The Pope of Christian Zionism: Cyrus Scofield

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

By N. Davis

I am going to talk about a certain man everybody knows. His name is Cyrus I. Scofield. The man who wrote the Scofield Bible. The Bible that Christian brethren read so frequently and with which they have made up their current doctrine. Which has changed the thrust of America since the middle 1800s.

     This is going to be of controversial content and because it is controversial in content I will pick one of the Bibles most controversial characters to quote - the prophet Jeremiah. He preached, he warned, he exposed false preaching of his day and all to no avail. And he and his Israel people went right into captivity. The very captivity about which he had been warning. He put that blame for that tragic collapse of his civilization right where it belonged. With the ministers, who taught error. He wrote this, "behold the Prophets say to them, Ye will not see the sword. Neither see famine. But I will give you assured peace in this place. Then the lord said unto me. "Prophets prophesy lies in my name. I sent them not. Neither have I commanded them. Neither spake unto them. They prophesy unto you a false vision and divination. A thing of not, and deceit of their heart. Therefore saith the Lord concerning the Prophets that prophesy in my name and I sent them not, Yet say sword and famine shall not be in this land, by sword and famine shall these prophets be consumed."

     Now that is an interesting part to start off with and we can understand that they are going to get what they deserve. But notice in the next verse. Jeremiah 14, 13-16, "and the people to whom they prophesy will be cast into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword and they shall have none to bury them, not their wives, nor their sons nor their daughters for I will pour wickedness upon them."

     Bad enough we had bad prophets. Bad enough we had false teachers and preachers. But apparently it seems to be just as bad to sit in the congregation of these people as it is to be the preacher. I recognize that brother Jeremiah did not project a very pretty picture for his people.

     Jeremiah did not blame the King, he did not accuse the court system, he did not accuse the political nor community leaders. He laid none of the national problems on the prostitutes, homosexuals, drug addicts and we are sure that Israel had those in those days also. Here is the interesting point that God gave to Jeremiah: all the sins of the land were there because of the ministers. Who when they were not called, it was because of their preaching. That wickedness not only abounded, but was permitted. The central theme of the last few messages I have given here is that you have truth and you hold a candle in your hand with a smoldering wick. You don't do much with it.

     As thousands of our readers know, I have been expounding the wickedness of these preachers for about 25 years. This is going to take light and salt right where it belongs. We are going to have to know who we are, and why we are, or we're not going to save America.

     I am not going to zero in on a lot of men but only one man. One of the most famous ministers of the turn of the century -- C.I. Scofield.

     You will learn how he defrauded his mother in law, out her life savings. And how he was convicted of forgery. In another case, was sent off to prisons. You will learn tonight how he openly carried on with other women, and abandoned his wife and family. Never sent them a dime of support. When his wife finally divorced him he married the woman with whom he was living. All the time he was writing the now infamous notes to the Scofield reference Bible. As a Christian he was a disgrace. As a man he lacked ordinary chivalry of a gentlemen. He called himself "Dr." yet he never went to any college which could convey that degree. His life as a minister makes the recent escapades of some modern ministers pale into insignificance.

     His financial support for the reference Bible came from Zionist and conspiratorial groups out of Boston Massachusetts. Chiefly known as the Secret Six . That group tied to the order of the illuminati. And some other orders some of you may know about.

     Scofield was no Jeremiah. For certain he preached, but was not called. God did not send him so you know who did send him. His false doctrines have spread across this land like a plague. Like a smoke in the nostrils of our Lord like a stench. And almost every Bible book store carries copies of Scofield's reference notes. The truth that I am talking about is one common thread throughout the remainder of the Bible.

     In the forefront of this Scriptural error you will find the teachings and Bible references of C. I. Scofield. And this talk is dedicated to the exposure of this man, the doctrines he preached and taught that have now taken over fundamentalist churches across the country.

