PART FIVE: RIDERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE

DIFFERENT WORDINGS  IN THE WESTCOTT-HORT FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DOCTRINE:  THE  DEITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST MATTHEW 8: 29 Matthew 8:29: the Textus Receptus Greek says:  kai idou ekraxan legonte ti hmin kai soi ihsou uie tou qeou hlqe wde pro kairou basanisai  hma Matthew 8: 29: the  Westcott-Hort Greek  says:   kai idou ekraxan legonte ti hmin kai soi uie tou qeou hlqe wde pro kairou basanisai hma Westcott-Hort leaves out "ihsou,"  "Jesus." Matthew 8: 29: King James Version:  And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Matthew 8: 29:  American Standard Version, 1901:  And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Matthew 8: 29:  New Revised Standard, 1952: Suddenly they shouted, "What have you to do with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?" Matthew 8: 29: Douay-Rheims:  And behold they cried out, saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Matthew 8: 29: New International Version (NIV), 1978:   "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted.  "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" The Sinaiticus,  Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus all leave out Ihsou, or Jesus.  The Westcott-Hort Greek text follows them. The Textus Receptus inclusion of Ihsou is found in the  vast majority of Byzantine Greek texts according to http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest The demon spirits cast out of the pigs by Jesus acknowledged - in Westcott-Hort - that he was the son of God. But they did not acknowledge he was also Jesus.  One version of gnosticism made a distinction between Jesus, as an earthly man, and Christ, from the spiritual world.  For them the son of God would not be called Jesus, who was from the corrupt, material world.  This version of gnosticism may be stated in the gnostic Gospel of Peter. Matthew 16: 20  Textus Receptus:     tote diesteilato toi maqhtai autou ina mhdeni eipwsin oti auto estin ihsou o cristo Matthew 16: 20 Westcott-Hort:   tote epetimhsen toi maqhtaiina mhdeni eipwsin oti auto estin o cristo Again, "ihsou" or Jesus, is left out of the Westcott-Hort. The American Standard, The New  Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard and the NIV all leave out Jesus.  The Douay-Rheims, however, says  "Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ." The  gnostic teaching that Jesus as an earthly man in the flesh was not the same as Christ from the spiritual world is consistent with the omission of Jesus from Matthew 16: 20. Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus:    arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort:  arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou "uiou tou qeou" or Son of the God is left out of the Westcott-Hort text for Mark 1: 1 Mark 1: 1 King James Version:   The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;  The American Standard Version,  New American Standard,  New revised Standard, NIV and Douay-Rheims all have "...Jesus Christ, the Son of God."  But - the NIV for Mark 1: 1 has a footnote saying "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God," which casts some doubt on whether this belongs in the verse. Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of "Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV are in line with gnostic teachings. John 1: 18: Textus Receptus:  qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort:   qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato Note that the Textus Receptus has "monogenhs  uios" or only begotten Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo,"   or only begotten God.  The Greek word monogenes is a little tricky.  It is Strong"s Exhaustive Concordance number 3439, where it says "from  3441, or monos, "remaining, i.e, sole or single...only." On http://houlton.net/monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..." Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God.  He is unique as being a Son of God. Above, the transliteration of the Greek letters into Latin letters of the alphabet spells "only begotten" as "monogenhs,"  The "h" in the Greek alphabet it is an eta, which can also be transliterated as an e. So the word can be written also as monogenes. John 1: 18: King James Version:  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: American Standard Version: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1: 18: New American Standard:   No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1: 18: New Revised Standard:  No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. John 1: 18: Douay-Rheims:  No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1: 18: NIV:  No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Young's Literal Translation has:    God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.  And  Green's translation has: No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.  Both of these are from the Textus Receptus. Of the English translations above, the only one that closely follows the Westcott-Hort Greek is The New American Standard which has the "only begotten God." wording. The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,  p66 , p75 and four other less known texts. Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts  have  "Only begotten Son>" The King James, The American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, and, of course, the Young's Literal and the Green's translation all follow the Textus Receptus wording, "the only begotten Son." The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is consistent with  gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ was the son of God and existed before the incarnation.  Some gnostics, especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created being and not fully God.. T. Holland in Crowned With Glory:  The Bible From Ancient Text To Authorized Version, on page 24 (note number 30) says that in the writings of gnostics and "heretics" like Tatian, Arius and Valentinus "only begotten God" rather than "only begotten Son appears.  The "only begotten God" seems to have become a kind of tradition among the gnostics. John 4: 42: Textus Receptus:  th te gunaiki elegon oti ouketi dia thn shn lalian pisteuomen autoi gar akhkoamen kai oidamen oti outo estin alhqw o swthr tou kosmou o cristo John 4: 42: Westcott-Hort:   th te gunaiki elegon oti ouketi dia thn shn lalian pisteuomen autoi gar akhkoamen kai oidamen oti outo estin alhqw o swthr tou kosmou " o cristo," the Christ, is not in the Westcott-Hort Greek for John 4: 42. John 4: 42: King James Version:  And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the  Christ, the Saviour of the world. The American Standard, The New American Standard, The New revised Standard, the NIV,  and the Douay-Rheims all leave out the Christ - but Young's Literal Translation and Green's translation - both using the Textus Receptus - have it in John 4: 42. The omission of the Christ is in line with some versions of gnostic theology which did not like to teach that Christ was the savior. John 9: 35: Textus Receptus:  hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort:  hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of the sentence.  But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of man." John 9: 35: King James Version:  Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? We might expect to find that the new Bible versions has "son of Man" instead of "Son of God."  But the American Standard Version, which came out in 1901 does follow the textus Receptus and has "son of God, " and so does the Douay-Rheims, the  Green  and the Young's Literal translation.  The New American Standard, The New Revised Standard and the NIV all follow Westcott-Hort and have "son of man." The web site http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest  lists twenty-three  Greek texts in addition to most Byzantine texts and the fifth century Alexandrinus that have the wording at the end of the sentence the Son of God.   The Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66, p75, two coptic (Egyptian) texts and three others have the wording son of man. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus does refer to himself as the son of man, pointing out that he had taken on human flesh.  But son of man referring to Christ is rarely used in the New Testament outside of the Gospels which quote Jesus calling himself by that name. In addition to the use of "son of man' in Hebrews 2: 6, the son of man clearly refers to Christ in Revelation 1: 13. Christ is called the Son of God many times in the four Gospels, and in John he is called Son of God more than son of man, especially if we count the number of verses which imply he is the Son of God.  Christ is referred to as the Son of God several times in Acts, in Romans,  in II Corinthians, Galatians,, Ephesians, implied in Philippians, and Colossians,  I Thessalonians, Hebrews, II Peter, I John, II John,  and in Revelation. While Jesus  often called himself the son of man, his apostles writing in the   New Testament books other than the four Gospels, nearly always called him the Son of God, indicating he was and is fully God.  Gnostics sometimes  called the Eternal Father  the "Primal Man" or "First Man". This  is  part of the gnostic confusion of the godhead. Early Christians familiar with gnostic teachings might recognize this change from "Son of God" to "son of man" as being in agreement with that teaching. Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus:  profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort:  profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon autou The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh." Note that the Westcott-Hort does have "ek karpou tes osphuos," or "of the fruit of his loins." Acts 2: 30: King James Version:  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Acts 2: 30: American Standard Version:  Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one  upon his throne Acts 2: 30:  New American Standard:  And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE Acts 2: 30: New Revised Standard:  Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 2: 30:  NIV:  But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 2: 30: Douay-Rheims:  Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne While the KJV, Young's  Literal, and Green's translation