second part of the verse to go with B and ONCE AGAIN THE BASELINE TRADITIONAL TEXT. What's your pleasure, Mr. Facing-both-ways? This type of behavior by B and Aleph is pandemic. More to follow throughout the demonstrations. 

***    "And whosoever SHALL NOT RECEIVE you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Just to drive home the point of how corrupt Vaticanus B truly is, here is just one more example of LEGIONS of examples of B's inane readings, for here is how Vat B actually renders this passage: "AND WHOSOEVER YOU, NOR HEAR YOUR WORDS..."

Nor can this omission -- or tons of others -- be attributed to homoeoteleuton. Yet this manuscript, Vaticanus B, is the "best" manuscript of all according to the magicians of the Critical Text.

Of course, Aleph and the CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER and EASIER reading here. ZIG and ZAG. Don't look for Metzger or the NET Notes to make you aware of this corruption. Ad infinitum.

Speaking of inane readings in Vaticanus B, observe...

***    "The officers answered, Never man spake LIKE THIS MAN." John 7:46

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph, P66 = TT. Albeit both Aleph and P66 insert the word "spake" a second time. So Vat B gives us another of its precious assortment of jewels by rendering this verse, "THE OFFICERS ANSWERED, NEVER MAN SPAKE [LIKE]." No wonder the architects of the Critical Text think Vaticanus B is a masterpiece, with prose like that. I guess I could see it that way, too, if I was a kool-aid drinker.

Metzger assures his readers that this gross solecism was the original work of John, and hence the original work of the Holy Spirit. He would. So undoubtedly would other unregenerates, seeing as how dumb, dense, stupid, and virtually illiterate the original authors of the New Testament were in their estimation. Exact same principal as evolutionism, as already noted.

So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph again, and Aleph, P66 and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text. ZIG and ZAG. How about a nice game of Twister? Don't spill the kool-aid.

***    "THEN COMETH HE TO A CITY OF SAMARIA, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph." John 4:5

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P66, P75(mg) = TT. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and Vat B and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text in the LONGER and EASIER reading, for Aleph renders one of its legions of nonsensical sentences without it.

ZIG and ZAG. The fact is, both Aleph and Vat B are very troubled THROUGOUT the gospel of John in particular. Want more proof of that? Observe...

***    "Then when he was come into Galilee, THE GALILAEANS RECEIVED HIM, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast." John 4:45

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P75, P66 = TT.  Same as above. But at least Aleph was able to keep in Galilee instead of the geographically inaccurate Judah this time. Vat B and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text in the LONGER and EASIER reading once again.

***    "Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a WOMAN of Samaria? FOR THE JEWS HAVE NO DEALINGS WITH THE SAMARITANS." John 4:9

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, p75, p66 = TT. Albeit, P66 omits the one word "woman" as highlighted above, whereas Aleph omits that word plus the last phrase as well. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and thus Vat B plus the papyri and the HYBRID CT all follow the BASELINE Traditional Text in the LONGER and EASIER reading.

ZIG and ZAG. By the way, when does an axiom stop being an axiom? I suppose there's a perfectly satisfactory answer for that, but one which only a kool-aid drinker would understand.

***    "But I certify you, brethren, that THE GOSPEL which was preached of me is not after man." Galatians 1:11

Vat B = THE GOSPEL, THE GOSPEL, THE GOSPEL, Aleph = TT. This is just one of many examples of Vaticanus B's carelessness, where the scribe repeated this phrase three times in unison. I don't think even a kool-aid drinker needs this one explained. So of course the BASELINE Traditional Text is followed. Oh... and the shorter text for a change... but still the easier reading.

And no, this depravity is not mentioned by Metzger or the NET Notes. In their defense, someone may assert that they couldn't cover every error in these two manuscripts. Indeed, for that would require several volumes. At least. But the fact is, their concealment of the depravity and degeneracy of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph is systemic.

Burgon had this to say about this matter concerning Vaticanus B: "I can testify to the fact that the codex [Vat B] is disfigured throughout with REPITITIONS. The original scribe is often found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he had done." John Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p 75 (emphasis in original)

Now, lest anyone think that only Vat B concocts these inane readings, let's look at one of the many farces that Aleph also contributes before moving on to our final example in this section, which will once again address geography and archaeology. But before that, observe...

***    "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall NOT ALL sleep, but we shall ALL be changed." 1 Corinthians 15:51

Aleph = REVERSE, Vat B = TT. In other words, Aleph states the exact opposite, which only further demonstrates the scribe's ignorance of Greek, for Aleph renders this verse, "We shall ALL SLEEP, but we shall NOT ALL BE CHANGED."

That's pretty discouraging. At least if you're a kool-aid drinker who believes that B and Aleph are the "best" manuscripts. In any case, once again Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and thus Vat B and the CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text.

Only a craven, darkened mind would assert these two conflicting witnesses against the monolithic Traditional Text, and although there are plenty more examples to come in the succeeding sections, yet enough examples have already been proffered to settle the issue for anyone who is genuinely born of the Spirit, for as everyone born of the Spirit knows, these two manuscripts are not by any stretch of the imagination the work of the Holy Spirit. And to assert otherwise is pure blasphemy.

There is a fountain, filled with kool-aid, drawn from the magicians' vanity and veins, and dunces plunged beneath that sauce, lose all that made them sane.

***    "Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue BETHESDA, having five porches" John 5:2

Vat B, P75 = BETHSAIDA, Aleph = BETHZATHA, P66 = BETHSAIDAN. The Critical Text ignorantly follows Aleph here, even though archaeology in at least two different branches has conclusively corroborated BETHESDA in this passage, as has the overwhelming testimony of the church fathers. Vat B and P75's rendition of BETHSAIDA is ludicrous, since BETHSAIDA is in fact a city, and not a portion of Jerusalem, once again demonstrating the geographical ignorance of all these scribes. And of course the TT monolithically speaks BETHESDA here, the true reading. In the Hebrew, BETHESDA means "House of Mercy", which is precisely what the pool was meant to be. Neither reading in B or Aleph makes any sense. So once again, BOTH Vat B AND Aleph DISAGREE with each other, yet BOTH of them WRONG.

The ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. So says the Holy Spirit HIMSELF.

Moreover, since Jerusalem was completely destroyed within about forty years of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and its environs utterly obliterated, thus wiping out any memory of BETHESDA, only someone with an intimate knowledge of the events that transpired there forty years prior would have known about the true name of this pool, which is ONLY represented in the Traditional Text, for aside from the church fathers who were quoting the Traditional Text, there was no corroborating evidence of the name BETHESDA until archaeology began to uncover its remains in the nineteenth and mid twentieth century. Hence the almost illiterate scribes of B (and P75 and P66) and Aleph, being clueless of the geography of the region, simply came up with names that were widely known and familiar to them in their time, but which were pathetically inaccurate. Which is also another example of how LATE the text of B, P75, P66, Aleph and the Critical Text are, and of how EARLY the text of the Traditional Text is, so that this is yet another piece of EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of the palpable depravity of B and Aleph, even though EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE itself is nothing but an alien being to modern biblical textual critics.

It is in fact eminently clear -- in this verse as well as many others -- that neither B nor Aleph had access to the original text, to the text of the autograph of John. Only the Traditional Text had access to the original text of John. Unless, of course, you think John and the Holy Spirit didn't really know that the pool was called BETHESDA, or that Capernaum and Nazareth were in GALILEE, et cetera. So if you think that, then you're no different than the architects of the Critical Text, for the architects of the Critical Text have arrogantly charged the original authors of the Scriptures with multitudes and multitudes of errors, thus denying genuine biblical inspiration on its face, and that is also an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT, based on their own words in the commentaries they plague the world with, as you are about to see, and in the perversions they incessantly insert into the HYBRID Critical Text, based on the perversions of B and Aleph.

So once again, as the Holy Spirit HIMSELF testifies, the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. Accordingly, the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE against B, Aleph, and the Critical Text GEOGRAPHICALLY when they disagree; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE against B, Aleph, and the Critical Text ARCHAEOLOGICALLY when they disagree; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE against B, Aleph, and the Critical Text HISTORICALLY when they disagree, the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE against B, Aleph, and the Critical Text DOCTRINALLY when they disagree. These are EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS, more of which will be forthcoming in the demonstrations ahead.

In the meantime, let's just take a look at a Satanic individual who in his writings habitually DENIES the fourth axiom that the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text, thus DENYING the infallibility of Scripture, and thereby intentionally perverting the written word of God...

INTERLUDE OF BLASPHEMY - TOC

The architects of the Critical Text open the floodgates immediately in the New Testament by convicting the authors of the New Testament with error -- and by extension convicting the Holy Spirit with error -- by beginning their assault in Matthew 1:7 and 1:10, where they assert without blushing that Matthew ERRONEOUSLY wrote ASAPH (the Psalmist) in verse 7 instead of the true reading, ASA (the king), and that Matthew ERRONEOUSLY wrote AMOS (the prophet) in verse 10 instead of AMON (the king). In other words, ASA and AMON are conclusively the correct readings, which are also the readings of the Traditional Text, thus providing yet another of many infallible proofs that the Traditional Text is the EARLIER TEXT, being the ACCURATE text, and that the text of B and Aleph is LATE AND CORRUPT. Nevertheless, the magicians of the CT assert that Matthew MISTAKENLY confused these KINGS with ASAPH the Psalmist and AMOS the prophet, and thus according to the magicians of the CT, these are just the first of the many errors that the dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate authors of the New Testament committed. Incredibly, some of the "bibles" based on the CT follow these egregious blunders in these verses, as well as many others.

Now then, if you don't think that the architects of the Critical Text declare that the readings of ASAPH and AMOS are in fact ERRORS committed by Matthew, and by extension ERRORS committed by the Holy Spirit, then just read their commentaries, such as the unregenerate Metzger and the rest of his Satanic cohorts and followers, where they testify EXPLICITLY that Matthew DID in fact make a BLUNDER in these verses. Here's Metzger...

"Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was CONFUSED with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kings 15:9ff.), would have been to CORRECT THE ERROR, thus accounting for the prevalence of Asa in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus... Since, however, THE EVANGELIST may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, IN WHICH THE ERROENOUS SPELLING OCCURRED, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what APPEARS TO BE A SCRIBAL EMENDATION in the text of Matthew... The textual evidence for the reading “Amos,” AN ERROR FOR “Amon,” the name of the king of Judah, is nearly the same as that which reads Asaph in verses 7 and 8." Metzger, Textual Commentary, Matthew 1:7-8, Matthew 1:10 (emphasis added)

If you have an ESV, a NIV, a NASB, or any other "bible" based on the Critical Text, then you have a "bible" that is based ENTIRELY on the philosophy of this man and his cohorts THROUGHOUT the New Testament. That is an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT. And there isn't a scholar or group of scholars on the planet who can refute that.

"Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." Matthew 12:33

The ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. Ironically, Metzger agrees that ASA and AMON are ACCURATE, although, being the unregenerate serpent and dragon that he was, one of the Caiaphas' of his era, he did not believe that ASA and AMON were the OLDEST text, but that TWO ERRORS stipulated by THE EVANGELIST were, so that the dense, dumb, stupid, virtually illiterate Matthew couldn't keep a simple list of names straight, nor know the difference between a Psalmist and a king, nor a prophet and a king, even though the KINGSHIP of Jesus Christ is precisely what Matthew was trying to prove. My, my. How Matthew somehow managed to quote so many Old Testament passages so accurately in the rest of his gospel must remain a dark mystery to all certified kool-aid drinkers. In the meantime, the Holy Spirit was obviously also silent, allowing Matthew to go blissfully on in his ignorant and somnambulant slumber, even though he was (supposedly very carefully) establishing the legal heritage of Jesus Christ, the Lord of all creation, and the Lord of Lords and King of Kings for all ages, now and to come.

Have a refill on your kool-aid, brother, and don't worry about the price... it's only your soul.

And that's just for starters -- take a look at Luke's genealogy, where B and Aleph once again expose themselves in their total depravity in every respect, as well as countless other places throughout their corpus -- for the architects of the Critical Text INCESSENTLY assert in their commentaries that the authors of the New Testament committed errors and mistakes everywhere, based primarily on two habitual liars, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, which modern "bibles" are also fundamentally and practically based on. But the hard truth is, any man who believes what Metzger wrote has never been born again, and ALL who ARE genuinely born again know precisely what I mean.

Indeed, according to Metzger and his evil, manifestly unregenerate cohorts -- and in direct violation of what Jesus Christ promised, and of what the Scriptures themselves testify -- Matthew and his fellow disciples were not holy men of God who were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote, but were rather stumbling, bumbling scribes who INFESTED their works with an immeasurable quantity of errors. That is THE FOUNDATION of the Critical Text. AS. THE. EMPIRICAL. EVIDENCE. DEMONSTRATES.

This position alleged by the architects of the Critical Text in fact borders on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, if not actually crossing the line. It's the exact same spirit. Undoubtedly, some of them have prohibitively done that, for this world is overflowing with people who have already passed their day of grace, and intentional corruption of God's written word is more than a high crime in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is in fact an eternal and irrevocable offence which, if not timely repented of, will never be forgiven. But God gives most such men up to the vanity of their own minds, so that they cannot turn back. Few ever do.

