"Jesuitism has poisoned the wellsprings of truth in the whole world." -- Carlyle, as cited in 'The Jesuits and Their Plot to Destroy Britain'
"...they keep back a portion of the gospel... having studied in the devil's new Jesuitical college." -- ("A Solemn Warning for All Churches," Sermon No. 68 by Charles H. Spurgeon)
Charles H. Spurgeon preached about
Bible correctors in a sermon entitled, "The Greatest Fight in the World." He
said:
"We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. We shall gradually be so be doubted and be criticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, "These be thy gods, O Israel!"
Spurgeon had it right. Textual
criticism by the "experts" is a horde of little popelings who by their assumed
infallibility have the gall to tell us what is God's Word and what is not.
Such is the tyranny of the experts.
Spurgeon on inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture:
“I do not believe that, from one cover to the other, there is any mistake in it of any sort whatever, either upon natural or physical science, or upon history or anything whatever. I am prepared to believe whatever it says, and to take it believing it to be the Word of God; for if it is not all true, it is not worth one solitary penny to me. It may be to the man who is so wise that he can pick out the true from the false; but I am such a fool that I could not do that. If I do not have a guide there that is infallible, I would as soon guide myself, for I shall have to do so after all; I shall have to be correcting the blunders of my guide perpetually, but I am not qualified to do that, and so I am worse off than if I had not any guide at all. Sit thou down, Reason, and let Faith rise up.” -- Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
(Spurgeon on Westcott and Hort) "With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task..... Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this "modern thought". -- Charles Spurgeon
One must have a basic understand of
this issue to even understand the point of this article. I would ask that you
at the very least read this other article of mine for the basics of this
issue.
Beyond Blasphemy: The Bridge to Babylon:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/brian-sirois/beyond-blasphemy-the-bridge-to-babylon/379761825388166
Chris Pinto's -- "A Lamp in the Dark -- The Untold History of the Bible (Full Documentary)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Osuctvq4QU
Chris Pinto's -- "Tares Among the
Wheat -- The Untold History of the Bible Continues":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e1CS9blOtg
INTRODUCTION
The crowning achievement of the English Protestant Reformation was and is the
1611 Authorized Version of the Bible (KJV). The KJV was the fruit of the
Reformation and that is the main goal of the Jesuits is to destroy the KJV
Bible. And untill they do that, they can't get the entire world back under the
control of the Pope.
In 1825, the Jesuits famous meeting in Chieri, Italy declared their attention
to seize control of the Bible as part of their centuries old plan to bring all
the world under the power of Rome.
1859 Cardinal Manning said:
"England is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements and the stronghold of its power. Weakened in England, it is paralysed everywhere. Conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world. Once overthrown here, all else is but a warfare of detail." -- ("Jesuits Plots from Elizabethan to Modern Times," by Albert Close, Pg. 18)
To accomplish their aims the Jesuits deemed it necessary to take control of the Bible! The Jesuits had this to say about the Bible:
"Then the Bible, that serpent which, with head erect and eyes flashing fire threatens us with venom shall be changed again into a rod, as soon as we are able to seize it. Oh then, mysterious rod! We will not again suffer thee to escape from our hands. For you know too well, that for three centuries past, this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us, and with what fangs it gnaws us..." -- (The Jesuit Conspiracy by Jacopo Leone, Pg. 98).
Speaking of the Bible this Jesuit priest had this to say, "If I may tell you openly what I think of this book, it is not at all for us, it is against us. I do not wonder at the invincible obstinacy it engenders in all those who regard its verses as inspired. In the simplicity of youth, I fully expected on opening the New Testament to find there, the authority of a superior chief in the Church... the worship of the Virgin... the mass... purgatory... relics ... but in every page, I found my expectations disappointed. At last, after having read, at least six times over, that little book I was forced to acknowledge to myself that it actually sets forth a system of religion, altogether different..." (The Jesuit Conspiracy by Jacopo Leone, Pg. 99).
One of the major ways the Jesuits started to do this was by infiltrating Protestant Churches and Universities. In 1833 they started this; one way they did was by the "Oxford Movement" in England.
"In England, there are a greater number of Jesuits then in Italy... there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among English clergy, among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant or how a Protestant...could be a Jesuit but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling me that St. Paul became as a Jew that he might save the Jews... it was no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant for the conversion of Protestants." (The Secret History of the Oxford Movement by Walter Walsh Pg. 33)
The Catholic hierarchy regard the
reading of the Scriptures as "an inexhaustible source of heresy," and if Pope
(Paul III) "took many... measures to stem the tide of 'heresy', then might we
not expect that the Church of Rome, through her ablest agents, would seek to
alter the contents of that book?
PART 1 -- THE HISTORY OF HIGHER
CRITICISM OR HISTORIC CRITICISM:
Prior to the 19th Century, Protestant and Anabaptist and all other Bible
Believing groups outside of Roman Catholicism depended on Greek Manuscripts
that had come into Europe after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Collectively, these Greek Manuscripts is what would be used by the reformers
and become the foundation for Textus Receptus.
In the 19th Century, A German Scholar "Constantin Von Tischendorf" would
publish "Codex Sinaiticus", what would come to be known as the most ancient
biblical manuscript ever discovered. Which would change what most scholars
thought about the Bible. He convinced most of the world that his manuscript
was a "lost version" of the Bible.
But we need to go back before that to German Higher Criticism and the
development of the "Recension" theory. Which is in a nutshell, that the Bible
was lost and that most of what that is in it today was added.