all have  "of the fruit of his loins Acts 2: 30: Young's Literal Translation:  a prophet, therefore, being, and knowing that with an oath God did swear to him, out of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, to raise up the Christ, to sit upon his throne, Acts 2: 30:  Green's Translation:  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne, While the KJV, Young's  Literal, and Green's translation all have  "of the fruit of his loins,  according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, " following the Textus Receptus, the other translations are closer to the Westcott-Hort Greek. The Douay-Rheims and American Standard follow Westcott-Hort in saying "of the fruit of his loins," they both omit, "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ." But the  NIV, the New American Standard and New Revised Standard for Acts 2: 30 leave out even more than the Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out of Acts 2: 30.  None of these three translations have "of the fruit of his loins," and certainly do not have "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ." In saying God would "place one of his descendants  on his throne," the NIV is not as explicit as the King James Version which says "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."  It is not clear at all in the NIV that it is Christ, as one of the descendants of David, who will sit on David's throne.  Acts 2: 30 points to the fulfillment of II Samuel  7: 12, God's promise to David that "...I will set up they seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." The NIV does not seem to want to acknowledge that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit to  Peter, came the knowledge that it is Jesus Christ who was to sit on the throne of David.  "Thy seed" in II Samuel 7: 12 is not there identified in an explicit way to be Jesus Christ. The removal  of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations following Westcott-Hort fits with  second and third century gnostic doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the Everlasting Father.  To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human flesh as a physical descendant of David  opposes gnostic teachings. Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the Eternal Father.  Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil Demiurge, created by the Aeon  Sophia, was the God of the Old Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period.  "According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not  found in the Greek texts associated with Egypt, the Sinaiticus,  Alexandrinus,  and Vaticanus.  This statement is also not found  in the Ephraemi Rescriptus.  The Ephraemi is a mixed type Greek text from the fifth century, and is not an Alexandrian type text.  Apparently, there are as many Alexandrian as Byzantine wordings of the Gospels in Ephraemi, but elsewhere in this New Testament Greek text, the Byzantine wordings outnumber the Alexandrian.  The Textus Receptus wording of "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is found, according to http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest     in the majority of  Byzantine texts, as well as in other Greek texts. Romans 14: 10: Textus Receptus:  su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bhmati tou christou Romans 14: 10:  Westcott-Hort:  su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bemati tou qeou The Textus Receptus has "Christou", or Christ.  But the Westcott-Hort has "geou," or God. The King James Version for Romans 14: 10 says "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Guess what?  The American Standard version, the New American Standard Version, the New Revised Version, and  the NIV all say we will stand before the judgment seat of God.  The Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and Green's translation say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. You might say that since Christ is God, what difference does it make to say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ or before that of God?  The problem is that Christ said in John 5: 22 that "...the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son." Then in II Corinthians 5: 10 Paul explains that "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."  In Romans 2: 16 Paul says "In that day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." I know that in Romans 2: 3 Paul says "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" We have to be suspicious of the Westcott-Hort wording of Romans 14: 10 in saying we will stand before the judgment seat of God rather than of Christ who was given the job of judgment by the Father.  Many verses that speak of the deity of Jesus Christ and of his incarnation in human flesh have wordings in Westcott-Hort that agree with the gnostics.  The gnostics cast doubt on the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God  and  saying that judgment belongs to God rather than to Jesus Christ is in line with this gnostic doctrine.  