Alas! There isn't a genuinely born again Christian anywhere on the surface of the planet who would knowingly follow these vipers, and if you don't know that, then you know nothing whatsoever of the power and ways of the Holy Spirit yourself, beginning with the true new birth. You don't have a clue.

Accordingly, for those of us who are actually born of the Spirit of Christ, it is clear that it is the supremely arrogant, unregenerate architects of the Critical Text who have made all the blunders, not the original authors of the New Testament, and that it is the Holy Spirit HIMSELF who superintended the Traditional Text, as the EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE demonstrates. It is also clear that the Holy Spirit had nothing whatsoever to do with the Critical Text and the corrupt manuscripts that it is based on. At least that is clear to those of us who are actually born of the Spirit.

Hell is hot, and those who corrupt the written word of God will inhabit the warmest provinces of the infernal regions. Wait and see.

Finally, it is often stated by the kool-aid drinkers that no major doctrine is affected by the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it. Only a complete ignoramus, or a chronic liar, would make such a preposterous claim. In fact, several major doctrines are not only affected, but radically distorted, beginning with the Doctrine of Inspiration. If the above admissions of Metzger and his cohorts don't demonstrate that it's because the reader is mentally incompetent, for when any reader consults commentaries that habitually charge the original authors of the New Testament with error, as Metzger and the NET Notes do AD INFINITUM, then all semblance of the genuine Doctrine of Inspiration is utterly nullified and forsaken. And that being the cornerstone of doctrines with regard to the written word of God, all other doctrines ultimately fall by the wayside as well, as we'll see. Thus, the assertion that no major doctrine is affected is not only rubbish, but unregenerate Satanic rubbish, and anyone who makes that claim is an ultimate weak-minded kool-aid drinker that all sober-minded persons should run away from as fast as they can. More about vital doctrines anon.

Thus the creationist who uses a modern "bible" based on the Critical Text and who pontificates about standing on the word of God is himself standing on nothing but the shifting sands of unbelieving scholarship, and therefore like those he wars against, he has professed himself wise only to become another fool.

CONCLUSION OF DEMO I - TOC

This is only the beginning of the demonstration of how DIFFERENT and DEPRAVED Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are from each other (and I haven't even enumerated any spelling and grammatical differences, for they are endless in these two depraved, lying witnesses), and of the FACT that the Critical Text is mostly only a monstrous HYBRID of the two, as just empirically demonstrated in the examples above, for the foregoing examples are WHOLLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE WORK, as you will continually see.

Accordingly, if B and Aleph are the "best" manuscripts, as the magicians of the CT assert, then why are they CONSTANTLY forced to abandon them? For we literally haven't even pricked the tip of the iceberg in the examples so far, literally not even begun, as you will see, but yet already you see the Critical Text CONTINUOUSLY abandoning one manuscript or the other, except when they can get away with it, and sometimes both, in order to follow the BASELINE Traditional Text, all because they are FORCED to do so by the HABITUAL CORRUPTION in these two manuscripts, as is patently evident to anyone of integrity. Indeed, how any man of integrity can accept the testimony of two witnesses who constantly fight among themselves against the testimony of a unified, monolithic witness who constantly agrees with itself, and whose testimony can be empirically verified, is something that only an unregenerate, darkened, depraved mind could rationalize. But if you're not yet convinced of this twisted paradigm, then just wait and see for yourself, for in the following demonstrations you will see this warped procedure exhibited so frequently and so emphatically that no one with a sliver of understanding could miss it.

An instructive statement by Hoskier is here worth noting:

"There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations in B are few in number and probably less than in most MSS. That is hardly so. If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a MS true to the Church type let him examine Matthaei's k, a most beautiful and neat MS, one of our very early cursives, and in this MS will be found a true exponent of the Koine. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, and yet but little difference is to be found between k and the Textus Receptus, while B and his group differ INFINITELY MORE AMONG THEMSELVES at a period much more remote." Herman Hoskier, Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p. 456 (emphasis in original)

We've seen some twenty-five examples of the strife between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph thus far -- and we're only beginning -- but we'll continue to highlight these simple but endless disagreements between the two conflicting witnesses in the next section with another twenty plus examples, before proceeding onwards into more serious differences, including blasphemies and heresies in B and Aleph, as well as the effect all of this has had on modern "bibles" based on the HYBRID Critical Text.

In the meantime, if you find yourself befuddled by these facts, just have another draught of kool-aid and read on, because the magicians of the CT cannot produce a SHRED of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to refute the FACTS presented thus far. They can, however, possibly mesmerize you with their imaginary clades and fictional text-types and vapor manuscripts and ghost lineages, just like in evolutionism... especially if the kool-aid has taken effect.

THE DEMONSTRATION - PART II - DISCORD UNDERSCORED - TOC

***    "Then Philip went down to the city of SAMARIA, and preached Christ unto them." Acts 8:5

Aleph = CAESAREA, Vat B = SAMARIA = TT. This is yet another bald geographical blunder by Aleph, so B and the CT had no choice but to follow the TT here in the reading of SAMARIA, especially since CAESAREA is not in that region, along with the fact that SAMARIA is the topic of the entire following narrative (verses 9, 14. 25). But the clueless scribe of Aleph didn't know the difference, so he or the scribes preceding him in the exemplar he was transcribing from probably copied the word CAESAREA from verse 40 later in the chapter, not understanding the Greek context which made his choice insensible. There is also a grammatical misstep in both B and Aleph in this verse, but I'll pass that by. In any case, Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B yet again, and thus B and the Critical Text follow the TT. On the other hand, just two verses later, in verse 7, BOTH Vat B and Aleph make yet another SEVERE grammatical blunder, but I'll also pass that by for now, even though grammatical blunders by the virtually illiterate scribes of B and Aleph are legion.

***    "And again, departing from THE COASTS OF TYRE AND SIDON, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." Mark 7:31

Vat B, Aleph = THROUGH SIDON. Here we have yet another geographical blunder, only this time by both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. Yet, in spite of the geographical blunder, the HYBRID CT and the ignorant modern "bibles" that are based on it follow in this farce.

In short, the Sea of Galilee is south of Tyre, and Tyre is south of Sidon, and thus the route that is suggested by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph is so circuitous that it is absurd. It's like saying that they left Chicago and went through Manitoba to come to the Gulf Coast.

Metzger admits that the route is circuitous, for he states that the reading of the Traditional Text, "is a modification that copyists introduced either accidentally (being influenced by the familiar expression “Tyre and Sidon”) or deliberately (because Jesus’ itinerary appeared to be extraordinarily roundabout)." Textual Commentary, Mark 7:31

Metzger habitually and continually makes these naked assertions without a SHRED of empirical evidence, yet his kool-aid drinking lemmings habitually and continually mistake his every assertion  for gospel. And thus just like evolutionists, the kool-aid drinkers of modern biblical textual criticism have EVOLVED the INABILITY to think critically.

So in other words, Mark could not possibly have understood the plain geography of the region, and furthermore, Peter, who was more than likely Mark's source, could likewise not have remembered the route they took, even though Peter himself was part of the company that took that route.

This is another case where B and Aleph join together in an unmistakable blunder, yet modern "bibles" ignorantly traipse along in this blunder like the dupes they are, all because a wicked, unregenerate Metzger and friends thought that the writers of the New Testament were dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate bumpkins.

***    "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also..." Luke 10:1

Vat B, P75 = SEVENTY-TWO, Aleph = SEVENTY = TT. I include this example merely to emphasize that this is just one of an infinite number of little discrepancies that exist between B and Aleph, thus demonstrating conclusively that they are not even close to being a unified Greek text. Indeed, I cannot stress enough that discrepancies like this between Vat B and Aleph are beyond legion in these two depraved witnesses, thereby CONCLUSIVELY, EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATING their nonalignment from each other in the actual Greek. In this particular verse, the CT deserts Aleph and foolishly follows B, but in numerous other places it's the exact opposite, as I'll show below, with the CT deserting B and following Aleph, thus making the CT a monstrous hybrid of the two, as I have said, and as you are seeing right before your very own eyes. Of course, the reading by Vat B here is absurd -- as the discussions in the commentaries by the architects of the CT unintentionally confirm -- so Aleph had no choice but to follow the TT in this verse. And although I won't digress into the absurdity of the reading of B and the CT here, suffice it say that the CT and the modern "bibles" that are based on it have yet again perpetrated another preposterous reading based on the testimony of a habitual liar, Vaticanus B in this case.

ZIG and ZAG. For another example to corroborate this type of innumerable little differences between B and Aleph, observe...

***    "When THE MEN were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?" Luke 7:20

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B yet again, and the CT and Vat B follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading. There are too many dissonances between B and Aleph like this to count. Literally. And these and many other dissonances like these is what prompted Hoskier to assert that Aleph's base and Vat B's base were different.

ZIG and ZAG. We'll do another example of this type just to drive home the point...

***    "And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal THE SICK." Luke 9:2

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph yet again, and the CT and Aleph follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading.

ZIG and ZAG. Little discrepancies of this nature between B and Aleph are endless. Let's try another...

***    "And their eyes were opened, AND THEY KNEW HIM; and he vanished out of their sight." Luke 24:31

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B yet again, and the CT and Vat B follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading. If you haven't noticed, the continuous text of B and Aleph reads like a schoolboy who wasn't very efficient in composing narratives. The text of both is very rough and incomplete... not to mention full of heresies and other blunders, as we will see.

ZIG and ZAG. The Critical Text is not only a HYBRD text, but a pin cushion as well: B this time, Aleph the next.

Here's another relatively common feature of these two witnesses, i.e., interpolations. Observe...

***    "And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour." Matthew 8:13

Aleph = INTERPOLATION, Vat B = TT. In other words, Aleph adds onto the end of this verse, "AND WHEN THE CENTURION RETURNED TO HIS HOUSE IN THE SAME HOUR HE FOUND THE SERVANT HEALED."

The NET Notes quibbles over whether the word "his" was appended to "servant" in the main text, but omits any mention of this interpolation by Aleph. SOP.

So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, with Vat B and the HYBRID CT following the BASELINE Traditional Test.

ZIG and ZAG. Here's another interpolation by Aleph...

***    "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine." John 2:3

Aleph = INTERPOLATION, Vat B, P75, P66 = TT. This is indicative of the horrendous character of B and Aleph, as all kinds of mischief is found in these two decadent witnesses. Nor can these interpolations be attributed to carelessness, but are rather willful depravations of the text. Which of course renders these manuscripts utterly out of court, at least for all non kool-aid drinkers. We'll see Vat B and Aleph joining together in a grievous interpolation a bit later.

In this case, Sinaiticus Aleph actually renders this entire verse in a rough translation as: "AND THEY HAD NO WINE BECAUSE THE WINE OF THE WEDDING FEAST WAS GONE".

So like Ishmael's sons, Aleph DISAGREES with his brothers once again, and the HYBRD CT naturally had no choice but to follow the BASELINE Traditional Text, which just goes calmly on its way throughout these continuous storms of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.

***    "No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, THAT THEY WHICH ENTER IN MAY SEE THE LIGHT." Luke 8:16

Vat B, P75 = OMITS, Aleph = TT. All Greek manuscripts except for B and P75 contain this necessary and concluding clause, thus demonstrating (for the umpteenth time) that the papyri are just as corrupt, and no more reliable, than Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus Aleph. Nor is this omission due to homoeoteleuton, but to sheer carelessness once again, which is habitual in B, Aleph, and the papyri.

ZIG and ZAG. Yet Vaticanus B, according to the magicians of the CT, is the sacred stone of all manuscripts. Which begs the question: who's the bigger fool? The fool himself, or the fool -- read, "kool-aid drinkers" -- who follows him?

So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph, and Aleph and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER and EASIER reading yet again, and yet again Metzger and the Net Notes are silent about this omission by B and P75, which is also habitual in those two commentaries.

***    "Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before THE ANGELS of God:" Luke 12:8

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B yet again, and the CT and Vat B follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading yet again. As already stated, this occurs ad infinitum.

ZIG and ZAG. If the bubble of "uniformity" between B and Aleph has not yet been burst for you, then you're too punch-drunk on the kool-aid, so you might as well just quit reading right here and go help stir the pitcher. Maybe mix in a little grape and strawberry together.

***    "And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: THY FAITH HATH MADE THEE WHOLE." Luke 17:19

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Once more, the CT follows Aleph and the TT here, thus once more adopting the LONGER text. So this is the exact reverse of the foregoing example, where in this case the CT deserts B and follows Aleph, with the CT HYBRD text taking the opposite side this time. No wonder, since Vat B is entirely alone in omitting this phrase. You see, the idolaters of Vaticanus B only follow B in its opposition to the Traditional Text when they can get away with it. Likewise with Aleph. For both Vat B and Aleph exhibit many blasphemous and heretical readings that the unregenerate architects of the Critical Text know they can't get away with, so they either bracket those readings in their Greek editions, or leave them out in some cases, depending on what they think they can get away with. Examples to follow.