A short history of the development of the critical apparatus used to analyze
the Bible: (This section of this article Excerpts are from -- (http://history-perspective.com/critical_theories.html))
Biblical textual criticism, called a science, is based entirely on theories developed by various scholars over several centuries. It is concerned with the origin of the text and the value of the text. The decisions are always based on human reason. Quoting former Dallas Seminary Professor Zane Hodges, determinations made concerning the authenticity of biblical passages are not made on the basis of "factual data which can be objectively verified, but rather upon a prevailing consensus of critical thought." Here are some of the theories developed over time to analyze scripture and as a result, create doubt of its infallibility:
The basic assumption is that the scriptures became corrupted through the transmission of time. The variant readings contained in manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus are believed to be the proof that biblical readings that have come down to us are not necessarily reliable.
Note: According the the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics The Bible in the Church, the foundation of the new era of Biblical criticism beginning during the mid 18th century was laid before this time by the efforts of two camps. First the Catholic church calling the Bible "the Protestants' paper Pope", took pains "to destroy faith in the infallibility of the Bible". In the other camp were those who used "the strictly scientific method of investigation." These ideas were introduced later by Johann Semler of Halle University in Germany.
Richard Simon, a French Roman Catholic in the late 1600s, supposed that, Moses can not be the author of all the books attributed to him, a chapter heading in his book, Histoire critique . He belonged to an association of priests called the French Oratory who were in seminary training. His reason for doubting the authorship of Moses was that there were duplicate accounts of the same events but written with different literary styles.
He was the first to attempt to write a history of the Bible as a literary work.
He developed the theory that from the time of Moses, there were among the Israelites, scribes and historians who recorded various events, oratory, and religious teachings for posterity, but that these writings were never put together and edited until after the Babylonian exile. This he maintained to be the origin of the Old Testament.
He postulated that the Masoretic Text (the text of the Old Testament which has come down to us as opposed to the Septuagint which is a variant and not accepted) should be given a late date of origin due to the Hebrew vowel usage and the type of script.
Astruc, Louis XIV's physician,
discovered within the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) two separate
names given for God which he supposed to represent two separate sources of
information. This gave him justification to believe that Moses could not be
the author and that the accepted view of the origin of these books of the
Bible was wrong. This is called the hypothesis of the two sources.
John Mills published an edition of the Greek Text, a work of 30 years during
the later part of the 1600s. He brought together from Greek manuscripts,
writings of early fathers, and early versions, thousands of variant readings
for various passages.
Anthony Collins, a member of a growing sect called "The Freethinkers", on the basis of Mills writings, wrote in 1713 a discourse in which he made the following points:
Because of so many variant readings, the Bible cannot be considered authoritative in history or dogma.
Free inquiry using human reason is the only means for attaining the truth and that this will then help human society to progress.
Biblical prophesy has only allegorical interpretation. The Old Testament contains no prophesies of Christ.
The New Testament canon is not trustworthy.
He denied the immortality of the soul.
Richard Bentley developed a canon of criticism still seen by textual critics today as a basis for their work. He was a classical rather than a biblical scholar. During the early 1700s, he developed some principles for determining which variant readings were valid.
He postulated that “the difficult is to be preferred to the easy reading.” If a passage was changed, he believed that a scribe would more likely have changed a passage to an easier, rather than to a harder, reading.
He used a process called "conjectural emendation" to determine the right reading. This concept is simply the use of the critic's instinctive feeling as to what an author meant.
Another 18th century critic was Johann Bengel of Wurttemberg who published in 1734. He did not regard the number of witnesses containing a particular passage as evidence for its authenticity. He was influenced by John Mills. (Note: The Textus Receptus, or the received text from which the Authorized or King James version was translated, as well as translations made in other languages, agrees with the majority of all documents - manuscripts, codexes, etc. - which are still available. When a verse or phrase is removed from the more recent versions, the reason given is that the oldest text available does not contain it. However, the majority of all extant documents do contain it but are ignored because of the theory developed here by Bengel.)
Jean Leclerc, also an 18th century
critic, believed that man's reason was sufficient to determine all he needs to
know of salvation.
The Textus Receptus is abandoned by the critics in the late 1700's:
Johann Semler of Halle was a critic of the late 18th century influenced by the discoveries of Richard Simon. He rejected the deity of Jesus Christ and believed that revelation must be judged by human reason. The sophisticated mind should have no obligation to believe what is "unreasonable" in the Bible. He developed several critical theories.
He developed the accommodation theory. This theory posited that Jesus and the Apostles accommodated themselves to the culture of their time, including the prevalent prejudices and errors.
Another theory developed by Semler was the recension theory, which assumed that the Received Text (the Textus Receptus) was an editorial recension created several centuries after the Apostles. Therefore, he believed that all orthodox doctrines were late additions.
Johann Jakob Griesbach was one of
Semler's students and later in 1775 appointed Professor of New Testament at
Jena. He adopted many of Semlers theories and like Semler denied the deity of
Christ. Greisbach was the first to abandon the Textus Receptus.
He developed the critical principle that the shorter reading should be
selected over the longer one. In his 1796 revised Greek Text, on this basis,
he considered Mark 16:9-20 a spurious reading and rejected it.
He adopted from Semler the belief
that orthodox readings should be suspect. Orthodox readings (i.e. readings
establishing dogma, especially the dogma of the deity of Christ) were thought
to have been added to the text by textual editors in the early centuries.