I Corinthians 5: 4 Textus Receptus:   en tw onomati tou kuriou emwn ihsou cristou sunachthentwn umwn kai tou emou pneumatos sun th dunamei tou kuriou emwn ihsou christou I Corinthians 5: 4:  Westcott-Hort:  en tw onomati tou kuriou emwn ihsou sunachthentwn umwn kai tou emou pneumatos sun th dunamei tou kuriou hmwn ihsou The Westcott-Hort Greek text leaves out christou, Christ. I Corinthians 5: 4:  King James Version:  "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," As we might expect, following Westcott-Hort, the American Standard version, The New American Standard, the New revised Standard, and the NIV leave out Christ.  So does the Catholic English version the Douay-Rheims.  The New King James Version, Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation, following the Textus Receptus, have Christ in I Corinthians 5: 4. The omission of Christ in I Corinthians 5: 4 would not mean too much if this were the only verse were Christ was left out.  But Christ, or Jesus, or references to God saying that Jesus is God are left out of so many New testament verses in the Westcott-Hort text and in its many new translations offspring that we have to say it is consistent with these many other omissions.  Again, leaving Christ out of this verse and retaining only Jesus could be in agreement with the gnostic teaching that the Christ was not God, and that the Christ who was to the gnostics an Aeon from the spiritual world could not have taken on human flesh in the "evil" material world. I Corinthians 15: 47:  Textus Receptus:   o protos anthropos ek ges choikos o deuteros anthropos o kurios ex ouranou I Corinthians 15: 47:  Westcott-Hort:       o protos anthropos ek ges choikos o deuteros anthropos ex ouranou The Westcott-Hort Greek text leaves out "o kurios," the Christ. This is fairly easy Greek.  "O protos" is the first.  "Anthropos" is man, the Greek word from which we get our anthropology, the study of man. "Ek ges" is out of earth.  "Choikos," is made of dust. "O deuteros anthropos"  is the second man. The Textus Receptus has at the end of the sentence "o kurios ex ouranou," the Lord out of heaven.  But the Westcott-Hort text says at the end of the sentence only "ex ouranou," out of heaven.  The literal translation of the entire sentence in the Westcott-Hort might say "The first man (is) out of earth, made of dust, the second (is) man out of heaven." The Westcott-Hort wording does not say who this second man is.  the Textus Receptus identifies the second man as the Lord, and Christians know that this is Jesus Christ. For I Corinthians 15: 47 the King James Version says:  "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." The American Standard Version (1901) for I Corinthians 15: 47 has: "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven." As expected, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard and the NIV all follow the Westcott-Hort Greek text and leave out Lord. The Catholic Douay-Rheims also leaves out Lord.  Following the Textus Receptus the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation contain Lord. According to the web site http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest    the only Greek texts that omit Lord are the  Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus.  Lord is in most Byzantine texts as well as the Alexandrinus.  The papyrus fragment p46 replaces "the Lord" with "the spiritual" (pneumatikos). Remember that I Corinthians 15: 45, just a couple of verses before verse 47, says "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the second Adam was made a quickening spirit." Paul in I Corinthians 15:45 says Christ as the second Adam was a quickening spirit.  Jesus Christ was incarnated in the flesh of sinful man  so that he could save those who accepted him and his truth from the sentence of death (II Corinthians 1: 9).    Romans 5: 21 states that "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto everlasting life by Jesus Christ our Lord."  And in Philippians 3: 9 Paul wants "...to be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Christ as the second Adam paid the price for our sins when  as fully God  he took on human flesh and died on the cross.  As the replacement of Adam as the head of his people, he gives to us, on faith, his righteousness, so that we might  come to be on the right side of the plumb line of Amos (7: 7-8).  And Christ as the second Adam at his appearing will give us a body  and a likeness somewhat like his own. I John 3: 2 promises "...we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Leaving the word Lord out of I Corinthians 15: 47 could  weaken  faith in the promises that Jesus Christ as the second Adam has made to his people. The omission of Lord, which identifies the second Adam as Jesus Christ to Christians, fits with some gnostic ideas.  Many gnostics of the second and third centuries thought that man had a physical nature (soul) and a spiritual nature.  His spiritual nature was corrupted by being in the dark and evil material world created by the Demiurge. The spiritual, part of man could  be liberated by gnosis - knowledge or insight -  and might  join  the Eternal Father in the spiritual realm. This gnostic Eternal Father is not a personal being, but is some kind of spiritual force (Daniel 11:38) ; he is not the God of the Bible. In gnostic theology the Eternal Father created several spiritual beings called Aeons.  