Either way, none of their subjective, arbitrary, emphatically carnal decisions have any basis in EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE at all. AT ALL. So I include this example to once again emphasize that discrepancies like these between B and Aleph are endless -- ZIG and ZAG -- and thus these and numerous other verses EMPIRICALLY, VERIFIABLY DEMONSTRATE that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph do NOT share a common Greek ancestor -- and certainly not a common Greek exemplar. These and other verses likewise EMPIRICALLY, VERIFIABLY DEMONSTRATE that the Critical Text is in large measure only a monstrous HYBRID of the two. Just keep reading.

***    "But if ye forgive not men THEIR TRESPASSES, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matthew 6:15

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. Here's a perfect example of the HYBRID nature of the CT, for the CT and modern "bibles" desert B and the BASELINE TT and virtually all other witnesses in order to follow a deviant Aleph in this verse, for Aleph stands ALONE among Greek manuscripts in omitting this clause. This kind of aberrant behavior by the architects of the CT is standard operating procedure.

So for the umpteenth time, Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, but based on nothing more than the degenerate minds and the darkened logic of the magicians of the CT who SOMETIMES like the shorter text, they follow a known liar in this passage against all other witnesses extant, based on what the architects of the CT believe that Matthew SHOULD have written, by their inferences of "chiastic probabilities", and a whole host of other unregenerate nonsense, without a SHRED of ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to back them up. And just like evolutionists, they call it "science".

But if the architects of the Critical Text are arrogant enough to accuse Matthew and the other authors of the New Testament of committing blunders ad infinitum, then why shouldn't they follow up, and in their darkened, unregenerate minds arrogantly tell Matthew what he SHOULD have written? Somebody sing the kool-aid drinkers a song before they wake up from their stupor.

***    "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on THE JUST AND ON THE UNJUST." Matthew 5:45

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. The Critical Text follows B and the BASELINE Traditional Text, as Aleph once again stands ALONE among Greek manuscripts in this omission. But why does the CT therefore follow Aleph in the previous example above and not here? For Aleph was also ALONE among Greek manuscripts in the omission in the previous example above, yet the CT followed Aleph there. But here they desert Aleph. Why?

You certainly won't find any explanation from Metzger or the NET Notes for deserting Aleph in this verse. For there is no justifiable reason except the unregenerate, darkened minds of the architects of the Critical Text, because these two verses -- this one and the one above -- are just two examples of LEGIONS demonstrating the utterly subjective, arbitrary, capricious behavior of the MANIFESTLY HYBRID Critical Text.

So Aleph and Vat B DISAGREE for the gazillionth time, and Vat B and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading.

Oh! nobody knows the troubles that B, Aleph, and the Critical Text have seen. Nobody except those of us who are actually born of the Spirit, and who can actually read, anyway. Like I said, they call this "science", but if you can't stand the heat of these convoluted musings of the high priests of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, then go stand under the rain showers of kool-aid which are being poured out continuously over at Critical Text Central.

***    "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." Luke 24:51

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P75 = TT. Drip, drip, drip, drip. The two habitual liars square off against one another yet again, with B, P75, and the CT following the TT here. In other words, Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B in one of its countless instances of differences, while the Critical Text mounts yet another lego block onto its HYBRID structure by deserting Aleph and following B, and thus once again adopting the LONGER text.

***    "In him was life; and the life was the light OF MEN." John 1:4

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph, P75, P66 = TT. This could go on forever... and it does. This time the habitual liar Sinaiticus Aleph wins out over the habitual liar Vaticanus B, whose reading is simply absurd, and contrary to the previous example, the CT in this case deserts Vat B and follows Aleph, adding yet another HYBRID tooth to its skeleton, espousing here again the LONGER and EASIER text.

***    "HE THAT FINDETH HIS LIFE SHALL LOSE IT; AND he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. So once again, like a dripping faucet, Aleph and Vat B DISAGREE, and the HYBRID CT follows the BASELINE Traditional Text. If this isn't sinking in, it never will... at least not until you get off the kool-aid.

As usual, no mention of this in Metzger or the NET Notes. But that is habitual.

***    "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God." John 1:13

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph, P75, P66  = TT. Once again, BOTH manuscripts DIFFER from each other, so Aleph and the papyri and the CT had no choice but to desert Vat B and follow Aleph and the TT here and adopt the LONGER reading. Let's see, in only a few of the examples given thus far in the gospel of John, Vat B has Jesus praying to keep the disciples in Satan's power, has the geography wrong, is senseless in several verses, and manifestly corrupt in several verses, et cetera... and none of these examples include the endless glitches in the Greek which are too technical for this discussion. Fact is, if I went chapter by chapter through the New Testament, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph would not fare one whit better anywhere, especially in the gospels. Yet Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are the go-to manuscripts for the magicians of the CT. Good for them, because neither manuscript was the go-to manuscript of the Holy Spirit, nor of the original authors of the New Testament.

***    "He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven IS ABOVE ALL." John 3:31

Aleph, P75 = OMITS, Vat B, P66 = TT. Of course, the reading of Aleph and P75 is absurd, so B, P66, and the CT had no choice but to side with the TT and adopt the LONGER and EASIER reading yet again. I think their axiom is broken. This absurdity is only one of legions of absurdities in these two manuscripts. So Aleph DISAGREES with B once again for too many times to count.

By the way, notice how these manuscripts, including the papyri, are constantly struggling to adhere to the BASELINE Traditional Text. Beginning to get the picture? No? Then let's try again.

***    "Take ye heed, watch AND PRAY: for ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Vat B is almost alone in deleting this most important clause, yet the CT and modern "bibles" foolishly follow B here, in violation of not only sound textual grounds, but even more importantly, in violation of what the true Jesus Christ unequivocally charged his disciples to do, as he himself did always, especially when he went about a stone's throw away. So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph once again. And this time, for a change, the magicians of the CT and the utterly carnal modern "bibles" that are based on it follow the shorter text, but they do so in the one place where nobody born of the Spirit would dare to do, especially on the fickle testimony of a proven habitual liar.

***    "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, AND CAME TO THE SEPULCHRE." John 20:3

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P66 = TT. Aleph stands ALONE in this omission. The HYBRD CT, of course, had no choice but to follow the BASELINE Traditional Text.

Metzger and the NET Notes are habitually silent on the scores and legions of depravities of this nature in B and Aleph.

***    "What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, AND THEY OBEY HIM." Luke 8:25

Vat B, P75  = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Do I really need to say more? Vat B and Aleph DISAGREE, and of course Aleph and the HYBRID CT follow the TT and the LONGER reading. Drip, drip, drip, ad infinitum.

***    "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, DESIRING TO SPEAK WITH HIM." Matthew 12:46

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. Here we have the exact opposite of above, for once again Aleph stands ALONE in omitting this phrase, but this time the architects of the CT abandon Aleph and side with B and the TT and the LONGER reading. You won't find the architects of the CT attempting to explain any of this, nor the throngs of other passages of this same flavor. So let's look at the very next verse to see how REPEATEDLY CONFUSED both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph really are.

***    "THEN ONE SAID UNTO HIM, BEHOLD, THY MOTHER AND THY BRETHREN STAND WITHOUT, DESIRING TO SPEAK WITH THEE." Matthew 12:47

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = OMITS. The two manuscripts agree for a change in removing the testimony of Mary not being a virgin and of Jesus having siblings. Wonder what that's all about? Of course, Aleph is just continuing its omission from the previous verse, as shown above, and the narrative is pure nonsense without this verse, but that didn't stop the architects of the CT from enclosing the entire verse in brackets in the Greek. If they could have gotten away with it, they would have left it out entirely, but as I said, the narrative is pure spaghetti without it. But that's Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph for you. Decadent, depraved, corrupt, confused. In fact, if the scribe of B actually understood Greek, he probably would have left out the entire preceding verse as well. But Aleph's removal of the last clause in the verse preceding this one only ratifies the confusion of the two manuscripts, not only in this verse, but throughout.

***    "And when the unclean SPIRIT had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him." Mark 1:26

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. The HYBRD CT follows Aleph and the TT again, because, yet again, the idol of the architects of the Critical Text gives one of its legions and legions of senseless readings. So, guess what? Yes, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph DISAGREE. Hope you have that phrase memorized by now. Let's repeat it together: Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph DISAGREE INCESSANTLY with each other. INCESSANTLY.

***    "For he knew that THE CHIEF PRIESTS had delivered him for envy." Mark 15:10

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. If I continue with examples of this nature, the floodgates will open and the dripping will turn into avalanches and tsunamis. Naturally, the HYBRID Critical Text ignores Vaticanus B here and follows Aleph and the TT and the LONGER text, since the reading of B, as is so often the case, is lacking a key piece of information. Alas! These dissonances between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are a bottomless pit... down and down and down they go, down and down and down the bottomless pit their never-ending blunders and lies fall.

CONCLUSION OF DEMO II - TOC

As stated before, examples like this could go on endlessly... and in the two outrageously dishonest witnesses Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, they do. And none of these examples even begin to enumerate the legions and legions and legions of differences in the actual Greek words and grammar that exists between these two manuscripts. Not even close. Nor have I even begun to deal with significant blasphemies and heresies in these two liars. But I will soon.

Accordingly, by attempting to cobble these two liars into a harmonious testimony, the magicians of the Critical Text have merely given themselves away as the manifestly unregenerate hucksters and charlatans that they truly are, for as any junior lawyer knows, two witnesses who disagree with each other incessantly cannot even be called to the witness stand, let alone testify in a legitimate court of law.

Anyway, in case you missed it, the foregoing examples of divergence between B and Aleph, and of the HYRID nature of the Critical Text, are not IMAGINARY INFERENCES and NAKED ASSERTIONS and RAMBLING MUSINGS like the magicians of the Critical Text perpetually employ, but are rather ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS. And this LITERALLY does not EVEN scratch the surface. Not even. And once again, the magicians of the Critical Text cannot produce a SHRED of ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to refute the FACTS of the demonstration thus far.

But they may fabricate some sort of statistical diagram to fool and mesmerize the kool-aid drinkers, just like the evolutionists do when they say that the ABSENCE of simple transitional forms in the fossil record actually PROVES evolution because they can INFER those simple ancestors and transitional forms from the highly complex fossils that already actually exist in the Cambrian explosion. Get it? The transitional fossils aren't actually there, in other words, they don't actually empirically exist, but they can be INFERRED from the complex fossils that actually do already exist, and which appeared suddenly out of a virtual nowhere. That's the shell game of evolutionism, and that's the shell game of modern biblical textual criticism as well.

That's how it works, for it is the exact same thing with the magicians of the Critical Text, for they can INFER a "text type" or a "bible" by fabricating a clade or mocking up a statistical presentation faster than you can twinkle your eye. Especially if the kool-aid has slowed your reflexes.

In any case, let's continue to unravel the putative uniformity of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, while simultaneously demonstrating the empirically, verifiable HYBRID CHARACTER of the Critical Text, and continue to firmly establish that the Traditional Text is the BASELINE TEXT that B and Aleph and the papyri struggled to adhere to.

We've exposed the dissonance between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in close to fifty examples thus far, but the best is yet to come. The next section will continue with a slightly different flavor, and then, in the fourth section, we'll get to blasphemies and heresies by B And Aleph and the effect all of this has on modern "bibles" based on the HYBRID Critical Text.

THE DEMONSTRATION - PART III - CONFUSION AND STRIFE - TOC

To begin, the following is just a SMALL SAMPLE of grammatical solecisms in B and Aleph, demonstrating how strikingly unskillful the scribes of B and Aleph were in the Greek language -- and consequently how strikingly unskillful the original authors of the New Testament must have been, and by extension how careless the Holy Spirit must have been -- at least if you drink the Satanic kool-aid of the magicians of the Critical Text.

***    "For whosoever shall do the WILL of God..." Mark 3:35

Vat B = WILLS, Aleph = TT.

***    "But he that doeth the WILL of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

Aleph = WILLS, Vat B = TT.

In other words, besides DISAGREEING with each other once again, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph ignorantly confer the PLURAL form in these two instances, which is absurd, for this ERROR is EXPONENTIALLY MORE SERIOUS in the Greek than it is in the English, seeing as how Greek is a highly inflected language, and therefore mistakes of this nature are far more egregious in Greek than in English, thereby exacerbating the blunder. Indeed, nobody with even a BASIC COMPREHENSION OF GREEK would REPEATEDLY make grammatical mistakes and blunders in their writings, but these and other types of grammatical gaffes are REPEATEDLY what Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph perpetrate. REPEATEDLY.

In fact, the ineptitude of the scribes of B and Aleph in the Greek language is apparent throughout their entire corpus, but I won't get into too much of the particulars of the innumerable Greek solecisms in B and Aleph here, for that demonstration would require an entire book all by itself (which Hoskier actually mostly produced in Codex B And Its Allies). Suffice it to say that the utter incompetence of the scribes of B and Aleph in Greek is something that both Burgon and Hoskier commented on numerous times, and thus this demonstration is not only REPRESENTATIVE, but is also yet another EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT of the disunity and depravity of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, along with the serpentine and HYBRID character of the Critical Text that is primarily based on them.