Note: The influence of Griesbach's theories extended within 13 years of his
publishing his critical Greek New Testament to Harvard. Joseph Buckminster
“persuaded the officials at Harvard College in 1809 to publish an American
edition of Griesbach’s critical Greek New Testament, because he saw its value
in promoting text criticism, in his opinion, ‘a most powerful weapon to be
used against the supporters of verbal inspiration’” (Theodore Letis, The
Ecclesiastical Text, p. 2).
Ferdinand Christian Baur, Professor of Theology at Tubingen, applied Hegel's philosophy of history (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) to the origin of the New Testament scripture. His theories were:
Primitive Christianity was a struggle between different views. The outcome or synthesis of this struggle was the Catholic Church.
The only authentic letters of Paul were Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans.
The Gospel of John was a synthesis which reconciled the Christians and the Gnostics and was written during the 2nd century.
According to Baur, it is therefore not historically valid.
Karl Lachmann, a professor of
philology in Berlin and described as a rationalist, was the first to reject
the Textus Receptus in favor of 4th century manuscripts not part of the Textus
Receptus. He acted upon the suggestion made in the mid 18th century by Richard
Bentley. He established the principle that they should start to look at the
ancient manuscripts of the 4th century instead of "the late printed text"
which is how they described the majority of surviving manuscripts and
witnesses making up the Textus Receptus. He wrote works published in 1842 and
1850 which carried on many of Johann Griesbach's ideas. He entertained these
views:
He did not believe that the original text of the New Testament could have
survived to his day. He believed it must be hopelessly corrupted.
He believed that simply on the basis of age, the 4th century texts of Vaticanus and a few others were the best renderings.
He believed that Erasmus' translation (the Received Text from which the authorized version in English and other languages was made) was based on only a handful of late manuscripts which because they were late must of necessity be corrupted. See note on this page about the Textus Receptus.
Note: Lachmann's texts were rarely supported by more than four Greek codices and sometimes only one or two.
Julius Wellhausen saw the religion of Israel as the product of an evolutionary process, starting from a heathen state and progressing to a form of monotheism. His theories included:
The religion of the Israelites was of human concoction.
Because the religion of the Israelites evolved, the prophetic movement must have come before the law. Therefore, the Old Testament books are out of order.
He proposed that the writing of the books of the law of the Old Testament did not occur until 621 BC and that the priesthood was not established until 450 BC.
Gunkel was an Old Testament critic of the late 1800s. His theories were:
There was a long oral tradition before the Old Testament documents were actually written. These oral traditions changed over time. As situations changed, the oral traditions were revised.
The ancients were not able to distinguish between what really happened and what was story or saga. Therefore, the Old Testament cannot be historically reliable.
The purpose of these Old Testament stories was to teach moral lessons.
This is only a sampling of the
textual critics whose theories have impacted the belief in the infallibility
of the Bible text and the faith in God's preservation of His Word.
PART 2 -- RICHARD SIMON, THE JESUITS &
THE COUNTER-REFORMATION TO DESTROY THE DOCTRINE OF "SOLA SCRIPTURA":
Dr. Ian Paisley exposes this and the "Jesuits" plan to destroy people's belief
in the Bible. He says:
"And it's not the word of man, it's the word of God! Now, of course, Rome used to burn the Bibles. She used to burn the people that translated them, she used to burn the people that read them, but that didn't succeed. So, she decided upon another scheme, that she would place her Jesuit priests in the training of Protestant ministers. And so, into the universities of Germany, Rome set at work the whole structure of unbelieving higher criticism. And she had in the universities men who sought to destroy belief in the Bible. And we became cursed with what was known as higher criticism. And young men had their faith in the Bible destroyed in the universities and in the training colleges. And so, the men that came out to be ordained didn't believe the Book! They didn't believe the creeds of the Church. They didn't believe in the historic Christian faith. And they set to work to destroy the faith."
One of the original members of the Jesuits that joined with Ignatius Loyola in 1534 was "Alfonso Salmeron" (1515-1585). We read that, "Salmeron... paved the way for Richard Simon...the Jesuits introduced into the Catholic reading of the Bible... the parameters of time, place...context, and semantic structures." (Jesuits: cultures, science and the arts, Pg. 97).We read that, "Simon sharpened Historical Criticism into a weapon that could be used in the attack on Protestantism's most fundamental error, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura." (History of New Testament Research, by William Baird, Pg. 19).
In defense of his Catholic faith, Richard Simon wrote that, "The great changes that have taken place in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first originals were lost completely destroy the principle of the Protestants. If tradition is not joined to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that can confidently affirm." (Richard Simon, as cited by David Cloud in "Faith vs. the Modern Versions," Pg. 285)
Cardinal Gibbons said in his book, "Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation." (Faith of Our Fathers, by Cardinal Gibbons, Pg. 108)
Cardinal John Henry Newman speaking of the Bible, he said, "Surely, the sacred volume was never intended to teach us our creed. And from the first, is has been the error of heretics... to attempt of themselves a work to which they are unequal... the eliciting of a systematic doctrine from the scattered notices of truth which Scripture contains" (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1887, Volume 12, Pg. 422)
Catholic Priest Thomas Edward
Bridgett said that true faith was a "...surrender of the mind, to a living
authority, known to be divine, not a puzzle over documents, with doubt about
correct interpretation" (Papa Stronsay Texts, citing Newman's "Discourse to
Mixed Congregations")
The Catholic position on the authority of the Bible is this, "The Supremacy of
the Bible as source of faith is unhistoric, illogical, fatal to the virtue of
faith, and destructive of unity." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online,
under the term 'Protestant')
Speaking of the Bible, this Jesuit priest had this to say, "If I may tell you
openly what I think of this book, it is not at all for us, it is against us. I
do not wonder at the invincible obstinacy it engenders in all those who regard
its verses as inspired. In the simplicity of youth, I fully expected on
opening the New Testament to find there, the authority of a superior chief in
the Church... the worship of the Virgin... the mass... purgatory... relics ...