The lowest of these is Sophia and she rebelled because of her low status and created the Demiurge who in turn created the evil material world  which corrupts the spiritual side of man. Then, in some gnostic teachings, Sophia gave men, or some men, a spark of spirituality to defy the evil demiurge.  Another Aeon, the Christos or the Christ of the gnostics, was sent into the world to bring gnosis or secret knowledge to some men.  He did not die to atone for our sins, and in gnostic theology sin is not a problem.  Man, or some men, have a spark of spirituality or "god-nature" in them, and secret knowledge can develop this spark and liberate them from bondage to the material world. Though the gnostics used some of the terminoloy of Christianity, their theology was really quite different from  Biblical  doctrine. Removing the Lord, referring to Jesus Christ, from I Corinthians 15: 47 could make the verse appear consistent with gnostic doctrine for the gnostics and for a few Christians who were taken in by this deception. If some gnostic scribes did make this change to omit Lord in a few New Testament copies duiring the two centuries before the Alexandrian Vanticanus and Sinaiticus were copied out in the fourth century, this one verse change does not prove much.  But if many changes like this in the Westcott-Hort Greek text are in line with gnostic teachings, this is some evidence for the idea that gnostics changed a few copies of Scripture. It may not be seen as decisive proof to the followers of Westcott and Hort though. If the second Adam is not identified as Jesus Christ, the gnostics might have placed some doubt on the gospel itself which may be the effect they desired. The omission of Lord in this verse could throw it into partial ageement with the gnostic teaching of  the Apocryphon of John, part of the Nag Hammadi manuscript find,  that the first Adam was created with soul (psyche), and the second Adam  was created with spirit (pneumatos). Maybe the omission of Lord in I Corinthians 15: 47  could be read as supporting the gnostic teaching that the first man, the psychical, was an  earthly creation of the Demiurge, but that the second man, who  had   pneuma or the spiritual, was from heaven, because in the Gnostic system, all spirituality came from the  Eternal Father  and from heaven.  The change from "the Lord" to  "the spiritual" in the papyrus fragment p46 could also help change this verse from a Christian to a gnostic view. But the change from a Christian to a gnostic view is not found consistently in the Westcott-Hort Greek text; this kind of radical change is not found in all verses dealing with the deity and incarnation of Christ.  It is found is many verses, enough to justify taking a close look at the possibility that gnostics tampered with some verses of the New Testament. Perhaps if gnostics actually did change some verses in some copies of Scripture, the effect of this change was to create doubt in the minds of  Christians using the new translations about the Christian doctrines.  Over time this doubt could grow into apostasy. It looks like some in the Christian Multitude may  have become hungry for spiritual experience because they are not being led into it in most of the churches - and so  get into a kind of gnostic spiritual experience that masquerades as authentic Holy Spirit inspiration.  The Holy Spirit works through Scripture to bring us its truth, and may not work that well from the modern Bible versions as he does through the King James Version. II Corinthins 4: 6: Textus Receptus:  oti o theos o eipwn ek skotous phws lampsai os elampsen en tais kardiais emwn pros phwtismon ths gnoseos tes doxes tou theou en proswpps iesou christou II Corinthians 4: 6:  Westcott-Hort:    oti o theos o eipwn ek skotous phws lampsei os elampsen en tais kardiais emwn pros phwtismon ths gnoseos tes doxes tou theou en proswpps christou "Iesou" or Jesus is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The King James version for II Corinthians 4: 6 says "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." In accord with the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the New American Standard version and the NIV omit Jesus.  But the American Standard version and the New revised Standard do have Jesus, in agreement wioth the Textus Receptus. The Dopuay-Rheims, the Young's Literal translation and Green's translation all have Jesus. Jesus is not found for II Corinthians 4: 6 in the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus (5th century), and in Southern Coptic (Egyptian) Greek texts.  It is found in almost all other Greek texts. Leaving out Jesus is in agreement with the gnostic separation of  the earthly "Jesus" from the heavenly "Christ."  The followers of Julius Cassianus said the body of Jesus was only an illusion and not real, a teaching based on the gnostic belief that matter is evil.  For the gnostics Christ or the Christos, but not Jesus, came to free man from bondage to the material world and to become part of the spiritual world of  the Eternal Father. GALATIANS 6: 17 Galatians 6: 17:  Textus Receptus:  tou loipou kopous moi medeis parechetw ego gar ta stigmata tou kuriou ihsou en to somati mou bastazo Galatians 6: 17:  Westcott-Hort:       tou loipou kopous moi medeis parechetw ego gar ta stigmata tou ihsou en to somati mou bastazo "Lord" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The King James Version says for Galatians 6: 17 that  "From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." The American Standard version, the New American Standard, the New revised Standard and the NIV all leave out "Lord," following Westcott-Hort.  