***   "Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A LITTLE WHILE, AND YE SHALL NOT SEE ME; AND AGAIN; a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?" John 16:17

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P66 = TT. The reading by Aleph is nonsensical, a frequent occurrence in both B and Aleph. And homoeoteleuton is no excuse. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and of course Vat B and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text once again.

ZIG and ZAG. This back and forth is dizzying, at least if you're dry. If you're full of kool-aid, on the other hand, then just carry on... the pit isn't too far ahead.

***    "And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, AND KNEELING DOWN TO HIM, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." Mark 1:40

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. But there's more. Not only does Vat B OMIT the phrase above, but Vat B also ADDS the word "LORD" before "IF THOU WILT". So Vat B, in other words, fundamentally DISAGREES with Aleph TWICE in this verse, not including other incidental discrepancies in the Greek between the two of them, which is a constant phenomenon. Ergo, the magicians of the CT adopt the LONGER reading on the one hand, but then they desert Vat B in the addition of "LORD" on the other, thus taking the shorter reading. The result is therefore ZIG and ZAG, the longer reading once, the shorter reading once. And thus once again, the MONSTROUSLY HYBRID CHARACTER of the Critical Text shows itself in technicolor.

***    "And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] THE SON ABIDETH EVER." John 8:35

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P75, P66 = TT. Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B and the papyri in this instance, while Vat B and the papyri follows the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading once again.

ZIG and ZAG. How can two walk together, except they be agreed? The magicians of the Critical Text can tell you how, for the magicians of the Critical Text can make Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph sing in harmony to the ears of all their weak-minded followers drunk on kool-aid, in spite of the fact that B and Aleph actually don't sing in harmony in the arena of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, but rather continuously fight with each other like cats and dogs.

In fact, there is never any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to substantiate the readings in the CT, but only subjective, capricious rationalizations for what the manifestly unregenerate architects of the Critical Text THINK the author SHOULD have written, while all the while confessing continuously in their commentaries that the original authors of the New Testament, and by extension the Holy Spirit, committed legions of errors along the way.

Of course, not only will kool-aid drinkers fail to even recognize this fact, not knowing what actually constitutes EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE in the first place, but they will likewise slop up the sugar-laden kool-aid like cows and pass the jug to all their equally anesthetized fellows.

***    "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid IN A FIELD." Matthew 13:44

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. Aleph stands ALONE in omitting this clause, so once more Vat B and the CT follow the TT and the LONGER reading. Thus Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B yet again, and the HYBRID Critical Text attaches another twig to itself.

***    "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in VICTORY." 1 Corinthians 15:54

Vat B, P46 = STRIFE, Aleph - TT. So B and P46 assure us that, "death is swallowed up in STRIFE". If ever there was any doubt about the corruption of the papyri, this is yet another infallible proof that it is so.

Granted, the difference between the two words in Greek is only one letter, but that's no excuse, for even though this is a homophone -- a word that is spelled differently but sounds the same -- yet a scribe familiar with Greek would have caught it, it is such a glaring error. It's similar, for example, to the difference between "aloud" and "allowed" or "pray" and "prey" or "to" and "two", or "sow" and "sew", and so on.

This same error is repeated by Vat B within the next three verses as well, with Aleph also sharing much of the confusion. But I'll take them one verse at a time. Observe...

***    "O death, where is thy STING? O GRAVE, where is thy VICTORY?" 1 Corinthians 15:55

Vat B, P46 = STRIFE + WORD ORDER, Aleph = WORD ORDER. It is clear that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Alelph are terribly confused throughout this section of text.

First, Vat B once again substitutes the absurd word, "STRIFE" for "VICTORY", as well as joining Aleph in swapping out the words "STING" and "GRAVE", thereby completely aborting the Old Testament quotation in Hosea 13:14, which is faithfully followed by the BASELINE Traditional Text.

Of course, a manifestly unregenerate Metzger thinks it's crazy that Paul could have accurately quoted the Old Testament, so he asserts -- nakedly asserts, as usual, which all kool-aid drinkers weak-mindedly mistake for fact -- pure folly once more by claiming that his reading is "preferred" -- which means the "preferred" reading of a man who continuously charges the writers of the New Testament with error - and thus the HYBRID CT and modern "bibles" ignorantly and foolishly follow B and Aleph and a wicked Metzger in this abortion of word order, even though, of course, the HYBRID CT deserts Vat B once again in the word "STRIFE".

So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph in the homophone, while agreeing together in misquoting the Old Testament. The next example will conclude this miserable performance by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in this section of holy writ.

***    "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the VICTORY through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

Vat B, Aleph, P46 = STRIFE. Here we have all three culprits conspiring together to prosecute yet another ignorant absurdity and thus turn an eternal truth into a pathetic gaffe by illiterate scribes. In other words, these three depraved witnesses read, "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the STRIFE through our Lord Jesus Christ".

This is one of many pieces of evidence which made Hoskier believe that significant portions of B and Aleph were reverse engineered from the Coptic, and which demonstrate a fervid ignorance of the Greek language by the scribes of these utterly corrupt manuscripts.

Of course, the HYBRID CT is forced to desert all three liars here and follow the BASELINE Traditional Text. After all, there are some things they just can't get away with.

***    "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did THEIR FATHERS to the false prophets" Luke 6:26

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Once again the two manuscripts DISAGREE, and once again the HYBRD CT follows Aleph and the Traditional Text in the LONGER and EASIER reading, capriciously violating their own axiom for the umpteenth zillionth time, as you will see continually in the following examples. So in case you missed it the first time, when does an axiom stop being an axiom?.

Indeed, the architects of the Critical Text violate their own axiom about the shorter and harder reading a mammoth number of times. That is an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT. Which demonstrates that their axiom is an illusion, just like their text, and that the real truth is the fact that they only appeal to the shorter or harder text when it suits their own carnal and capricious whims. Simply put, what the architects of the Critical Text are engaging in is not biblical textual criticism, but flat-out butchery, nothing but heresy and blasphemy at the expense of souls, their own in particular.

***    "And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal THE SICK." Luke 9:2

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. The Critical Text encloses this clause in brackets, and the ESV and other modern "bibles" foolishly and ignorantly omit these words. You will find this type of aberrant behavior by modern "bibles" THROUGHOUT the New Testament.

So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph once again, Aleph (fully) and the HYBRID CT (partially) follow the BASELINE Traditional Text.

***    "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness OVER ALL THE LAND unto the ninth hour." Matthew 27:45

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. Albeit, Vat B is also corrupted in this verse, leaving out most of the Greek word (two letters) for "unto" or "to", which was later corrected by a scribe. Nevertheless, this confusion by Vat B and Aleph becomes more apparent and thus more significant a few verses later, in Matthew 27:49, when BOTH manuscripts present us with yet another of their blasphemies and blunders by asserting that someone killed Jesus with a spear instead of Jesus dying supernaturally as he promised. So the problems that both B and Aleph experience in this section are very much worth noting, such as in this verse (the spelling of the Greek words in the next verse are all over the map, but I'll pass them by), where Aleph once again stands ALONE in omitting the foregoing clause. Naturally, Vat B and the CT sided with the TT here, which is their habit when either Vat B or Aleph issues in one of its legions of corrupt renditions.

ZIG and ZAG. So the LONGER reading is once again preferred, and the Traditional Text once again proves itself to be the BASELINE TEXT that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, along with the HYBRID Critical Text, continually struggle to adhere to, a matter which by now is plainer than the noonday sun to anyone who is honest and who can read. For the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. So says the Holy Spirit HIMSELF. At least in those of us who are actually indwelt by him.

***    "AND THE GRAVES WERE OPENED; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose." Matthew 27:52

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. There are all kinds of discrepancies and dissonances in the Greek between this verse and the preceding example, especially around verse 49, where both manuscripts commit the blasphemy, but they are too technical for this discussion. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that here, once again, Aleph stands in opposition to Vat B, and thus the HYBRID CT deserts Aleph and follows Vat B and the TT in this verse, for the verse is clearly nonsense without the clause. So the LONGER and EASIER reading is consequently adhered to, contra the stated axioms of the proponents of the CT, and the BASELINE Traditional Text just keeps rolling calmly along, unfettered and undisturbed, unlike the CATASTROPHIC DIFFERENCES that exist endlessly between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.

***    "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any," Luke 8:43

Vat B, P75 OMITS, Aleph = TT. Simply put, Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph. The CT encloses the phrase in brackets because the architects of the Critical Text are utterly ignorant of the Holy Spirit, as they demonstrate throughout the New Testament. Accordingly, some modern "bibles" include the phrase, some don't, because the translators of modern "bibles" also know nothing whatsoever of the Holy Spirit. Not a clue.

ZIG and ZAG. Once again the HYBRID character of the CT is displayed in technicolor, and the never-ending dissonance between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph is fully on display yet once again.

***    "For he knew that THE CHIEF PRIESTS had delivered him for envy." Mark 15:10

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph, and Aleph and the HYBRID CT once again follow the BASELINE Traditional Text in the LONGER reading.

Yes, your honor, he had a WHITE sweater, says witness number one. But then... No, your honor, he had a BLACK sweater, says witness number two. The judge pauses for a moment, then says, what color is the kool-aid today? It's purple, someone says. Ah, a dark color, announces the judge. So be it: the BLACK sweater it is! And that's the "science" of modern biblical textual criticism in a nutshell.

***    "Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him INTO HER HOUSE." Luke 10:38

Vat B, P75, P45 = OMITS, Aleph = TT. This is yet another of the reams and reams and reams of incomplete sentences found throughout Vaticanus B, the "best" manuscript according to the magicians of the CT, the true golden child of all the manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Holy Spirit HIMSELF says Vaticanus B is one of the very worst Greek manuscripts in the entire pantheon of Greek biblical manuscripts. Moreover, more than enough EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE has already been demonstrated to substantiate that fact, even for an unregenerate man who is at least intellectually honest, for we are approaching some seventy examples of the dissonance between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph thus far given, not including hordes of other categories of differences between the two.

Naturally, the magicians of the CT assert that this extremely rough grammar is original, but they would, seeing as how they believe that the writers of the New Testament were merely dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate bumpkins just trying to get by.

ZIG and ZAG. Vat B and the papyri DISAGREE with Aleph, following the shorter reading for a change (I guess the axiom kicked back in for this verse), and the unregenerate, spiritually ignorant architects of the Critical Text and equally unregenerate, spiritually ignorant translators of modern "bibles" desert Aleph and the BASELINE Traditional Text to follow this absurdity.

***    "Among which was MARY MAGDALENE, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." Matthew 27:56

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. But Aleph isn't through with its corruption in this verse, for after "James" Aleph comes back and inserts a second "Mary" (not Magdalene) once again into the text (even though Aleph also screws up the Greek), so that Aleph's reading is: "...and Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses..."

Don't you just love these two habitual liars? Always arguing with each other, like Bonnie and Clyde, neither of which survived their corruption. It would even be entertaining if it wasn't God's sacred written word that we were talking about.

Of course, as is almost always the case when either Aleph or Vat B corrupts the text, the Critical Text must mount one of its HYBRID limbs and together follow the BASELINE Traditional Text, as they do here. So once again -- drip, drip, drip -- Aleph DISAGREES TWICE with Vat B in this verse, and thus B and the CT adopt the LONGER reading, although maybe the addition of the second "Mary" by Aleph makes the length of the verse a tie in this case. Get the tape measure.

***    "And all WHO HEARD HIM were astonished at his understanding and answers" Luke 2:47

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph, and accordingly the HYBRID CT follows Aleph and the TT this time, once again adopting the LONGER reading. And true to form, the BASELINE Traditional Text flows by undisturbed.

***    "Provide neither gold, NOR SILVER, nor brass in your purses," Matthew 10:9

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. This is just another of the literally countless differences between B and Aleph. Naturally, Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and Vat B and the HYBRID CT follows once again the BASELINE Traditional Text.

I include this simple example to demonstrate that little differences like this add up into legions of differences throughout with B and Aleph.

***    "And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; AND GAVE THEM POWER OVER UNCLEAN SPIRITS; AND COMMANDED them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:" Mark 6:7-8

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = TT. So Aleph engages in yet another careless homoeoteleuton, and thus Aleph and Vat B DISAGREE once again, and once again the HYBRID CT follows the BASELINE Traditional Text. No mention of this in Metzger or the NET Notes.

Yawn. Someone spike the kool-aid... oops... belay that... it's already spiked. Otherwise nobody in the galaxy would follow Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus Aleph. 

***    "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not THE SPIRIT by measure unto him." John 3:34

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph, P66, P75 = TT. Once again, Vat B stands ALONE among Greek manuscripts in this omission. So the literal rendering of this last clause in Vat B is: "...FOR HE GIVES NOT BY MEASURE TO HIM." Just one of the legions of incomplete or unreasonable readings which Vaticanus B is PEPPERED with. But there's still more going on in this verse.