     Since the advent of conspiratorial theologians such as C. I. Scofield, and some lesser known men before and after him, our brothers have never been weaned from the warm milk of the Word. They seem to be content to be coddled. As if the word had only a personal thrust. And they have arrived. Oh! do they tell you they have arrived. Taught a dozen different ways, and by as many different denominations, including the Catholics and the Mormons. The other 85 percent of the Bible is either ignored or not understood and we are left with the darkness of a purely personal Gospel.

     You can understand here now I am talking to you as a warrior. A man to defend our country. Why would I be interested in Scofield from just that point of view? Because to promote this conspiracy to take over the country they must universalize the Bible, and make it apply to all men. So along comes some false preachers like C. I. Scofield who begin to weave into it certain Jewish fables.

     Thousands of so called Fundamentalist ministers carry or study the reference notes of the Scofield Bible. Many Protestant Bible school students uses this Bible as their reference. They use it as their source as to what the scriptures really mean, as opposed to what they really say.

     What these Christian people do not tell us is that their theological hero, C. I. Scofield, deserted his first wife, Leonteen Carry Scofield and his two young daughters Abigail and Helen. They ignore the fact that he never sent them any financial support even though he became very wealthy. They never got a dime. A woman in the 1880s did not have government welfare. And good paying jobs were not usually available in those days. He treated his wife and children as though they did not exist.

     According to every reference I could find about him and his background in the areas from which he came I found that he was in love with 2 other women. Running with both at the same time. A young lady from the St Louis Flower Mission, whose name I have not yet been able to discover, and a Helen Van Wark a woman he later married. After his wife, stayed abandoned for many years, she would not divorce him for Scriptural reasons. Finally, when she found out about his activities, she had no choice and divorced him. A copy of the divorce papers are in my files.

     Finally Leonteen did sue for divorce, and that divorce is recorded Dec. 8 1883, in his home town Atchison Kansas. Remember now, this is a professing Christian, who wrote the most popular set of Bible reference notes in use today. The abandoned Leonteen never remarried, and died in 1936. She is buried in Mt. Calvary cemetery, Atchison Kansas.

     You know, every time you see a Scofield Bible, think about that lady. As a Christian Mr. Scofield entered the legal and political career. After he was alleged to be saved he stole thousands of dollars from his Christian and secular friends. One of his financial scams was quite serious and he got convicted of forgery, and spent 6 months in the St. Louis Missouri jail. He defrauded his mother in law of 1,300 dollars in gold, and never paid her back even though his finances were such he could have done so.

     If Ezekiel ever preached about a modern prophet who created a widow, or who was a deceiver of the elect, devouring the souls so they might not be admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven and the tree of life or who was out for dishonest gain, it had to be Cyrus Ingersall Scofield. Why are you carrying a Scofield Bible my friend? Why do you attend a church that teaches the lies of this convicted criminal and fornicator? Why would you want to admit your ignorance in such a way hereafter?

     By 1800 Harvard college had a Unitarian theology department which was the first chair in the United States for this "God Loves Every man" doctrine. This first happened at Harvard as chance would have it, the first theology college in the United States. The central idea is of course that God loves every man. All men are equal. There are no chosen people.

     Up to this time the great Puritan Christian work ethic had made America great. The doctrines of Calvin and Luther which formed and forged the pilgrim and puritan doctrines, and those men who came over here as covenanters built up a great land they called the Kingdom. But the land they called the wilderness, was now beginning to fade. It was now beginning to be replaced by a "New Gospel" not taught by Jesus Christ and the political and social life began to change right along with it.

     America's political and social life, whether we like it or not, is based upon the general theology and therefore the moral outcome of their people. When the theology is gone the politics soon follow. During this period from around 1800 to 1850, there was a movement called the "Age of Reason". It caught a lot of men who were otherwise smart. Including Thomas Paine. It contains a lot of the same ideas as todays new age movement.

     Here is the general theme of it. The mind is everything. The absolutes of the Bible considered not relevant in this modern age. During this time such men as Thomas Paine, and a Kin of mine Ralph Waldo Emerson, up new England way, and Henry David Thoreau abandoned the Christian ideas and opted for this intellectual stimulating philosophy which can be distilled down to the phrase "The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.". You have to determine in your mind from the Scriptures if God is the father of all and all men are brothers or if God is the father of certain people and not the father of others.