but in every page, I found my expectations disappointed. At last, after having
read, at least six times over, that little book I was forced to acknowledge to
myself that it actually sets forth a system of religion, altogether
different..." (The Jesuit Conspiracy by Jacopo Leone, Pg. 99).
To accomplish their aims the Jesuits deemed it necessary to take control of
the Bible! The Jesuits had this to say about the Bible:
"Then the Bible, that serpent which, with head erect and eyes flashing fire threatens us with venom shall be changed again into a rod, as soon as we are able to seize it. Oh then, mysterious rod! We will not again suffer thee to escape from our hands. For you know too well, that for three centuries past, this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us, and with what fangs it gnaws us..." -- (The Jesuit Conspiracy by Jacopo Leone, Pg. 98).
The Catholic goal was to go about to
destroy the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" by showing the errors in the Greek
Manuscripts.
PART 3 -- CONSTANTIN VON TISCHENDORF:
"Constantin Von Tischendorf" believed in the "Recension" theory, that the
Bible was lost and that it needed to be found. And all this is what inspired
him to go look for a "LOST Bible". Tischendorf efforts was clearly aimed
against the Traditional Greek Text or Textus Receptus.
In 1866 Tischendorf would write that, "we have at last hit upon a better
plan... which is to set aside this Textus Receptus altogether...and to
construct a fresh text." ("When Were Our Gospels Written?" by Constantin Von
Tischendorf, 1866)
The interesting thing about this quote by him, When Tischendorf says "we have
at last hit upon a better plan", who is this "WE" he is talking about? I'll
tell you who, "THE JESUITS"!
We read that, "In 1842, while at Paris, [Tischendorf] prepared an edition of
the New Testament, intended for the use of Catholics...giving the Latin
Vulgate, and a Greek text rendered as far as possible conformable to it, in
Parallel Columns..." (The American Cyclopedia, Volume 15, Pg. 768)
In 1844 Tischendorf, would make his great discovery when he arrived at Saint
Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai in Egypt. But before he arrived, he took
a journey to Rome and was received at the Vatican. In his memoirs, he writes,
"I here pass over in silence, the interesting details of my travels...my
audience with the Pope, Gregory XVI, in May, 1843...my intercourse with
Cardinal Mezzofanti, that surprising and celebrated linguist." ("When Were Our
Gospels Written?" by Constantin Von Tischendorf, Pg.27)
"Mezzofanti honored me with some Greek verses composed in my praise."
(Tischendorf, as cited in "The Parchments of the Faith," by George edmands
Merril, Pg. 176)
Tischendorf was well favored by Rome, which is odd since he claimed to be a
"Protestant Scholar"!! Tischendorf wrote, "Gregory XVI, after a prolonged
audience granted to me... took an ardent interest in my undertaking." (The
Parchment of the Faith, Merrill, Pg. 176)
What's even more interesting is that Rome and Pope Gregory XVI openly
Condemned the Protestant Bible Societies of that time! In 1843, we read, "The
Present Pope, Gregory XVI, and his predecessor, Pope Leo XII, denounced all
Bible societies...declaring that by the bibles they distributed they converted
the Gospel of Christ into a human gospel... or what is still worse, the gospel
of the devil..." (The Burning of the Bibles by John Dowling, Pg. 15)
Spurgeon said, "Popery is abhorred of the Lord, and they who help it wear the
mark of the Beast..." (The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, sermons, parts
261-272, Pg. 574)
When Tischendorf met with the Pope, the two other people there he meat with
was Cardinal Mezzofanti and Jesuit Cardinal Angelo Mai. During the 19th
century, Mai was the Cardinal Librarian for the Vatican Library! It was said
that "...there is not a single century of the Christian era, from the second
to the seventeenth from which he has not produced important and previously
unknown works... he had transcribed all with his own hand... entirely by
himself." (Recollections of the Last Four Popes, and of Rome in their times by
Nicholas Patrick wiseman, Pg. 492)
The collective work of Tischendorf and Mai from that time forward would
drastically change the academic world's view of the Bible! So we get Codex
Sinaiticus from Tischendorf and Codex Vaticanus from Mai.
Tischendorf writes, "It was in April, 1844 that I embared at Leghorn for
Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any
manuscripts, more especially Biblical. Of a date, which would carry us back to
the early times of Christianity was realized beyond my expectations. It was at
the foot of Mt. Sinai, in the convent of St. Catherine that I discovered the
pearl of all my researches." Then he goes on to say how he found this
manuscript in a rubbish basket waiting to be thrown into the fire. "I
perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket, full of old
Parchments and the librarian...told me that two heaps of paper like this had
been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this
heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament
in Greek which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever
seen." (When Were Our Gospels Written? by Constantin Von Tischendorf, Pg.