Aleph and the two papyri omit "GOD" after "THE WORDS OF". The CT follows Aleph, P66, P75, in siding WITH the TT against Vat B in the omission of "THE SPIRIT", but then turns around and sides with the same witness AGAINST the TT in the omission of "GOD." So the CT follows the longer text on the one hand, and then the shorter text on the other. Such are the eccentricities of the HYBRID Critical Text, which modern "bibles" foolishly follow once more, for how often does the CT turn against its own witnesses again and again, sometimes when they agree, sometimes when they don't agree, sometimes when they're mixed, you name it. But if you like to play the lottery, then the Critical Text is your huckleberry.

***    "These words spake Jesus in the treasury, AS HE TAUGHT IN THE TEMPLE: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come." John 8:20

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P75, P66 = TT. Here we have one of the legions of straightforward dissonances between B and Aleph. So Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B, and Vat B and the papyri and the HYBRID CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text. This omission is met with silence by Metzger and the NET Notes, even though they show themselves very fond of discussing textual variants when they want to make naked assertions about the text.

***    "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be IN HIS DAY." Luke 17:24

Vat B, P75 = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Like a song that won't get out of your mind, Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph here, but the HYBRID CT takes a neutral road (even though Jesus warned against such a thing, Matthew 12:30), in that the HYBRID CT encloses the phrase in brackets, indicating that they could go either way here. Modern "bibles" almost unanimously follow the TT here, but unfortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule, as I will demonstrate the failings and falsities of modern "bibles" further down, with their foolishness and carnality in following the HYBRD Critical Text, thereby portraying a false and degraded Jesus.

***    "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father AND MOTHER we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" John 6:42

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B, P75, P66 = TT. So Aleph actually renders it, "THE SON OF JOSEPH, AND WHOSE FATHER WE KNOW".  That is, Aleph inserts "AND" into the mix, thus demonstrating its confusion in this verse.

Aleph DISAGREES with Vat B and the papyri, and thus the HYBRID CT chooses to once again follow the BASELINE Traditional Text and the LONGER reading.

CONCLUSION OF DEMO III - TOC

We've seen more than seventy examples thus far of the SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENTS between B and Aleph, yet the proponents of the Critical Text want you to believe that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are the true text, except in the MULTITUDES of instances where they themselves depart from those two manifest liars and accordingly follow the Traditional Text. And, being the kool-aid drinkers that some manifestly are, they lemmingly follow these painted pigs down illusionary lane.

And all the while the refrain in the background keeps on reverberating: Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph just can't seem to agree together in a MULTITUDE of instances, and when that occurs, one or the other almost always agrees with the Traditional Text. Go figure. And the beat goes on.

Moreover, no matter how the magicians of the CT try to misdirect the ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE with CAPRICIOUS INFERENCES and NAKED ASSERTIONS, yet the LEGIONS OF DISAGREEMENTS between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS which the illusionists cannot make disappear, except in the weak and darkened minds of the kool-aid drinkers.

So let's check the old kool-aid pitcher... are you really delusional enough to believe that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph were the work of Matthew? Or Luke? Or John? Or Mark? Or the other authors of the New Testament? And by extension the Holy Spirit? That holy men of God were actually moved to write the clap-trap found in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? If so, instead of pouring another cup of kool-aid, get born again, because you infallibly are not, and eternity is waiting in the wings.

THE DEMONSTRATION - PART IV - BLATANT HERESIES OF B, ALEPH AND MODERN BIBLES - TOC

***    "Father, glorify THY name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." John 12:28

Vat B = MY, Aleph, P66, P75 = TT. I won't even begin to discourse about the doctrinal laceration here, whereby, in the solemn context of this narrative, a FALSE Jesus is radically portrayed by Vaticanus B, which ALONE among Greek manuscripts impresses this stain onto the person of Jesus Christ, wholly inconsistent with everything authentic about the Son of God's impeccable character.

Herman Hoskier, who was exceedingly familiar with the devilish quality of Vaticanus B, had this to say about this wicked substitution of the pronoun: "We have here to indict B on a frightful count. We indict him for mutilating scripture without the shadow of excuse, and this in a most important place. His changes of tense, or suppression of the article, or niceties of expressions by pairs are nothing to this... [MY] is not a mistake or a slip made by B. It is most deliberate." Herman Hoskier, Codex B, Vol 1, p 371-372.

Emendations of this nature, grave and blasphemous as they are, crop up in various places throughout Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, and they're easy to miss unless you're really paying attention, but one thing is clear: there are too many emendations centering around the person of Jesus Christ for them to be accidental.

Suffice it to say that this is one instance where the HYBRID CT realized that they couldn't afford to adopt this blunder. And once again, you won't find Metzger or the NET Notes acknowledging this egregious -- and probably intentional -- slander by Vat B.

To back this up, the following example corroborates INTENTIONAL editing by the scribe of Vaticanus B with regard to the Son of God. It's very hard not to come to that conclusion for anyone who is actually familiar with the text of B and Aleph. The next example, only one among many, as we will see, is indicative of the bent of B and Aleph...

***    "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:" Matthew 12:32

Vat B = "NOT", Aleph = TT. In other words, in altering the doctrine of the Son of God yet again -- one of a number of times that Vaticanus B does this -- so Vaticanus B reads, "...against the Son of man, it shall NOT be forgiven him".

This speaks for itself. Once again Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph, and Vaticanus B is ALONE among Greek manuscripts in this addition. The CT of course follows Aleph and the BASELINE Traditional Text. Naturally, Metzger and the NET Notes are silent on this willful heresy by Vaticanus B as well.

***    "Blessed be the God AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:" Ephesians 1:3

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. I include this example as the beginning of heresies inflicted by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in the book of Ephesians. Ergo, not only is there a lot of carelessness in Ephesians by Vaticanus B in the omission of whole verses and other palpable goofs, but there is also rampant tampering by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph throughout this epistle, which I will now demonstrate in this and the following examples.

In this case, as later in this epistle, as well as in the Lord's prayer in Luke 11, which we will also analyze, the doctrine of God being the personal Father of Jesus Christ has been deliberately removed, which reeks of clear tampering by the heretic Marcion. Listen to Burgon:

"Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D. 200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular... S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new title!" John Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p 106.

Here is one of the many quotations by Tertullian to which Burgon referred: "We have it on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, however, was very desirous of giving it the new title." Tertullian (200 AD), Five Books Against Marcion 5.17

This final quotation is from Irenaeus (180 AD), corroborating these depravities found throughout B and Aleph: "Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine... Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, IN WHICH THE LORD IS RECORDED AS MOST CLEARLY CONFESSING THAT THE MAKER OF THIS UNIVERSE IS HIS FATHER. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, REMOVING ALL THAT IS SAID BY THE APOSTLE RESPECTING THAT GOD WHO MADE THE WORLD, TO THE EFFECT THAT HE IS THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord." Irenaeus (115 - 202 AD), Heresies 1.27 (emphasis added)

Note that the magicians of the CT have fabricated a cladistical analysis of Marcion and, based on their imaginary clade, they have basically determined that with respect to these nevertheless IDENTICAL HERESIES and SHORTER TEXT found throughout B and Aleph, yet, according to the magicians, Marcion had no affect on these writings as found in B and Aleph, even though, as I said, they contain IDENTICAL HERESIES. Their denials are of course in absolute contrast to what has been testified by Irenaeus and Tertullian, who actually lived around Marcion's time, unlike the magicians of the CT, who only came along about eighteen centuries later.

Here's how Hoskier puts it: "In order to accept the views which modern scholarship presses upon us in so cavalier a fashion, we must believe that Tertullian and Irenaeus before A.D. 200 were worse judges of the Canon than critics of today." Herman Hoskier, Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p. 476

Like I said, I traffic in empirical evidence. The magicians of the CT traffic in naked assertions, imaginary clades, and fictional text types and ghost lineages, which all kool-aid drinkers weak-mindedly mistake for fact.

However, lest the magicians of the CT attempt to misdirect the conversation by focusing on Tertullian or Irenaeus, or some other skeet, let me briefly head them off at the pass by reminding everyone of this: namely, with or without Tertullian, with or without Irenaeus, the above examples, and those to follow, are nevertheless PLAIN, UNDENIABLE HERESIES by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. Plain and undeniable, all on their own. Furthermore, these heresies are IDENTICAL to Marcion's heresies.

So let the magicians of the CT deny, if they will, this simple fact of the depravities of B and Aleph in the examples given, and in the IDENTICAL heresies of Marcion, for that will only further demonstrate how dishonest they are and how warped their darkened minds and muddled understandings truly are.

There is little doubt that this omission in Vat B was deliberate, and for a number of reasons. In fact, of the ten instances of the word "Father" in Ephesians, Vat B ONLY omits the two relative phrases where the Father is referred to as the personal Father of Jesus Christ, such as in this verse and also in verse 3:14, which we will examine next. In all other cases B retains the standard text, except in 3:19 where there is another clear assault by Marcion in B and Aleph, which we will also examine after this next example.

In any case, Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph for the umpteenth time, while Aleph and the CT follow the BASELINE Traditional Text once again in the LONGER and EASIER reading. Naturally, you won't find this heresy mentioned by Metzger or the NET Notes.

***    "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST." Ephesians 3:14

Vat B, Aleph, P46 = OMITS. Aleph now joins Vat B in this heresy, denying that the Father is the personal Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, an EMPHATIC HERESY OF MARCION, while leaving the other verses which mention the Father intact. There is thus virtually no doubt that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph came under the poisonous influence of Marcion in this epistle.

In fact, when you find Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph agreeing together against the Traditional Text, it is often in a heresy, a heresy just like this one. Of which we will see more further on. But let's unfold this particular one a bit, which we will have recourse to return to again in the same heresy by B and Aleph in Luke.

So here, in this epistle, both B and Aleph remove the words "IN EPHESUS" in Ephesians 1:1, and simply have the epistle addressed to those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. Marcion also made this omission according to Irenaeus and Tertullian, as shown in the example above, who lived during Marcion's general time.

In tandem with Tertullian and Irenaeus, we have even earlier testimony that this epistle was to the Ephesians, as, for example, in this statement by Ignatius (100 AD), who corroborates the testimony of Irenaeus and Tertullian when he writes: "I rejoice exceedingly, and have had the privilege, by this Epistle, of conversing with “THE SAINTS WHICH ARE AT EPHESUS, the faithful in Christ Jesus.” Ignatius (100 AD), Ephesians (Longer) Chapter 9 (emphasis added)

Thus, even without Marcion, the corruption of B and Aleph of this entire epistle is utterly plain and clear right from the start in their omission of  "IN EPHESUS", especially in light of the numerous examples of their corruption that have already been offered. In other words, nothing B or Aleph says in this epistle is trustworthy. Except for kool-aid drinkers.

Unregenerate textual critics, based on B and Aleph, have been circulating the "cyclical" heresy since Westcott and Hort, but without the slightest justification. It's merely one of their innumerable "theories", another naked assertion without a SHRED of empirical evidence to support it, in which they blindly assert that this particular epistle was a "cyclical" letter addressed to multiple bodies, especially Laodicea. But we've already seen what Irenaeus and Tertullian, virtual contemporaries with Marcion, testified about that. In short, their theory is baseless.

Here's how Burgon addressed it: "What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words IN EPHESUS from S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the 2nd century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very Epistle, ('Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit') - which title obviously could not stand unless those two words were first erased from the text." John Burgon, Last Twelve Verse, p 108 (emphasis in original)

This is what happens when you have wicked, unregenerate men toying with the written word of God as if it were merely some stimulating intellectual adventure instead of the light and bread of life for hungering and thirsting souls. Wait and see if it's not more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for them.

So not only does B and Aleph appear corrupt right from the very first verse, but in the two verses which make the Father the personal Father of Jesus Christ the same corruption is also exhibited, promoting the IDENTICAL HERESIES OF MARCION.

But these two liars, B and Aleph, reach their pinnacle in this epistle in the next example, where they are once again in lock-step with Marcion...

***    "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things BY JESUS CHRIST:" Ephesians 3:9

Vat B, Aleph, P46 = OMITS. It is revealing that this particular depravity even has to be explained, not just because of the IDENTICAL HERESY OF MARCION once again envenomating this verse, but for the sake of the heresy itself, just on the face of it, for if there was any city of that region who worshipped multiple deities, it was Ephesus.

It was not only natural, therefore, that Paul diligently signify the distinction, but it was in fact incumbent upon Paul by the Holy Spirit to do so, as anyone born of the Spirit can testify, for the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears infallible witness to those very words in all whom he truly indwells.

Alas! I suppose you could possibly count on one hand the number of Ephesians who didn't know that "GOD CREATED ALL THINGS", but you can be certain that everyone else in the city knew it. The real question, especially in a city like Ephesus, was WHICH GOD? That was the question, which Paul answered in the secret place of thunder in the true written word of God, proven by the Holy Spirit HIMSELF at the waters of Meribah in those whom he truly indwells.