     All across this land fraternal lodges and various kinds of orders were set up which became the religion of the people. Into that area came the Esau-Edomite Karl Marx, and the evolutionist Charles Darwin, inserting their anti-Scriptural ideas into Americas mainstream. All of these were first political, and philosophical ideas, which when promoted through the published materials of the day became promoted enough and accepted enough by the normal people of those days to change the theology, the thought theology of our people.

     The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is a socialist scheme. It came out of the French Revolution. It came out of the same group that gave us the Statue of Liberty. That world government lady standing on an isle rising out of the Sea. With seven horns on her head. Oh! I'm hurting your feelings. How do you think that got there? It stands for the legislative democracy of Washington D. C. and old Uncle Sam stands for the republic of the 50 states.

     It was a thought theology with the purpose of changing our Christian population before the greater conspiracy of world socialism could be implemented. In order to refute Christ's words concerning Esau-Edom, that they were of their father the devil, this theology had to be changed so that God is the father of all men and all peoples and Satan is not the father of any of them. Do you see how all that works? The second part of this theology is the idea that all men are brothers which is intended to refute the Scriptural teaching and truth that all men are not brothers. And that God has a chosen people, above all the people, on the face of the earth. This dichotomy you are going to have to sort out in your mind and choose God's Word or man's.

     If you think about it the concept of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is the central theme of socialism and communism. Christianity if you think of it apart from merely a church function, is a thought theology of government, commerce and economics. The fruits of which is a nation of liberty. and individual responsibility.

     So about a hundred and fifty years ago in Massachusetts, especially the small town around Boston, began to be a spawning ground of this brotherhood of man, Fatherhood of God idea. It even got so popular it was expressed in Lincoln's' Gettysburg address. It was so important in the minds of these conspirators that every public school child, had to be able recite that quote, "all men are created equal." Isn't that interesting? Isn't it loving? Isn't that a great humanist idea? Without apology that is not a scriptural idea. Anyone with an ounce of Scriptural undersatnding knows it just isn't so.

     Out of this Massachusetts society came a man born in Middleton in 1833 named John J. Ingalls. He was a graduate of Williams College. He was a spokesman for a Boston Group known as the "Secret Six". Isn't it interesting they picked six? Mr. Ingalls was sent to Atchison Kansas, and it is enough to say right here that he associated himself with a young lawyer Cyrus I Scofield.

     Actually Scofield never attended any college even for one day as a student. Scofield however fancied himself as a lawyer. He assumed all sorts of phony credentials. From that of a minister to that of a Bible scholar, to that of a lawyer, Nothing seemed to hinder him. And of course he was not admitted to the bar as he could not pass the examination. However through the influences of the Secret Six men in Kansas Scofield was admitted to the Bar. Thought he had never attended any school, and with no formal training whatever, he gave himself a theological doctorate degree, in the same way.

     Scofield, went on with the help of the Secret Six, to be appointed United States Attorney for Kansas, only to be forced to resign after six months when he and his friend Ingalls were caught trying to blackmail the railroads out of some money. What is important here is that the Boston Secret Six, assigned C. I. Scofield, the task of translating the fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man concept into a system of Bible teaching.

     It was in those long days and nights when he was in prison for forgery that Scofield began studying the theological philosophy of a born loser named J. N. Darby, J. N. Darby was a scatterbrained Englishman, we would call a hippie today. He never washed, never cleaned himself up, but he became a great scholar.

     J.N.Darby was already doing in England what the Secret six had assigned Scofield to do in the United States. He brought the Brotherhood of man and Fatherhood of God into a new denomination -- the Brethren movement.

     The Secret six were not stupid. They had done their homework. They reasoned quite correctly, that America could not be converted from a republic to international Socialist Democracy until the vast majority of American churches could be taught that the church is not militant regarding the affairs of state. And that Gods Laws, Statutes and Judgments were not valid as a means of governing a nation. This didn't begin yesterday. They have been after this for a hundred years. It was necessary to subvert the first amendment of the constitution that the church was to offer no suggestion and be silent regarding the affairs of state. The effect of that was vital to every Christian in his way of life. It was quite a project for Mr. Scofield, since God thought so much of righteous government that he devoted 80 percent or more of Holy Writ to that subject. And made government one of the Holy Spirits special gifts.