But the Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation all have "Lord Jesus." The  Vaticanus,  Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and  papyrus p46 omit "Lord" according to http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest The Byzantine Greek texts all have "Lord." Gnostics tried to make a distinction between the "Lord", meaning God, and the earthly Jesus.  For the gnostics the Aeon they called the Christ from the spiritual world would not be called "Jesus." In addition, for gnostics, especially the Docetist variety, the spiritual "Lord" who had no real physical body, would not have left marks on Paul.  Again, the omission of "Lord" seems to fit gnostic theology. EPHESIANS 3: 9 Ephesians 3: 9: Textus Receptus:     kai photisai pantas tis e koinonia tou musteriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo tw ta panta ktisanti dia ihsou christou Ephesians 3: 9:  Westcott-Hort:        kai photisai tis e oikonomia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo to ta panta ktisanti Literally the Textus Receptus says: "and to enlighten all about the fellowship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the God, who all things created by Jesus Christ." But the Westcott-Hort Greek text says "and enlighten about the stewardship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the God who created all things." Instead of the "photisai pantas e koinonia" of the Textus Receptus the Westcott-Hort says "photisai tis e okonomia."  Westcott-Hort leave out "pantas," or "all" and have "okonomia" instead of "koinonia." Okonomia means something like stewardship while koinonia means fellowship, people having something in common, and for the Apostles and  all Christians, being together on one path to Christ. OK. The King James Version for  Ephesians 3: 9 says:  "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:" "Men" has been added in the King James.  But the King James does follow the Textus Receptus and say "fellowship"  of the mystery. It is going to be interesting to see what the various translations do with this verse. We are very likely to see that the new Bible versions which are obedient to the Westcott-Hort Greek text wording will leave out Jesus, Christ, or both words, Jesus Christ. The American Standard Version of 1901 says for Ephesians 3: 9 that "and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;" Then, the New American Standard says: "and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;" The New Revised Standard says:  "men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things:  and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;" And the NIV for Ephesians 3: 9 says "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things." The Catholic English Bible, the Douay-Rheims, says for Ephesians 3: 9 that " And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things:" I am not sure to what extent the Douay-Rheims derives from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.  What I have seen so far of the verses of the Douay-Rheims suggests it has mixed wordings, some close or almost identical to the Textus Receptus and King James and some close or idential to the Westcott-Hort and the NIV.. Young's Literal Translation says:   "and to cause all to see what [is] the fellowship of the secret that hath been hid from the ages in God, who the all things did create by Jesus Christ." Green's translation says:  "and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;" The American Standard, the New American Standard, the Revised Standard, the NIV and the Douay-Rheims talk about the "dispensation" or "administration" of the mystery that has been hidden for ages in God.  But the translations loyal to the Textus Receptus - the King James, the New King James, the Young's and the Green translation - write about the "fellowship" of the mystery hidden for the ages in God. There is a difference in meaning between a fellowship of the mystery and the administration or dispensation of the mystery. In his commentary on Ephesians 3: 9 John Gill has this to say:  "Or "the dispensation of the mystery" as the Complutensian, and several copies, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read. The mystery is the Gospel; the fellowship of it is the communication of grace by it, a participation of the truths and doctrines of it, communion with Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Gospel calls and leads unto..." Gill  goes on to say that " Now men are naturally in the dark about these things, and the ministry of the word is the means of enlightening them, and is indeed the grand design of it; and the ministers of the Gospel do instrumentally enlighten persons, though it is God only that does it efficiently; and for this, gifts of grace were bestowed upon the apostle, even for the enlightening of all men, not every individual person in the world, but some of all sorts,..." Matthew Henry on Ephesians 3: 9 says  "The holy angels, who look into the mystery of our redemption by Christ, could not but take notice of this branch of that mystery, that among the Gentiles is preached the unsearchable riches of Christ..." According to the web site http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest   the only Greek texts which contain the wording close to the Westcott-Hort - leaving out "Jesus Christ" and saying  only that God created all things - is found in the papyrus fragments  p46,  Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus.  