Here's a stark reality that the magicians of the CT cannot make disappear: namely, with or without Marcion, these doctrinal distortions by B and Aleph in this epistle, these differences in these specific, doctrinally significant places, are an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT, which all the gainsaying and naked assertions of the architects of the Critical Text cannot refute, except in the mushy minds of their kool-aid drinking followers.

In other words, in the four places in this epistle which Marcion denied and tampered with, according to the testimony of his virtual contemporaries, Aleph in three places, and Vaticanus B in all four places, make the EXACT SAME OMISSIONS, namely, the removal of the title in Ephesians 1;1, the removal of the witness of the Father being the Father of Jesus Christ in verses 1:3 and 3:14, and the omission of Jesus Christ being the creator in this verse, which of course Marcion also could not tolerate. These IDENTICAL HERESIES are an EMPPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT.

We'll examine just a few more places in the epistle of Ephesians to drive home the point...

***    "Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, [AND] LOVE unto all the saints," Ephesians 1:15

Vat B, Aleph, P45 = OMITS. This needs no explanation, for it merely demonstrates how corrupt all three manuscripts are in an utterly nonsensical reading, which is a habit of these decadent witnesses.

Naturally, the HYBRID CT capriciously deserts all three manuscripts here and follows the BASELINE Traditional Text, for to do otherwise would be too fatal to the phrase, even though, when they want to follow these three manuscripts in other places, they tout the agreement between these witnesses. And thus the text of the CT and the "bibles" that are based on it are SUPREME HYPOCRITES throughout.

***    "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and SINS;" Ephesians 2:1

Vat B = LUSTS, Aleph = TT. More confusion and corruption in Vaticanus B... and these examples in Ephesians are only SOME of the corruptions in Vaticanus B. It would take a whole paper to cover them all.

So Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph, and Aleph and the HYBRD CT yet again follow the BASELINE Traditional Text. What a surprise.

***    "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" Ephesians 2:5

Vat B, Aleph = INTERPOLATION. In other words, Vat B and Aleph read, "...when we were dead in sins AND IN OUR LUST, hath quickened us together..."

Not even a kool-aid drinker needs this one explained, of course. Metzger and the NET Notes are silent about this interpolation, and once again, the HYBRID CT deserts BOTH manuscripts and follows the BASELINE Traditional Text,... and this time the shorter reading. Why, if B and Aleph are such reliable witnesses, do the architects of the Critical Text abandon them so often? No kool-aid drinker will understand that one, but any one of sound mind gets the picture.

Alas! Nobody with even the hint of a sound mind would trust Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus Aleph, or the papyri for that matter, as far as they could throw a mountain, especially in light of the scores of disagreements between them which have already been examined, as well as the blatant heresies and inexcusable omissions and interpolations which have been enumerated in this section, but if ever there was the slightest doubt, this next example will hang yet another millstone about the necks of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph and cast their reputations into the depth of the sea... for everybody except the kool-aid drinkers, that is.

The genuinely born again, of course, need no further demonstration. They actually never did. But let's proceed.

***    "The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Matthew 27:49-50

Vat B, Aleph = INTERPOLATION. In other words, after "...let us see whether Elias will come to save him", B and Aleph interpolate, "BUT ANOTHER CAME WITH A SPEAR AND PIERCED HIS SIDE, AND THERE CAME OUT WATER AND BLOOD". Then follows, "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, gave up the ghost".

In other words, this profoundly blasphemous heresy makes Jesus die immediately and precipitately by the hand of man instead of dying supernaturally as he promised, thereby rendering the entire atonement in the main null and void, at least when the consequences of this blasphemy are fully considered by anyone with any theological ken.

This interpolation was probably the result of a lectionary intrusion, which is a habitual occurrence in B and Aleph, such as the omission of the passage of the woman taken in adultery, and a number of others, but exactly how this interpolation came about here is immaterial. The fact that it survives in these two depraved witnesses is all the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that is required to render their own testimony completely null and void, as opposed to the supernatural atonement of the Lord Jesus.

Indeed, if this interpolation were the only defacement of B and Aleph, yet it would be enough all by itself to disqualify them as witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ, for this interpolation is an unmistakable testimony to INTENTIONAL SCRIBAL TAMPERING within these two decadent witnesses, thus UTTERLY DISQUALIFYING them from ANY voice whatsoever. At least for anyone who actually understands what constitutes EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, which of course rules out all kool-aid drinkers.

With regard to lectionary intrusions, there are so many places in B and Aleph where this is clearly the case that Burgon needs to be heard on this topic when speaking about the scribal tampering in these two witnesses:

"The ancients, to a far greater extent than ourselves, were accustomed -- (in fact, they made it a RULE) -- to prefix unauthorized formulae to their public Lections; and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so firmly, that at last they became as it were ineradicable; and later copyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them unsuspiciously into the inspired text. All that belongs to this subject deserves particular attention; because it is THIS which explains not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of the New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was originally intended only as a LITURGICAL NOTE, became mistaken, through the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a critical SUGGESTION; and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has arisen, at one time, the insertion of something unauthorized into the text of Scripture -- at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the manifest detriment of the sacred deposit." John Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p 215-216 (emphasis in original)

As stated before, this is conclusively what happened in the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery, as well as many others, including the ending of Mark as well, all of which merely further corroborates the rampant corruption in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, for these two liars pervert all of these passages, thereby demonstrating their deliberate affliction of the lectionaries. Nor can anyone with a sound mind, and certainly not anyone born of the Spirit, deny the patent corruption of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph after seeing this demonstration, where the two fraudulent witnesses are constantly at war with each other.

In fact, Burgon asked this prescient question, which every person of sound mind affirms: "Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these PERPETUAL inconsistencies between Codd. B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?" John Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p 78 (emphasis in original)

This example is both a doctrinal heresy and a historical inaccuracy (more on historical inaccuracies anon), along with the doctrinal heresies already demonstrated above, and as stated before, and as the Holy Spirit HIMSELF testifies, the ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text.

The Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE HISTORICALLY against the Critical Text; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE DOCTRINALLY against the Critical Text; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE ARCHAEOLOGICALLY against the Critical Text; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE GEOGRAPHICALLY against the Critical Text. These are EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS.

Metzger and his cohorts believe the exact opposite. Metzger and his cohorts believe that this ACCURACY of the Traditional Text proves that it is a late text, that the dense, dumb, stupid, virtually illiterate authors of the New Testament couldn't possibly have turned out a consistent, historically and doctrinally and geographically ACCURATE text, and that somehow, all over the world in one fell swoop, more erudite and sophisticated scribes came along and managed to overlay the monolithic Traditional Text with hordes of corrections all at once, in a virtual moment of time. Just like evolutionism. As I said, this will be one of the epithets on their tombstones in the lake of fire for all eternity.

But let's move on to yet another heresy in these two filthy liars which is once again IDENTICAL to Marcion's heresies.

***    "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, OUR Father WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name..." Luke 11:2

Vat B, Aleph, P75 = OMITS. Once again we see these manuscripts conspiring in the EXACT SAME HERESY AS MARCION. That is an EMPRIICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT, namely, that the heresies are IDENTICAL. We only need hear what Marcion's virtual contemporaries said about this...

"Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process... .it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles." Tertullian (200 AD), Five Books Against Marcion 4.2, 4.5

"Besides this, he [Marcion] mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke... IN WHICH THE LORD IS RECORDED AS MOST CLEARLY CONFESSING THAT THE MAKER OF THIS UNIVERSE IS HIS FATHER. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. IN LIKE MANNER, TOO, HE DISMEMBERED THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, REMOVING ALL THAT IS SAID BY THE APOSTLE RESPECTING THAT GOD WHO MADE THE WORLD, IS THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST... But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those passages which he still retains... Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, CURTAILING THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE AND THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, they assert that these are alone authentic, WHICH THEY HAVE THEMSELVES SHORTENED." Irenaeus (115 - 202 AD), Heresies 1.27, 3.1, 3.1 (emphasis added)

Of course, Marcion could by no means admit to "OUR" Father, as already demonstrably noted. Nor could Marcion possibly tolerate "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN", as that would destroy the false "god" he had concocted. So in other words, the EXACT SAME OMISSIONS which Marcion are believed to have enacted on the testimony of his virtual contemporaries show up in these two depraved manuscripts as well. Again. These EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS need no explanation for any person of sound mind.

So in other words, with or without Marcion, this version of the prayer as found in B, Aleph and P75 nevertheless matches the IDENTICAL HERESY OF MARCION, and that is also an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT.

The unregenerate logic of a rationalizing, carnal, humanistic Metzger is telling, for he asserts -- without a PARTICLE of actual EVIDENCE -- but merely ASSERTS that the Traditional Text is a conflation because it's not possible, according to a deluded Metzger, that Luke's version and Matthew's version of the Lord's prayer might be consistent with each other. This is the judgment of a man who believed that the authors of the New Testament made innumerable errors and blunders, because they were obviously the dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate numbskulls of their day. Just like evolutionism.

Once again, there isn't a genuinely born again Christian anywhere on the surface of this earth who would believe Metzger. Or B or Aleph or P75, for that matter. Not one.

So in the first part of this verse, Aleph and Vat B agree. But now look at the second portion of the verse...

***    "THY KINGDOM COME, THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH." Luke 11:2

Vat B, P75 = OMITS, Aleph = TT. We've seen in several cases that Aleph fades in and out of these heresies, which only further demonstrates that the base which Aleph was copied from was in a different state of corruption than the base which B was copied from. Moreover, it is likely that the scribes of these manuscripts copied portions of the text from a variety of exemplars comprising only individual books, rather than copying from complete manuscripts of the New Testament.

So Aleph DISAGREES with B and P75 for too many times to count. Yet the CT and modern "bibles" disastrously follow B and P75 in this bizarre omission, thereby inflicting incalculable harm on all who read them, for not only does this aberrant prayer make Jesus inconsistent in perhaps the most important lesson he could ever teach his disciples -- for this prayer in Matthew and Luke is very specific, and meant to be so -- but this senseless omission also promotes confusion about how accurate and solid the accounts of Jesus' life truly are. That's the infallible take-away for any careful reader of the Scriptures, whether the magicians of the CT or their drunken and dishonest kool-aid drinking followers want to admit it or not.

And that's just one example of multitudes of examples of the confusion that the Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it perpetually sow. Once again, there isn't a regenerate translator on earth who would follow this perversion. Not a single, solitary one, especially one with an active prayer life in the Holy Spirit, for no man born of the Spirit would forget to address the Father, WHICH IS IN HEAVEN, even as the Spirit and the Scriptures testify:

"Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: FOR GOD IS IN HEAVEN, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few." Ecclesiastes 5:1-2

I am confident that no kool-aid drinker will make the connection, but every one born of the Spirit knows exactly what I mean. Either way it boils down to this simple fact: either the two habitual liars, B and Aleph, are correct, even though they DEMONSTRABLY are NOT correct in the reams of places already surveyed, or the Traditional Text is correct once again, as usual. That's the choice. And you can tell everything you need to know about a man's mental acumen by which one of those two choices he makes. Everything.

***    "AND AFTER THAT he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet." Acts 13:20

Vat B, Aleph = "ALL THIS TOOK". This is a manifest and egregious historical inaccuracy in these two "best" manuscripts. If one looks carefully at what is written in the Traditional Text, and simply compares it with the Hebrew Old Testament, it fits perfectly, contra Metzger's convoluted statement. The following verse settles the whole matter:

"And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD." 1 Ki. 6:1

The Traditional Text's "AND AFTER THAT..." makes the entire narrative in the TT fit perfectly together.

Here is Sir Robert Anderson, chief of the criminal investigative division of Scotland Yard in the early twentieth century, and keen biblical apologist, on this very verse: "But here, in accordance with their usual practice, and in neglect of the principles by which experts are guided in dealing with conflicting evidence, the Revisers [Wescott & Hort] slavishly followed certain of the oldest MSS. And the effect on this passage is disastrous." Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Price, p xvi

Unlike the example above, Ephesians 2:5, where the CT abandoned BOTH B and Aleph and followed the BASELINE Traditional Text, this time the HYBRID CT and modern "bibles" follow B and Aleph in this bizarre historical gaffe, probably because Metzger and his cohorts believed that this historical absurdity was characteristic of the dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate authors of the New Testament.

The caprice of the magicians of the CT literally knows no bounds. One thing is certain though: making a decision based on ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE is something that the magicians of the CT know absolutely nothing even remotely about. Not a stinking, dirty clue.

Thus modern "bibles" once again exhibit themselves as fools to any careful reader of the sacred deposit, making any thinking reader wonder if anything therein can be trusted. They've gotten the geography wrong; they've gotten the archaeology wrong; they've gotten the doctrine wrong; and now they've gotten the history wrong, all because a small group of manifestly wicked and unregenerate vipers have taken over the halls of biblical scholarship and idolized two patently depraved, viciously corrupt, pedantically inaccurate manuscripts known as Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.