     People ask me. Do you have the gift of the Holy Spirit? And I suppose they mean that gift of speaking in tongues. No, I got the first gift skipped the second, got the third, fourth, fifth and sixth, What gifts do you have? Two for sure: the gift of government and gifts of health. Do you know the gift of government and gift of health are the only two Paul applied to every man? Does every man preach? No. Does every man evangelize? No. He didn't say that about Government and health. Because every man who is a Christian is supposed to do both. Look it up some time you will find it interesting.

     Now with the Secret Six, Scofield, and some of his associates, such as Dwight L. Moody, things were going to change. On July 23, 1901, Scofield confided in his friends the he intended to develop a reference Bible that would bring about "this new beginning and new testimony". Of course such tremendous efforts takes a lot of money, and a lot of time. Scofield had the time and he needed the money. While he was talking like a Christian out of one side of his mouth he was taking money and doing the bidding of his socialist communist friends of the secret six.

     In 1901 the alleged offers of the Scofield reference notes which were not entirely written by him was admitted to the Lotus club in New York much to the embarrassment of his holier than thou Christian friends. It was restricted to "a social intercourse between journalists, artists, musicians, friends of literature, science, fine arts etc.". Scofield was at this time no more than a Kansas con man. With no background in these particular fields, and a man with some highly placed friends. His reference notes had not been written yet. Much less published. So his qualifications for entrance into this group was of particular interest. Here it is. This clubs literature committee which passed on "Dr. Scofield" was no other than Samuel Untermeier - who was at that time the notorious criminal lawyer. Untermeier was, as his name suggests, one of those kinfolk of Esau-edom and his accomplishments on behalf of the Socialist communists in America takes up two columns in Whose Who in America. Untermeier thought theology as one might suppose would be far removed from that of a fundamental Bible believer.

     No, my friend Scofield was no such believer. It was directed by the Secret Six. to the Lotus club and their associate Samuel Untermeier, who saw to it he was admitted without credentials. Scofield was just a casual member they say, but listed it as his residence for 20 years while his wife languished in Kansas without any support.

     The purpose of Samuel Untermeier, and those associated with him was to find a way to get fundamental Christians to have an interest in and support for the international Zionist cause. Which had been one of Untermeiers life long projects. Samuel Untermeier died in 1941 but records I have in my office proves beyond a shadow of a doubt he was a dedicated communist all the time. They prove he worked for communist causes all of his adult life. In the 20 years of membership in the Lotus club Scofield had a long association with him. And had to know about his un American activities and his synagogue of Satan.

     Each of you need to always keep in mind the Brotherhood of God, the Brethren Movement, and its kindred of thought theology of Scofield Dispensationalism, was and still is, a class movement as thought of from the communist point of view. Not a religious movement as you might think.

     One of the Roman Catholic counterparts also supported by the Esau-Edomite kindred, is the Jesuit and Maryknoll liberation theology now sweeping Central America. So when I talk about Oliver North and his hard core Jesuit background and hard core Zionist background where he speaks at Zionist meetings where only the flag of Israel flies, and flag of Israel is on every table, and he stands there and salutes Israel before the cameras, I can say without any hesitation he's not one of ours. At this point in his life.

     This is the very reason for the special and unusual association between Scofield and Samuel Untermeier. They knew that Scofield's "any moment now" rapture doctrine, which he stole from J. N. Darby, and Darby stole it from a female Pentecostal preacher in Scotland, named Martha Mcdonald, who in turn stole it from a Spanish Jesuit Priest Emanuel LaContsa who made it up and then published it first in Spanish under the pen name Rabbi Ben Ezra. The works of Rabbi Ben Ezra are still sold openly in Christian book stores. So you can see it all ties together.