We can be pretty sure that Westcott and Hort got their wording for Ephesians 3: 9 from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Leaving out "by Jesus Christ" in  Ephesians 3: 9   removes from these New Testament copies of the verse the important doctrine that Jesus Christ created all things.  I know that the Westcott-Hort for Colossians 1: 16   has  "oti en auto ektisthe ta panta en tois ouranois kai epi tes ges ta orata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kuriothtes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai."   This wording is the same as in the Textus Receptus, saying "oti en auto ektisthe ta panta ta en tois ouranois kai ta epi ths ges ta orata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kuriothtes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai." The King James translates this as : " For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." And the NIV has for Colossians 1: 16:  "For by him all things were created:  things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;  all things were created by him and for him."  "He" refers back to "the Son" in Colossians 1: 13, and Christ is mentioned in verse 8, and  our Lord Jesus Christ in verse  3.  If there were theological reasons for changing some copies of verses of the New Testament, whoever did the changing probably knew altering all verses dealing with a major New Testament doctrine would be rejected by almost all Christians. Also, Colossians 1: 16 does not say in a very explicit way that "By our Lord Jesus Christ were all things created."  The reader has to follow the thread of thought Paul began earlier in talking about Jesus Christ to know who "he" is in Colossians 1: 16. Lets get back to looking at  the possibility that changes in the wordings of some copies of the New Testament are in agreement with gnostic theology.   Leaving out "Jesus Christ" and saying instead  that God created all things does less damage to that theology than saying Jesus Christ is the creator.. Gnostics thought that since the Christ was a spiritual "emanation" from the Eternal Father, he was totally removed from the material creation.  To the gnostics, the Christ as an Aeon  entered our material world only as a spiritual being to bring enlightenment and liberation to a few from the evil material universe. Christ, to gnostics, would not have created the material world.  Gnostics taught that the evil Demiurge created the material world. I THESSALONIANS 2: 19  I Thessalonians 2: 19:  Textus Receptus:    tis gar emon elpis e chara e stephanos kauchseos e ouchi kai umeis emprosthen tou kuriou emon ihsou christou en te autou parousia I Thessalonians 2: 19:  Westcott-Hort:        tis gar emon elpis e chara e stephanos kauchseos e ouchi kai umeis emprosthen tou kuriou emon ihsou en th autou parousia Westcott-Hort leave out "christou," Christ. In the King Kames Version,  I Thessalonians 2: 19 reads, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" The American Standard Version, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard, the NIV   leave out "Christ," and say "Lord Jesus." But the Catholic Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and Green's translation have the full Textus Receptus wording of "Lord Jesus Christ."  The gnostics made a distinction between the earthly Jesus who was in human flesh and the spiritual Christ, who - they thought - would not take on human flesh. Leaving "Christ" out of this verse would seem to make it consistent with gnostic theology.  But Paul in I Thessalonians 2: 19 says the "Lord Jesus Christ" will appear again and when he does we will be with him, or in his presence.  Saying only that the "Lord Jesus" will appear and we will be before him weakens the great promise of the appearing of God.  If Jesus were not fully God, he could not have satisfied the charge against us sinners on the cross.  Only God could have redeemed us. II THESSALONIANS 1: 8 II Thessalonians 1: 8:  Textus Receptus:  en puri phlagos didontos ekdikesin tois me eidosin theon kai tois me upakouousin to euaggelio tou kuriou emon ihsou christou II Thessalonians 1: 8:  Westcott-Hort:       en puri phlogos didontos ekdikhsin tois me eidosin theon kai tois me upakouousin to euaggelio tou kuriou emon ihsou The Westcott-Hort Greek text leaves out "christou," or Christ.  It appears that in many of the wording disagreements between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort, either Jesus or Christ tends to be omitted. For II Thessalonians 1: 8 the King James Version says "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" The American Standard Version for II Thessalonians 1: 8 has "rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus." The New American Standard, the Revised Standard, and the NIV say pretty much the same thing, leaving out Christ but still calling him "Lord."  