Who could really, viscerally trust a record like this? That gets the geography wrong, that gets the archaeology wrong, that gets the doctrine wrong, that gets the history wrong, NUMEROUS TIMES? And we're not through. Moreover, based on such a record, can it really be certain that this Jesus really did exist? Are ANY of these stories about him really true? And does Jesus by the Holy Spirit REALLY manifest himself today like he did back then?

That's the key question, which a wavering and uncertain "bible" will NEVER resolve, because in order to be genuinely born again, an absolute, irrevocable, supernatural CERTAINTY about the word of God must be realized and felt, in part and in whole, down to the bone marrow, all the way through. So again -- and can a wavering, inaccurate text give the answer -- does Jesus by the Holy Spirit REALLY manifest himself today like he did back then? Because that's what it takes to go to heaven, and nothing less.

Well, for those of us that are genuinely born again, yes, Jesus REALLY DOES manifest HIMSELF by the Holy Spirit EXACTLY like he did back then. But I'm talking about the TRUE Jesus of the Traditional Text, not the rabidly FALSE Jesus of the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it.

For another bald-faced historical inaccuracy, observe...

***    "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of JONAS, lovest thou me more than these?" John 21:15

Aleph = OMITS, Vat B = JOHN. So neither manuscript is accurate HISTORICALLY in this passage. That is an EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT.

For in establishing that JONAS is the correct reading, this little historical fact is cross-verified by Matthew 16:17, which reads, "Blessed art thou, Simon BARJONA" and John 1:42, which reads, "And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of JONA", both of which leave no doubt as to the true reading in this passage.

But Metzger and the magicians of the CT didn't think that John could possibly be consistent with himself, so they once again -- without a SHRED of evidence, just like the Jesus Seminar -- charge the Traditional Text with an interpolation, because it's not possible, in their unregenerate eyes, that the dumb, dense, stupid, illiterate authors of the New Testament could have possibly composed a coherent narrative.

And thus the HYBRD CT and the utterly corrupt "bibles" that are based on it follow Vaticanus B in this GROSS HISTORICAL BLUNDER.

The Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE HISTORICALLY against the Critical Text; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE GEOGRAPHICALLY against the Critical Text; the Traditional Text is UNANIMOUSLY ACCURATE ARCHAOLOGICALLY against the Critical Text; the Traditional Text is UNAMIOUSLY ACCURATE DOCTRINALLY against the Critical Text.

The ACCURATE text is the OLDEST text. So says the Holy Spirit HIMSELF.

***    "FOR IN CHRIST JESUS neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Galatians 6:15

Vat B, P46 = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Here we get another revealing glimpse of the spirit and mindset of the magicians of the CT, for Metzger notes that though there is more than abundant evidence for the Traditional Text here, yet he lets it slip that there is "LIMITED BUT ADEQUATE" support (a mere handful of manifestly corrupt manuscripts, including the notorious #33, but NOT including Aleph) for the omission of this critical clause. LIMITED BUT ADEQUATE. Just enough to get the job done, in other words, just enough to remove the most important part of the whole sentence, especially coming on the heels of the previous verse.

Of course, the Holy Spirit HIMSELF -- as EVERYONE who is actually born of the Spirit KNOWS -- denounces Metzger's serpentine assertion here, for ALL THINGS WERE CREATED IN AND BY CHRIST JESUS (Col 1:16), including the new birth, which is what Paul is here referencing. ALL takes place IN CHRIST JESUS, as EVERY SINGLE PERSON born of the Spirit KNOWS, and the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears witness to every single syllable of those words in this text, as EVERYONE born of the Spirit also KNOWS. Bar none.

But on the mere testimony of two habitual liars, both of whom have been proven wrong time and time and time again, Metzger and the magicians of the CT are perfectly comfortable in leaving Jesus Christ out of the equation, as they habitually do throughout the Critical Text, even though, if they were born again themselves, they would know that that isn't even a possibility in this verse.

So Vat B and P46 DISAGREE with Aleph once again, and the HYBRID CT and the modern "bibles" that are based on it foolishly and devilishly follow this most spiritually ignorant of readings.

The next example will further demonstrate the unremitting caprice and vagary of the magicians of the CT, as if further demonstration were actually necessary. Observe...

***    "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father IN MY NAME, HE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU." John 16:23

Vat B, Aleph = "HE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU IN MY NAME". A more preposterous heresy would be hard to imagine. Modern "bibles" actually followed this blunder until somebody woke them up. That's what happens when you have masses of unregenerate translators toying with the written word of God.

Once again, BOTH manuscripts are ABANDONED by the HYBRID CT in this verse, only to follow the BASELINE Traditional Text. But why? If B and Aleph are the "best" manuscripts, then certainly this is a classic case in which they should be followed, is it not?

Uh-huh. Like I said, this example is another of the legions of examples which demonstrates the caprice and vagary of the magicians of the Critical Text, and that there is no scientific discipline WHATSOEVER in their construction of the Critical Text, but only naked assertions, vague suppositions, and the unregenerate lusts of its architects. As ANYONE with a sound mind can plainly see. Which leaves out all the kool-aid drinkers, who repeatedly mistake the naked assertions and vague suppositions for fact.

***    "And every spirit that confesseth not THAT [Jesus] CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1 John 4:3

Vat B = OMITS, Aleph = TT. Albeit, this is not the original scribe of Vat B, for the original scribe of Vat B ends in the middle of the book of Hebrews, but rather this hand was almost certainly as late as, or later, than the fifteenth or sixteenth century. In any case, yet again Vat B DISAGREES with Aleph, yet the capricious magicians of the HYBRID CT and the modern "bibles" that are based on it inanely follow B in this omission. There is zero justification for doing so.

Metzger misleads in his testimony about this clause -- a habit with him -- but I'll just cut to the chase. Not only does the verse require these words as the BASELINE Traditional Text has it, but there is far earlier support for the Traditional Text than the erratic suppositions of Metzger or the fifteenth or sixteenth century witness of Vaticanus B in this portion of the text.

Polycarp, for example, who was recognized as the disciple of John, who knew John personally, quotes the verse this way: "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist." Polycarp (85 - 156 AD), Philippians, Chapter 7

And Cyprian just a bit later: "Also in the Epistle of John: Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. But whosoever denies that He is come in the flesh is not of God, but is of the spirit of Antichrist." Cyprian (250 AD), Treatise 12.2

Even with Aleph's original testimony, and Polycarp and Cyprian, who are not mentioned by Metzger in his commentary, all testifying to the Traditional Text, even with all of this, yet with basically only Vaticanus B's fifteenth or sixteenth century testimony in this passage against, along with one or two other corrupt manuscripts, yet Metzger can't bring himself to include the portion which reveals Jesus Christ in full bloom. He based this decision on the "MAJORITY" of the committee's views... just like the Jesus Seminar. And this is once again the judgment of a man who believed that the authors of the New Testament infested their works with errors.

Like I said, modern "bibles" follow this carnal pied piper in this omission like the idiot loons they truly are. Once again, shows you who's genuinely born again and who is not, who bears the true witness of the Holy Spirit, and who doesn't.

***    "If we receive the witness of MEN, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son." 1 John 5:9

Aleph = GOD. Vat B = TT. Just another example of the carelessness and depravity of these manuscripts, in this case Aleph, which reads, "If we receive the witness of GOD, the witness of GOD is greater..."

What poets the scribes of B and Aleph must have been. Of course, Vat B is not from the original scribe, as noted in the previous example, so its testimony here is for all practical purposes nonexistent. In any case, nothing more need be said, except that carelessness like this PERMEATES Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, yet these are considered the "best" manuscripts by the tribe of the Critical Text.

This verse also validates the Comma in verse 7, but I'll not deal with that element in this demonstration, except to note that the Comma is structurally important with reference to this verse, for I John 5:7 describes the witness of GOD; I John 5:8 describes the witness of MEN, and then comes this verse: "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater". Without the Comma, this verse has no antecedent and consequently makes no sense. There are numerous other strands of empirical verification supporting the Comma as well, but that discussion is not apropos for this publication, as numerous lines of evidence must be marshaled to do it justice. It's enough to note for now how confused Aleph so often demonstrates itself to be.

In that vein, let's look at another of Aleph's precious jewels in the book of Revelation...

***    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the FORMER THINGS are passed away." Revelation 21:4

Aleph = SHEEP. Which is to say, Aleph renders the clause, "for the SHEEP are passed away".

Metzger includes this blooper in a footnote, admitting what "NONSENSE" the scribe of Aleph could produce. The real surprise here is that Metzger recognized it as nonsense.

***    "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" Colossians 1:14

Vat B, Aleph = OMITS. Unlike the example above, this time both Aleph and B agree in omitting this phrase. This is a clear case of homoeoteleuton, and nothing else, which, as we've seen, is habitual in these two manuscripts. And yes, this omission is just as abrupt in the Greek as it is in the English.

Metzger ASSERTS -- once again without a SHRED of proof -- that this is an interpolation of Ephesians 1:7, the same Ephesians which B and Aleph excoriate with blunders and omissions of their own. Anything and everything goes, in Metzger's view, which makes the writers of the New Testament seem to be wholly inconsistent with themselves... being the dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate writers that they were.

Of course, for those with a sound mind, not only would be it infinitely more probable that Paul would communicate the same message of truth to the Colossians on this matter as to the Ephesians, but we once again have far earlier testimony than the suppositions of a rabidly unregenerate Metzger and Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. Here's Irenaeus...

"By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins...  And in EVERY EPISTLE the apostle plainly testifies, that through the flesh of our Lord, AND THROUGH HIS BLOOD, we have been saved." Irenaeus (115 - 202 AD), Against Heresies 5.2, 5.14 (emphasis added)

Is it more likely that two habitual liars which omit words, phrases, and verses HABITUALLY THROUGHOUT their corpus did the same thing here once again, especially considering the obvious case of homoeoteleuton, or is it more likely that they actually got it right for a change, in violation of sound doctrine and the testimony of early witnesses such as Irenaeus? And in violation of the witness of the Holy Spirit? Once again, the answer to that question will tell you everything you need to know about the mental acuity of the man. Everything.

But true to form, the HYBRID CT and the depraved and spiritually barren "bibles" that are based on it once again ignorantly follow this corruption. Which tells you everything you need to know about modern "bibles" and the mass unregeneracy of the translators who crafted them.

Chisel, chisel, chisel. I include this example to show that this type of corruption in modern "bibles" is literally PANDEMNIC. Ergo, these omissions in modern "bibles" are also an EMPRICAL, VERIFIABLE FACT.

***    "And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither." Mark 11:3

Vat B, Aleph = INTERPOLATION. Albeit differing in word order, yet one little Greek word, translated as, "AGAIN", has been foisted into the text of B and Aleph, thus resulting in yet another HUGE BLASPHEMY concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and his majesty. And the majesty of Jesus Christ is one of the main attributes of the Lord which is missing in the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it, as exhibited in this verse once again. Here is how modern "bibles" disastrously render this account:

"...AND HE WILL SEND IT BACK HERE IMMEDIATELY". A more subtle but nevertheless severe blemish on the character of Jesus Christ would be hard to imagine.

That Jesus is the JEHOVAH of the Old Testament was clearly propounded by the disciples, especially John, particularly in John chapter 12, and thus every beast of the forest is his, and the cattle upon a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10), so that for the true Jesus to request the colt as a LOAN is both defamatory and absurd. It reduces Jesus to just another common fellow. So that this depravity by B, Aleph, the Critical Text, and modern "bibles" yet again chisels away at both Jesus' majesty and his deity, and anyone who doesn't recognize this simple truth has grave issues to consider within himself, beginning with the new birth.

Indeed, this utterly FALSE PORTRAIT of Jesus Christ in modern "bibles" is one of the primary reasons why so FEW are genuinely born again today. As ALL who ARE born of the Spirit KNOW. And the parallel account in Matthew 21:3 once again corroborates the Traditional Text, not that that was required, for nobody with an ounce of mental acuity would trust Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph against the Traditional Text.

And of course, we all know that the authors of the New Testament couldn't possibly have been consistent, at least for Metzger and his unregenerate kool-aid drinking followers. A lengthy but pithy quotation by Burgon may shine more light on this depravity...

"When our Lord was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is observed to have given to 'two of His disciples' directions well calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain village, -- to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there -- and to bring the creature straightway to Jesus. Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that 'the Lord hath need of him.' But, singular to relate, this transaction is found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the colt -- as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been obtained -- ought in common fairness to have been returned to 'the owners thereof.' (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no nominative before 'will send' (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was of Himself that our Lord was still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be explained thus" -- 'say ye, 'that the Lord hath need of him and will straightway send him hither.'" According to this view of the case, our Saviour instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Himself that He would send the creature back as soon as He had done with it: would treat the colt, in short, as a LOAN. A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the text the word 'AGAIN' (palin). The fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a few centuries (see the note at foot 2), palin has shared the invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustworthy witnesses Aleph B C D L Delta, and about twice as many cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, 'And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The Lord hath need of him, and straightway He (i.e. the Lord) will send him BACK hither.'... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend that they have Antiquity on their side: for, besides the whole mass of copies with A at their head, both the Syriac, both the Latin, and both the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian, -- all in fact except the Ethiopic -- are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts palin, twice leaves it out. Quid plura?" John Burgon, Revision Revised, pgs. 57-58

Modern "bibles" are OVERFLOWING with depredations such as this of Jesus Christ and his majesty and his deity, in the very way that they present Jesus Christ, as well as destroying confidence in the consistency and reliability of the written word of God, all because a wicked band of unregenerate men have idolized two habitual liars, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. TWO PROVEN -- EMPIRICALLY, VERIFIABLY PROVEN - HABITUAL LIARS.