27-28)
Tischendorf recovered some 43 pages, and when he returned, he chose to publish
these pages but secretly. He wrote, "I did not divulge the name of the place
where I had found it in the hopes of returning and recovering the rest of the
manuscript." (When Were Our Gospels Written? by Constantin Von Tischendorf,
Pg. 29) Then he said he returned again in 1853 but didn't find anything. So he
finally goes back in 1859 and is able to get the remainder of the manuscript.
Tischendorf reports how one of the monks in his 3rd visit, brings out in a
manuscript wrapped in red cloth. He says "I unrolled the cover, and discovered
to my great surprise, not only those very fragments, which fifteen years
before, I had taken out of the basket, but also, other parts of the Old
Testament and the New Testament complete. I knew that I held in my hands the
most precious Biblical treasure in existence, a document, whose age importance
exceeded that of all manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years
of the study on the subject." (When Were Our Gospels Written? by Constantin
Von Tischendorf, Pg. 34-35)
Tischendorf would transcribe and publish the manuscript under the name "Codex
Sinaiticus". Once Sinaiticus was published, Tischendorf became a world famous
scholar practically overnight! He sent a copy of the Codex to the Pope, in
which the Pope sent back an autographed letter congratulating him on his
discovery.
What is funny, is that you got the reformers being killed by Rome for their
faith in the word of God, but then on the other hand you got Tischendorf being
praised by the Pope for his discovery.
PART 4 -- CODEX SINAITICUS & THE
SIMONIDES AFFAIR:
If you haven't seen "Tares Among the Wheat" by Chris Pinto, then you need to
ASAP!! Pinto does a masterful job of mustering the evidence for Codex
Sinaiticus' having been the work of paleographer Constantine Simonides.
Simonides' uncle Benedict of Mt. Athos monastery in Greece, wanted to present
Czar Nicholas of Russia with a fresh copy of the Greek Bible as thanks for the
Czar's favors to the monastery.
Simonides had the knowledge and the talent for such an undertaking and found
an old but mostly blank book of parchment at the monastery as a foundation for
the work and spent a year on the project. But as it turned out, the death of
his uncle and the unavailability of enough parchment to complete the intended
project left the work unfinished, and eventually he was persuaded to give what
he had done so far to St. Catherine's monastery at what is supposed by some to
be Mt. Sinai, for their library. Which is where Tischendorf found it a few
years later and mistook it for an ancient text, or at least feigned to regard
it as ancient although there is some evidence that he knew better. The
information presented in the documentary is VERY credible, which makes the
information to be found from the usual sources to be highly suspect such as
this Wikipedia entry on Simonides. The lies on that page are staggering
because of what Chris Pinto has presented.
Apparently there are powers in this world with the intention and the ability
to slander a man beyond recognition if it serves their purposes. After
spending some time with Chris Pinto's work it's hard to avoid the impression
that there really are true conspiracies in this world, one in particular for
certain, or at least many emanating from one source in particular, the
Vatican, in the service of their Antichrist project to bring down the true
Church of Jesus Christ. I would like to present more of the facts from the
film here!
A 19th Century Publication said of him, "Dr. Simonides is a Greek by birth and
he speaks and writes the classic language of his forefathers with fluency,
purity and elegance..." From his uncle "...Simonides thoroughly acquired the
art of paleography and became so great a proficient therein that few surpass
him either in the practice of it, or in the diagnosis of manuscripts."
(Source: "The Dial", Aug. 2, Oct.4, Dec. 27, 1861)
Simonides owned over 5,000 Greek manuscripts that he partly had inherited from
his uncle. As he traveled across Europe, he presented his manuscripts to
libraries and universities.
On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, Simonides claimed that he
is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839.
According to him it was "the one poor work of his youth". According to
Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex.
It is quite clear from the letter Simonides wrote to the Guardian to give
evidence that he was the creator of Sinaiticus, that he had done the work over
a year at Mt. Athos monastery starting in 1839, and that a year or two later
he GAVE the codex to the monastery at Sinai, and that after Tischendorf had
published it he saw the Codex in Liverpool in 1860 and recognized it as his
own work.
On July 27th, 1861, the Newspaper The "Literary Gazette" published:
"We understand that in literary circles, a rumour prevails that the manuscript now publishing by Russian government, under the direction of M. Tischendorf purporting to be MS. Bible of the fourth century, is not an ancient manuscript but is an entirely modern production, written by a gentleman now alive, who will shortly take measures to establish his claim to the authorship... The manuscript is known as the Codex Sinaiticus, and has attracted a large amount of attention throughout Europe. Should the rumor prove to be correct, as we believe it will, the disclosure that will follow, must be of the greatest interest to archaeology."
On September 3rd, 1862 the Newspaper "The Guardian", Simonides said:
"When about two years ago, I saw the first fac-similes of Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool by Mr. Newton, a friend of Dr. Tregelles.... I at once recognized my own work, as I immediately told him." -- C. Simonides
To prove his claims, Simonides challenged Tischendorf to a public debate, Tischendorf refused!! About this, Simonides wrote, "...the real test of the genuineness of the Codex Sinaiticus is neglected. The public were assured that in May, Tischendorf was to be in London, armed with a portion at least of his great codex. I have waited in England, hoping to have the opportunity of meeting him, face to face, to prove him in error but May has come and gone, and the discoverer has not appeared. Let the favourers of the antiquity of the manuscript persuade him to come at once, and brave the ordeal, or else for ever hold his peace." (Journal Of Sacred Literature & Biblical Record, Volume 3, 1863)
The Newspaper "The Literary Churchman" (December 16th, 1862) said:
"For ourselves, we must profess entire impartiality. Though we were quite ready from the first to admit the importance of the discovery of Tischendorf we are not prepared, at this moment, to say, with Dr. Tregelles, that the statements of Simonides are 'as false and absurd as possible. Tischendorf applies these terms, false and absurd, just now to Tregelles himself."
