INEPT, INCOMPETENT AND APOSTATE

This generation of Bible scholars will go down as the most inept and incompetent generation of Bible scholars in the entire history of Christianity, and for the following basic reasons...

First and foremost, this generation of Bible scholars is utterly inept and incompetent when it comes to understanding even the rudiments of evidence. This ineptitude and incompetence began with the production of Westcott and Hort's Greek text in the late nineteenth century, and has continued -- and grown worse -- to this very day. Commenting on the ineptitude and incompetence of Westcott and Hort, Sir Robert Anderson, noted Bible critic and head of the Criminal Investigative Division of Scotland Yard, and contemporary with Westcott and Hort, offered these remarks with regard to the incompetence and ineptitude of Westcott and Hort in their utter lack of knowledge and understanding of the rudiments of evidence --

As the criminal investigator, Sir Robert Anderson, knew, and as every rookie cop on the planet knows, it is the epitome of foolhardiness to accept the testimony of a habitual liar. Only someone who is utterly ignorant of even the RUDIMENTS of evidence could be ignorant of this axiom.

Westcott and Hort, and modern textual critics along with them, including the late Bruce Metzger, were and are utter ignoramuses with regard to the rudiments of evidence, for they all have not only accepted, but have staked their entire reputations on, not merely the testimony of ONE HABITUAL LIAR, but have in fact staked their reputations on THREE HABITUAL LIARS, to wit: Codex Sinaiticus, a.k.a. Aleph, Codex Vaticanus, a.k.a. B, and Codex Bezae, a.k.a. D. They have staked their reputations on the testimony of these THREE HABITUAL LIARS by constructing a Greek text based on these three utterly perverse witnesses.

And they have done so in spite of CONCLUSIVE TESTIMONY against them. As Anderson said of Westcott and Hort, so can it be said of the modern textual critic, to wit, they have proven themselves wholly incompetent in dealing with even the RUDIMENTS of evidence.

You see, these three manuscripts have proven themselves to be COMPLETE LIARS GEOGRAPHICALLY; these three manuscripts have proven themselves to be COMPLETE LIARS ARCHAEOLOGICALLY; these three manuscripts have proven themselves to be COMPLETE LIARS HISTORICALLY; these three manuscripts have proven themselves to be COMPLETE LIARS THEOLOGICALLY; these three manuscripts have proven themselves to be COMPLETE LIARS GRAMMATICALLY AND PHILOLOGICALLY.

These three manuscripts, Aleph, B and D, have grammatical and philological blunders in slightly less than EVERY THIRD VERSE. To put it bluntly but factually, the scribes of these three manuscripts WERE COMPLETE, UTTER IGNORAMUSES IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE. That is not debatable, as I and others who have actually personally collated these three depraved witnesses in the New Testament have all affirmed.

Yet, modern textual critics, demonstrating just how deeply dyed their ignorance is, have swallowed the testimony of these THREE HABITUAL LIARS hook, line and sinker. They have even in a number of cases imported these gross grammatical errors into their text, such as the gross grammatical solecism in 1 Timothy 3:16 (See 1 Timothy 3:16 Examined). Because the modern Anglo scholar can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it, he is utterly ignorant of the significance of this gross grammatical blunder in the Critical Text, which is the Greek text that underlies modern "bibles." Of course, native Greeks who can actually speak their own language testify that this grammatical error is so gross that not even a fledgling Greek schoolboy would commit it.

But the modern Anglo textual critic who can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it, thinks the Holy Ghost by the educated mouth of the Apostle Paul was too ignorant to communicate to his readers in passable Greek in this and a host of other passages. And this is only ONE example of MANY. Even worse, the underlying manuscripts, as I said, are so grossly corrupt grammatically and philologically that they are virtually unreadable.

Yet the modern Anglo textual critic calls these THREE HABITUAL LIARS the BEST manuscripts. Indeed, the modern Anglo textual critic who can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it, thinks the penmen of the New Testament, and by extension the Holy Ghost, were so completely and utterly incompetent in the Greek language that they could hardly put together three complete sentences in Greek without making grammatical and philological blunders out the kazoo.

Again, that these three perverted witnesses are INUNDATED with grammatical and philological blunders IS NOT DEBATABLE. Yet the modern Anglo textual critic calls these THREE HABITUAL LIARS the BEST manuscripts, thus demonstrating how inept and incompetent they are with regard to even the RUDIMENTS of evidence, and revealing one of the reasons this generation of Bible scholars will go down as the most inept and incompetent generation of Bible scholars in the entire history of Christianity.

