Be it known, however, that this blindness and deceit by mainstream biblical scholarship is fulfilled prophecy, for both the Holy Ghost and His Word have made the truly born again believer know that the blind and the deceitful will control the field of biblical scholarship in the several generations immediately preceding the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, the jaundiced defense of B and Aleph by the modern divines is just one of the many reasons why this generation of bible scholars, along with their immediate predecessors, will go down as the most inept and incompetent -- not to mention one of the most wicked -- generations in the history of biblical scholarship.

Furthermore, not only are these two manuscripts depraved with unspeakable blasphemies and inaccuracies throughout, but the scribes of these manuscripts knew little or no Greek themselves. And yet, the "pidgin" Greek of these two manuscripts has controlled Anglo-biblical Greek scholarship for the past one hundred years. Anglo -grammars, lexicons, and other devices are based on the "pidgin" Greek of these two manuscripts.

"The text printed by Westcott and Hort [based almost exclusively on B and Aleph] has been accepted as the true text, and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent [and it does], then such and such an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W-H text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 AD and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 468

"Modern scholars love to touch on the forbidden ground of the speculative philosophies St. Paul so often condemns in his pastoral epistles. They touch upon it and withdraw, but the harm for the reader is done." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 478

"The claims put forward by us are that B does not exhibit a neutral text... That B is guilty of laches, of a tendency to "improve," and of "sunstroke" amounting to doctrinal bias. That the maligned Textus Receptus served in large measure as the base which B tampered with and changed, and that the Church at large recognised all this until the year 1881 -- when Hortism (in other words Alexandrianism) was allowed free play -- and has not since retraced the path to sound tradition." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 464

"There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations of 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." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 456

"I present therefore an indictment against the MS B and against Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts... If I now throw some bombs into the inner citadel, it is because from that Keep there continues to issue a large amount of ignorant iteration of Hort's conclusions, without one particle of proof that his foundation theory is correct." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p i-ii

"Now in the following pages I submit a vast number of other instances where B has a doctored text, plainly, indubitably doctored." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p vi

"The Church at large disagreed with Origen's conclusions. Westcott-Hort after nearly 1700 years merely wish to replace us textually in the heart of an Alexandrian text, which after AD 450 or thereabouts fell into discredit and disuse." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 9

"We do not necessarily recover Origen's manuscripts when we are inclined to follow Aleph and B and Origen, but very likely only Origen himself." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 10

"Now as B does not change all these datives, it might be thought that Antioch for some reason had made a harmonious whole and turned some genitives into datives in the supposed revision. It is just here that Aleph offers its important testimony, for Aleph does not use the genitive on the first occasion, thereby showing that it was Egypt which revised some of St. Matthew's datives, and not Antioch which cancelled some genitives." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 35

"Finally, observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the lower criticism had kept itself quite apart from so-called higher criticism. Since the publication of Hort's text, however, and of that of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the supposed results acquired by the lower criticism to bolster up their views. By a policy of indecision in the matter of fundamental truths of the Christian religion - truths specifically set forth by its Founder - and by a decided policy, on the other hand, of decision in the matter of heresy in the field of lower criticism, the beliefs of many have been shaken not only to their foundations, but they have been offered free scope to play the Marcion and excise whatever appeared extra-ordinary or unintelligible to them. Many, who should have raised their voices against the mischief wrought, have sat by in apathy or have willfully fostered these heresies." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 422