In response to one of his critics, Simonides wrote, "neither you nor [Tischendorf] posses the true knowledge of Paleographical Science. You have only learned to say at random, this is genuine, and this is spurious but you do not know the reason." (The Guardian, January 21st, 1863)
James Farrer defends Simonides, in his 1907 book on "Literary Forgeries" wrote, "Tischendorf was only the senior of Simonide by five years and in the science of paleography had neither his knowledge nor his experience." (Literary Forgeries, by J.A. Farrer, Pg. 50)
"Dr. Simonides always maintained that the Mt. Athos Bible [Codex Sinaiticus] written in 1840 for the Emperor of Russia was not meant to deceive anyone...that it was Professor Tischendorf ignorance and inexperience which rendered him so easily deceived where no deception was intended." (The Journal of Sacred Literature, 1863, Volume , Pg.481)
In 1907, James Farrer wrote the controversy "...cannot be said to have been settled by the mere opinions of Tregelles or Bradshaw who examined the codex two months before Simonides had made his claim to it as his work so that they had no reason to examine it with suspicion." (Literary Forgeries, by J.A. Farrer, Pg. 64)
In December 20th, 1862, the newspaper "The London Review" wrote:
"The few believers in Simonides represented him as a man whose towering genius had aroused the envy, alike of Grecian professors... German students, and English librarians, and banded them together in a conspiracy to crush him."
PART 5 -- KALLINIKOS DEFENSE
OF SIMONIDES:
Kallinikos, Simonides friend wrote a series of letters to the newspapers in
England.
The newspaper The "Brighton Observer", on December 26th, 1862 reported that:
"Professor Tischendorf having visited the Holy Land, returned to Europe with a voluminous manuscript that he obtained from the library of the monastery of Mount Sinai the earliest known copy of the Bible...in time one of the parts fell into the hands of Simonides, who at once recognized it as a MS. he had himself executed. He made his assertion public that... the Codex Sinaiticus... had been written by himself... but Tischendorf and the learned men of Germany... refused to recognize the claims of Simonides and continued its Publication. Things went on this way, -- some persons believing simonides, some Tischendorf... when suddenly a Greek Archimandrite... wrote to the English papers from Alexandria, corroborating the statement of Simonides."
Kallinikos said this about Tischendorf, "The master and pupil of all guile, and all wickedness..." (Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair, by J.K. Elliot, Pg. 88)
Kallinikos wrote into newspaper, "The Literary Churchman", on November 2nd, 1863:
"I repeat that the MS. in dispute is the work of the unwearied Simonides, and of no other person. A portion of this was secretly removed from the Mt. Sinai, by professor Tischendorf, in 1844. The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking in the year 1859. Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Simonides."
Kallinikos said, "I further declare that the codex which Dr. Tischendorf obtained is the identical codex which Simonides wrote... inasmuch as I saw it in the hands of Tischendorf and recognized the work..." (The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, April 1863 - July 1863, by B. Harris Cowper, Pg. 212)
He wrote to the news papers in 1862, "... you will greatly sin in foisting on the world a new MS. as an old one and especially a MS. containing the Holy Scriptures. Injury to the Church must accure from all this, even from the evidently numerous corrections of the MS." (Literary Churchman, December 16th, 1862)
Tischendorf originally documented
some 14,800 corrections in the manuscript. But in 2009 in the BBC FOUR
documentary on the "CODEX SINAITICUS" they state that the manuscript has about
23,000 corrections, and they go on to say that since because of the amount of
correction that it "can't be the immutable word of God"!
So I ask the question, is "Codex Sinaiticus" really a 4th century manuscript
and the oldest copy of the Bible we have today or is it really a 19th century
copy of the work of Constantine Simonides that had been tampered with,
corrupted, and manipulated by Tischendorf to fulfill the Jesuits agenda to
destroy the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura"???
In January, 1863, Simonides wrote the Newspaper of "The Guardian":
"What then have you to oppose to the evidence of living men... O Zealous defender of the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex? If you are still incredulous, I say to you, remain faithful in your faithlessness...I have proclaimed the truth...for I will answer as I should to the All-seeing God in the Day of Judgment. Therefore... I have spoken, I have no sin. wholly yours, C. Simonides."
PART 6 -- CODEX VATICANUS
(B):
Codex B omits the following portions of scripture:
-- Genesis 1:1 through 46:28
-- Psalms 106 through 138
-- Matthew 16:2-3
-- The Pastoral Epistles
-- Hebrews 9:14 through 13:25
-- And the ENTIRE book of Revelation!
Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially
catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the
Vatican today.
You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:
1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.
2. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.
3. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.
4. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Sinaiticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).
5. It is believed that Sinaiticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work. Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.
6. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus.
7. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
8. When someone says that B and
Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many
Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that
agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and
the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James
readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157
A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by
Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D.
330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200
extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.
PART 7 -- NEW REVISION OF THE BIBLE
BECAUSE OF CODEX SINAITICUS & CODEX VATICANUS:
In 1871, The Church of England decided that the King James Version should be
revised. Two unsaved scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony
Hort, would see to it that a whole new translation would be made to replace
the King James Authorized Version.