This same gross INACCURACY of these THREE HABITUAL LIARS can be demonstrated with respect to ARCHAEOLOGICAL corroboration, with respect to GEOGRAPHICAL corroboration, with respect to HISTORICAL corroboration, with respect to THEOLOGICAL corroboration, ad nauseam.

Yet the modern Anglo textual critic calls these THREE HABITUAL LIARS the BEST manuscripts, thus demonstrating how inept and incompetent they are with regard to even the RUDIMENTS of evidence, and revealing one of the reasons this generation of Bible scholars will go down as the most inept and incompetent generation of Bible scholars in the entire history of Christianity.

Those of us who have actually collated these depraved witnesses can repeat with full, complete authority the conclusion John Burgon drew after collating these THREE HABITUAL LIARS in the late nineteenth century --

Only someone who is an utter ignoramus with regard to even the RUDIMENTS of evidence would accept the testimony of THREE HABITUAL LIARS, yet the modern Anglo textual critic has not only embraced these THREE HABITUAL LIARS, but has thoroughly corrupted the Word of the Living God by constructing books they call "bibles" based on these THREE HABITUAL LIARS. Only a complete ignoramus would embrace their testimony.

In sharp contrast, the Textus Receptus, which underlies the Authorised Version, or King James Bible, is GRAMMATICALLY and PHILOLOGICALLY CORRECT, is GEOGRAPHICALLY ACCURATE in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, is ARCHAEOLOGICALLY CORROBORATED in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where it is possible to do so, is HISTORICALLY ACCURATE in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where it is possible to achieve corroboration, and is WHOLLY and ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE in EVERY SINGLE RESPECT THEOLOGICALLY.

Only a complete ignoramus with respect to even the RUDIMENTS of evidence would accept the testimony of THREE HABITUAL LIARS over the testimony of a HABITUALLY HONEST WITNESS such as the Textus Receptus. Only a complete, utter IGNORAMUS and thoroughly APOSTATE and MANIFESTLY UNREGENERATE professing Christian would do so.

For those who believe the Holy Ghost inspired the written Word of God in the autographa INERRANTLY and INFALLIBLY, the issue is closed, for it is NOT POSSIBLE that the Holy Ghost inspired manuscripts that are GRAMMATICALLY and PHILOLOGICALLY CORRUPT THROUGHOUT, that are GEOGRAPHICALLY INACCURATE, that are ARCHAEOLOGICALLY INACCURATE, that are HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, and that are PERVERSELY and HERETICALLY CORRUPT THEOLOGICALLY. That is the VERY CHARACTER of Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and Codex Bezae.

Those are the FACTS IN EVIDENCE, and they are INDISPUTABLE. Only an APOSTATE and MANIFESTLY UNREGENERATE professing Christian could believe that the Holy Spirit of God could produce manuscripts of such a depraved character.

Hear and understand: you will NEVER find the LIVING LORD JESUS CHRIST in the pages of these utterly corrupt and heretical modern "bibles" based on the testimony of the THREE HABITUAL LIARS, Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and Codex Bezae. Never, and if you think you will, you are delusional.

Furthermore, if you would be born again, GENUINELY born again, you will have to have an UNMISTAKABLE SUPERNATURAL ENCOUNTER with Jesus Christ HIMSELF. That is not metaphor, or hyperbole, or symbolism. Friend, if you would be born again, GENUINELY born again, Jesus Christ HIMSELF must PERSONALLY INTRODUCE HIMSELF to you. Again, that is not metaphor, or hyperbole, or symbolism. And you will NOT find the LIVING LORD JESUS CHRIST in the pages of these utterly corrupt and heretical modern "bibles" based on the testimony of the THREE HABITUAL LIARS, Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and Codex Bezae.

Oh, it may be possible for a person to be born again while reading one of these perverted "bibles," but that would only be by God's extraordinary grace, for God spoke to Balaam by an ass, but speaking to people by an ass is not God's normal way of revealing himself. Moreover, even IF a person manages to get born again reading one of these corrupt "bibles" he will then be QUICKLY led astray if he continues to read it, for the LIVING LORD JESUS CHRIST is NOT found in the pages of these corrupt "bibles," and if you think he is, you are unregenerate and delusional, for the Holy Spirit HIMSELF does NOT bear witness to these corruptions.

Would you be born again? GENUINELY born again?