     This was an idea they had to keep the lower and middle class Christians in line, they said. Why would Christians become concerned if the communists took over the world. Or the so-called New World Order took effect? If they believed the rapture could happen at any time now? Why would they become worried with thousands of problems of the totalitarianism socialism, world banking, national debt, aids, if "this world is not my home", of C. I. Scofield's doctrines. Why do patriotic activities when the kingdom is a warm beating in your heart as you come to love Jesus. See how that works? Proverbs 3:36 says "Add thou not to his words lest he reprove you and you be found a liar." Well, Mr. Scofield, you have been found a liar. Some of us have done homework on you.

     With the many ministers of the 1920 and 1930s around preaching Scofield's Dispensationalism -- in his words, the "new testimony," became common but was not heard of 100 years ago. The push was on in the late 1930s to get the Scofield reference Bible into the hands of Protestant denominations. Scofield notes stating right on the pages of King James Bible that "the Jews are all of Israel" was to set the stage for the theft of Palestine from the Palestinian people and give it by United Nations decree to a mixed multitude most of whose forbearers never set foot in the land for a thousand years, if ever. For those reasons alone, Scofield's notes were worth every penny That Samuel Untermeier and his Secret Six friends paid for them.

     It is not so much that Scofield preached another Gospel which I differ with that makes me so angry. He is not the only man to have done so, and students of the Bible can quickly point out their false doctrines as I have done. With "every man can be saved" Scofield doctrine I resent Scofield using God's Word as an active and willing subversive to cause the American liberty to fall. His doctrines and reference notes, prepared with Jewish funding, has neutralized the church to where they are indifferent to what is happening in America. Some of you have yet to outgrow that indifference to where you take an active stand and do something about it.

     As I have written time and time again, over the past 20 years, the more Churches we get in America the more wicked and socialist the nation becomes. Scofield's "new testimony" has been the leading cause for the fall of the American civilization. It has altered the Christian and his theology to the point of indifference to what is happening in his country. He is not concerned about but generally approves of the fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man ideas promoted by thousands of hours of television entertainment and programming. He is happy to watch biracial situation comedies and movie specials promoting interracial marriages which God has forbidden.

     The great loss we have is that many of our Christian people will not be party to the victory that Christ's kingdom extends to us. So when you see Scofield and his Bible being carried by someone you want to ask them, "Why are you carrying the Bible of a convicted felon, thief and fornicator who left his wife behind and went off with other women? Can a wicked tree bring forth good fruit? It can not."

Source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTi ... dd_01.html

[Christopher Marlowe]

Here's an interesting bit I've been reading about lately: the masoretic Hebrew bible. Apparently, the Septuagint was the translation of the OT into Greek around 280BC. Then the NT scriptures were written in Greek (I think the original Mt Gospel was Aramaic).  St. Jerome did a translation of the whole bible into Latin at around 400 AD.  But Jerome incorporated some Hebrew scriptures.  The masorectic texts were written by Anti-Christ rabbis during the Christian era, and were attempting to expunge Jesus from the OT scriptures.

St. Jerome's Vulgate was the standard bible for 1100 years, before Luther started jacking around.  Then we had the Catholic Douay Rheims, which was an English translation of the Vulgate, and the Protestant King James "bible".    

To the point: modern "Christian" scripture scholars use the masoretic text to create the newer editions of the "bible".  Why?  Here's an essay taking more time to say what I said more accurately:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=32990
A number of years ago, I undertook a brief survey of New Testament quotations of the Old Testament and compared those quotations with their source passages in the Old Testament itself, and I was shocked to find substantial discrepancies between the two. Here is just one example of many I could list:

Quote:
Acts 15.17 (New Testament, King James Version)
...That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Acts 15.17 tells us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called. Acts 15.17 is actually a quote from Amos 9.12, but when we compare the quote above with its alleged source in Amos 9.12 of the KJV Old Testament, we find a sharp disagreement:

Quote:
Amos 9.12 (Old Testament, King James Version)
...That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Rather than telling us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, as the New Testament quotes it, Amos 9.12 in the KJV would have us believe that the Jews will "POSSESS the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen..." Remember, Acts 15.17 is supposed to be a quote of Amos 9.12, but when we compare them, we see that they disagree sharply in content. How are we to explain this descrepancy?