They used mainly "2" manuscripts to make this new translations. These
manuscripts used were ROMAN CATHOLIC MANUSCRIPTS!!!
Codex Sinaiticus (א)
Codex Vaticanus (B)
Their corrupt "Revised Version" was released in 1881!
Dr. William Grady said it best in his excellent book, Final Authority,
“Wescott and Hort, were a pair of unsaved liberals whose open Vatican
sympathies cast them as the consummate ((Jesuit plants.))”
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BELIEFS OF WESTCOTT
AND HORT???
In 1896, a collection of Hort's letters was published by his son in two
volumes. The book entitled "Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort" by
his son Arthur Fenton Hort.
In Vol. 1 on page 76 we read:
"The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the
truth than the Evangelical;"
On page 148, Hort said:
"...the ordinary confused evangelical notions, tho' I would on no account
alter the prayer book of catechism to make them more palatable to them."
On page 400, Hort admits that:
"The positive doctrines even of the evangelicals seem to me perverted rather
than untrue. There are, I fear, still serious differences between us on the
subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible,"
On page 445, Hort says:
"I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before
we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued
by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresey,
will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might
otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by
subsequent alarms."
Hort shows his hatred for the TRUE Greek Text on page 211, were he states:
"I had no idea till last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Westcott recommented me to get Bagster's Critical, which has Scholz's Text, and is most convenient in small quarto, with parallel Greek and English, and a wide margin on purpose for notes. This pleased me much; so many little alterations on good MS. authority made things clear not in a vulgar, notional way, but by giving a deeper and fuller meaning. But after all Scholz is very capricious and sparing in introducing good readings; and Tischendorf I find a great acquisition, above all, because he gives various readings at the bottom of his page, and his prolegomena are invaluable. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones..."
In a letter to Westcott, Hort says
on Page 430,
"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of
Christ's bearing our sins and suffering to His death; but indeed that is only
one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
On page 120, Hort declares:
"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins. I know that it can, for if it could not in the case of some at least, the whole Bible would be a lie; but if in the case of some, why not in the case of all?"
Hort clearly did not believe that
the death of Jesus on the cross was not enough to pay for his sins!!!
What about WESTCOTT, what did he believe???
In 1903, Westcott's son "Arthur Westcott" published his fathers letters in a
two volume book entitled, "Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott."
On pages 228-229, Westcott told Hort what he thought of the Textus Receptus:
"I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of the Holy Scripture, and am most anxious to provide something to replace them."
He then went on to say on that same page:
"But pray think how utterly ignorant and prejudiced even well-informed men are on the text of the New Testament."
On page 52, Westcott said:
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."
In volume 2, on page 49 Westcott gives his view on Heaven, he writes:
"...it saves us from the error of connecting the presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place: 'heaven is a state and not a place.' I cannot therefore but think that you should require the most exact rending of the whole."
On page 394, Westcott states:
"If Tennyson's idea of heaven was true, that 'heaven is the ministry of the soul to soul,' we may reasonable hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour, to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."
Westcott shows his love for ROMAN CATHOLICISM on page 81, when he writes:
"After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of neighbouring hill, and by a little scrambling we reached it. Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling--place; and behind a screen was a "Pietà" the size of life (i.e. a virgin and dead christ). The sculpture was painted, and such a group in such a place and at such a time was deeply impressive. I could not help thinking on the fallen grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours."
It is truly sad that a intelligent
man like Westcott could not bring him self to believe in Heaven or miracles!!
But Westcott and Hort was involved in something far more sinister. In 1845,
they joined the "Hermes Club." In 1851, they formed the "Ghostly Guild," which
was followed by the Eranus Club in 1872. These clubs were involved in the
occult and in necromancy!!! Necromancy is communicating with dead spirits.
Why would two men who claimed to be saved, have such an interest in the spirit
world and the occult??? Should a Christian trust a text or a Bible traced back
to these two men??? Westcott and Hort's corrupt Greek Text and textual
criticism theories would go on to produce over 400 new versions of the Bible
in the next 120 years!!
PART 8 -- THE OCCULT & Madame Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky connections to Westcott & Hort:
Helen P. Blavatsky also attended the "Ghostly Guild" meetings with Westcott
and Hort, along with Charles Darwin. In her books Isis Unveiled Vol. 1 and 2,
and The Secret Doctrine Vol. 1 and 2, Blavatsky says, "we have the Bible in
true in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)" and goes on to say "
Westcott and Hort were true scholars that corrected the errors in previous
versions." Blavatsky also said that Westcott was the father of "channeling."
Now listen to this quote by her:
"Now that the 'Revised Version' of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranslations in the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words. The text of the English protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text. That which for nearly 1,500 years was opposed on Christianism of a book of which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters. And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century. And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its original form." (Helen P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)
Where ever we find spiritualism, occultism and Satanism, we find the infallibility of the King James Bible decried, and the RV exalted:
"I am proud to have been one of the pioneer workers in the Spiritualistic field, and have suffered much for the cause of Spiritualism, in upholding its purity and promulgating its truth. I am writing this in defense of the glorious truth I love so well...The King James Bible is admittedly one of the most incorrect versions..." (Franklin Alonzo Thomas, Philosophy and Phenomena of Spiritualism, 1922)
Another example is Helen P. Blavatsky (1831-1891); she was an early leader of the occult Theosophy movement. She founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Blavatsky was a Satanist, who claimed to be a medium. What do these Satanically-inspired writers think about the King James Bible and the new versions??? Blavatsky's words on the subject are frighteningly close to those of many modern, conservative scholars. She called Westcott, "a learned scholar" (i.e. Isis Unveiled), and quotes him often. Statements from Blavatsky could be multiplied, such as, "...the Revised Version does not repeat the mistakes of the Authorized Version..." For example, she writes:
"In the King James's version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance to the original." (Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled).