The Catholic Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal translation and the green Translation all have the complete Textus receptus wording, saying "our Lord Jesus Christ." Many verses in the Textus Receptus have "Jesus Christ," Lord Jesus Christ, or "Jesus Christ the Son of God.   But in the Westcott-Hort Greek text the same verses often omit either "Jesus" or "Christ."  Not saying "Jesus Christ" would agree with gnostic theology since the gnostics separated Jesus who was in human flesh from their concept of the Christ who was from the Eternal Father as an Aeon, or created being, and was not clearly in human flesh. HEBREWS 5: 2 Hebrews 5: 2: Textus Receptus:  metriopaqein dunamenos tois agnoousin kai planomenois epei kai autos perikeitai astheneian Hebrews 5: 2: Westcott-Hort:      metriopaqein dunamenoV toiV agnoousin kai planomenois epei kai autos perikeitai astheneian In the case of Hebrews 5: 2 the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort say the same thing. For Hebrews 5: 2 the King James Version has:   "Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." The American Standard Version says "who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." But now look at how the New American Standard Version translated the Greek word "astheneian" in Hebrews 5: 2 from the Westcott-Hort text. It reads "he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness;" The New Revised Standard says  "He is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is subject to weakness." And the NIV has "He is able to deal gently with those  who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness." The Douay-Rheims says "Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity." The Young's Literal translation is very close to the King James and says Christ is compassed with infirmity.  But Green's translation says he is compassed with weakness. Astheneian is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 769 which Strong's says can mean disease, infirmity, sickness.  On http://houlton.net/monk  the Thayer's Greek Lexicon says number 769 means want of strength, weakness, infirmity of the body, feebleness of health. The word astheneian is used in many verses to refer to infirmities of the body, such as in  Luke 8: 2, Luke 5: 15, Luke 13: 1, Luke 13: 12, John 5: 5, Romans 6: 19, Galatians 4: 13, or I Timothy 5: 23.  It is translated as sickness or disease in John 11:4, and Acts 28: 9. However, in  II Corinthians 12: 9,  and Hebrews 11: 34 astheneian is translated as weakness and is used in in reference to spiritual, moral or psychological weakness. It is also translated as weakness in I Corinthians 2: 3,   I Corinthians 15: 43, and II Corinthians 13: 4 but in these verses weakness can be either physical or spiritual. One major problem with translating astheneian as weakness in Hebrews 5: 2 is that Hebrews 4: 15 says "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;  but was in all points tempted like as  we are, yet without sin." Jesus Christ was not morally or mentally weak as "weakness" in the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard and the NIV might imply. He was tempted to sin, but did not  sin.  He knew our physical infirmities because he was in our flesh, and he knew our moral and psychological weaknesses because he was likewise subjected to tests brought on the Satan.  But he did not sin. Since Christ did not sin, it is incorrect to say he was weak.  Hebrews 5: 2 has to be interpreted by Hebrews 4: 15, and translated accordingly, as long as the Greek word allows variations in translation.  Astheneian  is translated more often as referring to physical infirmities, but in  a couple of   verses it can refer to psychological or moral weakness. In II Corinthians 12: 9, for example, God told Paul that "...my strength is made perfect in weakness," and though its possible that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was some kind of physical problem, still astheneian could refer to a more general kind of weakness. And in Hebrews 11: 34 people of great faith are said to have "...escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of  the aliens."  Here astheneian means spiritual, psychological, moral and physical weakness.  By faith and by its trial in fire, these great men and women of faith became spiritually, morally, psychologically and perhaps also physically stronger. Translating astheneian as weakness might fit the gnostic theology on the separation of Jesus in the flesh from the Christ who was an Aeon, created by the Eternal father, and sent into the material world to enlighten a few with knowledge to save them from that world.  In the true Biblical view, Christ was not spiritually,  morally or psychologically weak, and did not sin.  But in the gnostic view, Jesus might have been morally and psychologically weak.  The New American Standard, the New Revised Standard and the NIV could be interpreted to suggest that he was spiritually or morally weak - if  Hebrews 5: 2 were to be considered as standing alone.