***    "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18

Vat B, Aleph = GOD. This is one of the two or three crème-de-la-crèmes of blasphemies in these two devastatingly corrupt witnesses, and once again, the equally wicked and corrupt Critical Text, and the modern "bibles" that are based on it, follow this gross and rapacious blasphemy, although some modern "bibles" purposely MISTRANSLATE the CT to try and get around it.

There is no excuse for the CT, and no excuse for modern "bibles" to avoid the eternal truth of the Traditional Text here. They have WILLFULLY DENIGRATED Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, by this gross, rapacious blasphemy, presenting an utterly FALSE JESUS, and it is not possible that regenerate translators would have participated in this radical heresy. I say again, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE that a regenerate translator would have participated in this vulgar corruption.

I've expounded elsewhere on the essence of God, so I'll not repeat that long excursion here. Suffice it to say that a "begotten God" is no "God" at all, but a mere attachment, a little "god" in fact, and by definition not of that single, simple essence that makes God to be God. The Son, on the other hand, is an eternally begotten person, out of the eternal person and being of the Father, within the same infinite and eternal essence, and therefore co-equal and co-existent in that same infinite and eternal essence with the Father and the Spirit. It is not the essence of God that is begotten, as the above heresy asserts, but the person of the Son from the Father within that same eternal essence, with the Spirit also proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son, also within that same infinite and eternal essence. As Calvin noted:

"By the name of God is understood THE ONE SIMPLE ESSENCE, COMPREHENDING THREE PERSONS, or hypostases... We, therefore, hold it DETESTABLE BLASPHEMY to call the Son a DIFFERENT God from the Father, because the simple name "GOD" admits NOT OF RELATION, NOR CAN GOD, CONSIDERED IN HIMSELF, BE SAID TO BE THIS OR THAT... IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE GODHEAD IS MENTIONED, WE ARE BY NO MEANS TO ADMIT THAT THERE IS AN ANTITHESIS BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON, as if to the former, only the name of God could competently be applied... But if we hold, what has already been demonstrated from Scripture, that THE ESSENCE OF THE ONE GOD, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, IS SIMPLE AND INDIVISIBLE, and again, that the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut against Arius and Sabellius, as well as the other ancient authors of error... Whoever says that the Son was ESSENTIATED [BEGOTTEN ESSENCE] by the Father, DENIES HIS SELF-EXISTENCE." John Calvin, Institutes I.XIII.XX, XXII, XXIII (emphasis added)

When Jesus focused attention on his own character, he did so as the SON respective to his unique position in the Godhead. For example:

"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the SON: That all men should honour the SON, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the SON honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." John 5:22-23

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the SON of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the SON to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the SON of man." John 5:25-27

Ad Infinitum.

Moreover, as I have also written elsewhere, the refusal by modern "bibles" to translate the Greek word "monogenes" as "only begotten" is also inexcusable, as gross a heresy as the one we are adjudicating here. By omitting the term "only begotten" these modern "bibles" are removing the one thing that explains Jesus' deity and his eternal position in the Godhead. Some of them also further pervert this passage by mistranslating the word "monogenes" as "unique", which is an utter absurdity, for the Greek language has an entirely different word for "unique", which is "monadikos", as I have also written about. In short, modern "bibles" have prostituted this verse in every way possible, and by extension the character of Jesus Christ, and that is the certain consequence of manifestly unregenerate translators.

Like the heretics of our day, the heresiarchs of yesteryear knew what they were doing when they slandered the character of Jesus Christ by perverting this foundational truth. Here's Burgon:

"It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that the Word was made flesh, &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch [Valentinus] and his followers denied that the Word is also the Son of God. As if in order to bar the door against this pretense, St. John announces (ver. 18) that the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him: thus establishing the identity of the Word and the Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it?" John Burgon, The Causes Of The Corruption Of The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels, pg 215

And Edward Miller, in the same work, commenting on Burgon's long excursus on this verse, adds the following regarding this blasphemy:

"This inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it in the Arian controversy. ARIUS READ THEOS (GOD), whilst HIS OPPONENTS READ UIOS (SON)... It is curious that with this history admirers of B and Aleph should extol their reading over the Traditional reading on the score of orthodoxy." Edward Miller, The Causes Of The Corruption Of The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels, pg 217-218 (emphasis added)

But modern "bibles" have embraced two habitual liars, constantly at war with each other most of the time, in order to further promote one of the vilest heresies ever to arise. The fact that they follow two habitual liars to invalidate a cornerstone doctrine speaks to the absence of any mental acumen on their part. And the fact that they are so willing to pervert the doctrine speaks to their carnal and unregenerate hearts. Is it any wonder, therefore, that so many professing Christians are also unregenerate today, when the very keepers of the gate are themselves the most wicked and unregenerate of all? Not to mention the most manifestly spiritually ignorant of all?

CONCLUSION OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS - TOC

If the NINETY PLUS demonstrations haven't proven to you that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph are two habitual liars, and that the HYBRID Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it are shams, illusions, the product of unregenerate, depraved, deluded imaginations, then neither would you believe if one were to rise from the dead.

We've seen only a smattering of the significant defects that permeate the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are founded on it. There are legions of less significant defects throughout modern "bibles" that inflict an irreparable harm on the whole. Accordingly, based on this rigged, hybrid text, modern "bibles" present a false portrait of Jesus Christ, not only by defacing cornerstone doctrines, as seen above, but also by making the written word, which is supposed to be a reflection of the Living Word, to seem inconsistent and at odds with itself throughout.

This inconsistency, of course, is THE driving force behind the construction of the Critical Text in the first place, as I have CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED, for it is Metzger and his cohorts who believe that the authors of the New Testament were the dumb, dense, stupid, virtually illiterate writers that the Critical Text makes them out to be. Just like the simple-to-complex paradigm of evolutionism.

Indeed, God forbid that Paul should agree with himself in letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians, by remembering to tell both that it is "THROUGH THE BLOOD" of Jesus Christ that sins are forgiven. God forbid that John should write Peter's surname in one chapter of his gospel and yet still be able to remember to write the same surname in the same gospel a few chapters later. God forbid that Luke should be knowledgeable of the geography of Israel and its surrounding locales, that Gennesaret and Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee were actually IN GALILEE, and not Judea. God forbid that Matthew should be able to accurately draw up a list of kings to demonstrate the Lord Jesus' lineal descent. HIs lineal KINGSHIP descent. God forbid that Matthew or Mark should be able to accurately convey a prophecy from the Old Testament, or that Mark could know that Tyre and the Sea of Galilee were actually south of Sidon. God forbid that the writers of the New Testament should know enough Greek to prevent them from composing one inane sentence after another, or from knowing the simple differences in Greek between the singular and the plural, and literally legions of other grammatical solecisms that I didn't even begin to address. God forbid that John, who travelled with Jesus and who knew Jerusalem intimately, should have remembered that the pool was named Bethesda. God forbid that Paul could have accurately quoted the Old Testament, such as Hosea 13:14, when revealing to the Corinthians eternal truths. God forbid that Luke's version of the Lord's prayer should be wholly consistent with Matthew's rendition of the same. God forbid that Luke should be able to accurately relate Israel's history from the time of the judges. God forbid that Jesus should be portrayed as Jehovah Incarnate, rather than a common fellow who borrowed donkeys, and sundry other misrepresentations by modern "bibles" of his glorious being. Et cetera, ad nauseam.

CLOSING REMARKS - TOC

I noted at the outset, in the Preamble Of Truth, that one must possess an accurate portrait of Jesus Christ in order to be genuinely born again.

Modern "bibles" go very far in preventing that, for modern "bibles" present an utterly FALSE JESUS, and there isn't a genuinely born again Christian versed in the Scriptures who doesn't know that, or least sense that. Not one.

The Holy Spirit is not in modern "bibles". Oh, of course God can work around that inhibition if and when he chooses, but God has also chosen to work by means, and the written word of God was always meant by God to be a perfect reflection of the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous. From the beginning it was always so. Even from the garden of Eden, it was always so. Modern "bibles" are anything but, anything but an accurate reflection of Jesus Christ.

Just as Jesus represented the Father when he was in the flesh, so the written word of God is meant to represent Jesus and his Father. I said earlier that my aim in this publication was to demolish and destroy the Satanic presentation of the FALSE Jesus of Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and the Critical Text and the modern "bibles" that are based on it by demonstrating how utterly depraved and corrupt and empirically inaccurate these witnesses truly are.

I have done that. I have done that beyond the shadow of any doubt. Admittedly, the kool-aid drinkers won't be much affected by any of this, but every man and woman with a sound mind who has seen this demonstration will be forced, if they possess any integrity at all, to come to a fork in the road on this matter, especially those creationists who have been nauseatingly promoting modern "bibles" and the corrupt, evolutionary text they are based on. Any creationist who now denies that modern "bibles" are the product of a wholly evolutionary mindset is a walking, talking fraud, and therefore anything he says is not credible. Nothing.

This doesn't mean that everyone who abides by the Traditional Text is genuinely born again. A great many are not, but most who are born again nevertheless adhere to the Traditional Text, especially those who have been made aware of the distinction, for like a needle that returns to the loadstone, so the Holy Spirit leads those he indwells to his true written word, the word he himself authored, and that is unmistakably and irrevocably the Traditional Text and the Bibles which are based on it.

To be clear, the acceptance or rejection of the Traditional Text is not the benchmark of salvation or the new birth. But it very much figures in the modus operandi of salvation and the new birth, of the Ordo Salutis, for as I said, God generally works by means, and the means by which God communicates Jesus and his Spirit is his word, and if that word be corrupted, then so is the method of communication. Which is what modern "bibles" based on the Critical Text infallibly do; they corrupt the communication of the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

Which I have conclusively proven. For if the foundation be corrupt, then so are the "bibles" that are based on that foundation, and there isn't an honest person on this earth who has seen this demonstration who doesn't now know that Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and the Critical Text that is based on them is corrupt to the core, to the very bone.

I am not the least bit concerned about any rebuttals to this publication, for the magicians of the Critical Text and their kool-aid drinking followers are utterly irrelevant to me. They cannot refute the empirical facts that I have presented. All they can do is fabricate smokescreens to try and obscure those facts, to marginalize those facts and make them seem to be unimportant. If I have made a small error somewhere in the presentation, they will seize on that to try and discredit the whole. Anything to obfuscate the truth, which is what they are experts at, but they cannot overturn the facts herein presented, except in the deluded minds of those who hate the light, and thus not a single person who is genuinely born of the Spirit will fall for their illusions and misdirections, so they are merely tilting at windmills concerning God's elect.

I know what it takes for a person to be genuinely born again. I have witnessed supernatural new births first hand. I have participated in them. Modern "bibles" will only lead astray. They do not facilitate new births, but only hinder them, for they reflect a false Jesus, a Jesus who doesn't exist, and those who don't make the correlation of modern "bibles" with the sordid state of professing Christianity today are simply ignorant and undiscerning, having not the Spirit themselves.

The true written word of God, which is wholly consistent with itself, just like the Lord Jesus is wholly consistent with himself, is the Traditional Text and the Bibles that are based on it. If you will see a wholly accurate portrait of Jesus Christ, therefore, read a Bible based on the Traditional Text. In English, that is the much maligned King James Bible, which is the only accurate Bible in English today.

Accordingly, it is no wonder that Satan raised up a cult to idolize the King James Bible and thus make the King James Bible odious to the ignorant and unsuspecting, but those of us who are genuinely born of the Spirit are not ignorant of Satan's devices. Satan will make an idol out of God himself, and he has done so down through the ages. And he has done so with the written word of God as well, not only with the King James Bible, but Satan has almost entirely replaced the Holy Spirit himself with the written word of God in almost all of professing Christianity today, for the supernatural acts of the Holy Spirit are either perverted on the one side, or denied altogether on the other. But ultimately, it's all smoke. It's not real. It's an illusion, just like the Critical Text and the "bibles" that are based on it.

The written word of God is not Jesus, and the Holy Spirit certainly is not the written word of God, for it is by the Spirit, not by the written word, that genuine disciples of Jesus are supernaturally led (Romans 8:14, &c), but Jesus can be found in the King James Bible and other Bibles that are based wholly on the Traditional Text, for God generally works through means, and therefore once an accurate portrait of Jesus is seen and felt, then wondrous things can occur.

The Traditional Text is the only written means that God irrevocably honors, and the Traditional Text is the only text that accurately reflects Jesus Christ, who alone among angels and men is worthy.