"Add to this the fact that out of the forty-seven translators of King James' Bible 'only three understood Hebrew' ...and one may easily understand what reliance can be placed on the English version of the bible...Now the Revised Version of the gospels has been published and most glaring mistranslations of the old versions are corrected, one will understand better the words in St. John [chapter 5:6-7]..." (Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 1888)
Some of the followers of Blavatsky also claimed to be under the control of spirits through automatic writing, etc. In 1891, Annie Besant (1847-1933) succeeded Blavatsky as head of the Theosophical Society. From 1889, until Blavatsky's death in 1891, Besant was a co-editor of the Theosophical Society's "Lucifer Magazine." Besant, and her associates, hated the Kink James Bible:
"The English translation (Authorized Version--KJV) is wretchedly imperfect. Errors abound in it, and some of them are of a most laughable description. On this account great calls have been made for the new translation..." (Charles Bradlaugh, Annie Wood Besant, Charles Watts, The Freethinker's Text-book, 1876)
Later Theosophical writings continue to attack the King James Bible:
"...the English translation called the Authorized Version...while it is dear to English people...yet lacks entirely the proper spirit of the mystical Hebrew original; and the very fact that Englishmen love their King James's version so much distracts their attention away from the original Mystical sense of the Hebrew scriptures. Go then to the original tongue..." (Lucifer Magazine, January to December, 1930)
Another influential occult writer is Manly Palmer Hall. Notice the following short biography of this Satanic writer:
"Manly Palmer Hall [1901-1990] was a Canadian-born author and mystic. He is perhaps most famous for his work The Secret Teachings of All Ages: An Encyclopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, which is widely regarded as his magum opus, and which he published at the age of 25 (or 27, 1928)...In 1973 (47 years after writing The Secret Teaching of All Ages), Hall was recognized as a 33 degree Mason, at a ceremony held at PRS on December 8th..." (www.manlyphall.org)
Manly P. Hall often wrote against the King James Bible. He sometimes slandered it with historical lies; but his main goal (like the earlier necromancers) was to oppose the popular view of its infallibility!:
"The King James version is especially rich in errors..." (Manly P. Hall, Reincarnation: The cycle of Necessity, 1956)
"We know that the Authorized Version by no means satisfies the requirements of advanced Biblical scholarship..." (Manly P. Hall, Horizon, Issue 9. Vol. 1, 1949)
"...we have to to undo much that is cherished error. The problem of revising the Bible shows how difficult is is to do this. For the last hundred years, we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What's wanted is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English." (Manly P. Hall, Horizon, Philosophical Research Society, 1944)
The occult plan is plainly confessed above. What book did Hall (who boasted of having the keys to channeling the power of Lucifer) call one of the great books of the world? It was one of the principle manuscripts that issued by all modern versions, and many modern scholars to supposedly "correct" the King James Bible!:
"The Codex Sinaiticus is a manuscript of the 4th Century...This manuscript is one of the great books of the world, and although it was discovered long after the publication of the now universally accepted King James version of the Bible, it is sufficiently important to justify considerable revision of our popular conception of the Scriptural writings." (Manly P. Hall, Horizon the Magazine of useful and Intelligent Living, 1946)
PART 9 -- WHO IS TO PROFIT
FROM ALL THIS???:
Who would stand to profit the most if the King James Bible past out of common
use?????????
On October 11th of 1962, the first session of the Vatican Council II met in
St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Over the next few years, they plotted out the
future of the Roman Catholic Church.
On November 18th, 1965, the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" was
written. In chapter 6, on page 112, we read:
"But since the word of God must be readily available at all times, the church, with motherly concern, sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into various languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. If, when the opportunity presents itself and the authority of the church agree, these translations are made jointly with churches separated from us, they can then be used by all Christians."
This is all the plan and design of
the Jesuits to destroy the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" and to bring the whole
world back under the control of the Pope!
CONCLUSION & FINAL QUESTIONS FOR THE
READER:
All this, with the New Revision of 1881, and all the tons of new bible being
put out today; got put into motion or started by the discovery of "Codex
Sinaiticus" from "Constantin Von Tischendorf". With the BBC FOUR documentary
on the "CODEX SINAITICUS" saying that the Bible "can't be the immutable word
of God" because of the 23,000 corrections in the manuscript. And the
Occultists like Helen P. Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Manly P. Hall, and others
praising the Sinaiticus manuscript and the work of Westcott and Hort. And the
"Jesuits" centuries old plan to corrupt the Bible to destroy the doctrine of
"Sola Scriptura"!
So I ask the question, is "Codex Sinaiticus" really a 4th century manuscript
and the oldest copy of the Bible we have today or is it really a 19th century
copy of the work of Constantine Simonides that had been tampered with,
corrupted, and manipulated by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Constantin Von
Tischendorf to fulfill the Jesuits agenda to destroy the doctrine of "Sola
Scriptura"???