The cause for the confusion rests in the fact that the KJV Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint. When we compare the quote of Amos 9.12 found in Acts 15.17 of the KJV with an English translation of Amos 9.12 from the Septuagint, we find a virtually perfect match:

Quote:
Amos 9.12(Old Testament, Brenton's English Translation of the Greek Septuagint)
...that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

While doing some digging on the subject, I learned that the New Testament, as a general rule, agrees with the Septuagint more frequently than with the Masoretic Text. But the Old Testament that I was using (the King James Version) was translated using the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint. I also learned that the Septuagint is more closely aligned with the biblical manuscripts found in the Dead Sea scrolls as well, and the Dead Sea scrolls date back to the 2nd century BC, well before the New Testament was written.

As Wikipedia puts it, "Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version [emphasis mine]." So not only does the Masoretic Text conflict with the Septuagint and New Testament, but it even conflicts with the Dead Sea scrolls, which predate the oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Text by almost 1000 years.

It should not be surprising to learn that the Dead Sea scrolls indicate the existence of Hebrew texts of the Old Testament other than the Masoretic Text, firstly because the Dead Sea scrolls predate the Masoretic Text by 1000 years, and secondly because the Masoretic Text was redacted by the Masoretes (who of course rejected Jesus as the Messiah).

Wikipedia's article on the Masoretic Text has this to say: "The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE...it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is often quoted in the Christian New Testament."

My own brief survey, in which I compared Old Testament passages with New Testament quotations, was done using the King James Version of the Bible. As I said, I found significant disagreements between the two, and this is because the KJV Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text, but the authors of the New Testament must have quoted from an Old Testament source that much more closely resembled the Septuagint.

Here is a short list of disagreements between New Testament quotes from the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. My source for this is The Septuagint in the New Testament:

Quote:
Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9 /Isaiah 29.13)... The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah's death would be unjust (Acts 8.32-33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17 /Amos 9.11-12). The Hebrew has the nations being "possessed" along with Edom. Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28 / Isaiah 10.22-23). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable... Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12 / Isaiah 11.10). The author of the book of Hebrews - to prove the deity of Christ - proclaims that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6 / Deut. 32.43). But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse. Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophecied (Hebrews 10.5-7 / Psalm 40.6-8) - that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10). The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22 / Isaiah 53.9)...

Overall, the agreement in sense between the New Testament and the Septuagint is 93%. This compares favorably with the rate of agreement between the New Testament quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament, 68%.


There's more to follow, but the basic point is that the Septuagint is more faithful to the original Old Testament than the Masoretic Text.
__________________


The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament

(Source)


The Masoretic Text, other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the only existing representation of the Old Testament in Hebrew. The oldest fragments date from the 9th century AD, but the oldest complete texts come from the 10th and 11th centuries AD. However, the Hebrew text that it contains is clearly not the original Hebrew, nor even the Hebrew that was in use in the 1st century AD. The Hebrew of the 1st century AD was closely akin to the Greek Septuagint that we have today; this is clear because, although the Hebrew was little used, when it was used in ancient writing it was clearly in agreement with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text. For example, although Philo and Josephus both used the Greek Septuagint, it is believed by most scholars that they frequently had access to a Hebrew Bible and even consulted it on a few occasions. It is through evidence like this that we see that the then current Hebrew disagreed with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of today. In the 1st century, the Christians and all other Greek speaking Israelites, including 1,000,000 of them who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, used the Greek Septuagint. Jesus and His Apostles wrote in Greek and quoted the Greek Septuagint. Of this there can be no doubt. This is a fact that can be confirmed in any encyclopedia or scholarly book on the subject. As we have already pointed out, we know this because the quotations of the Greek New Testament are [very closely] aligned with the Greek Septuagint, but in sharp opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. There is, however, no reason to believe that they were in disagreement with the Hebrew that was current in the 1st century AD.

What we do know is that toward the end of the 1st century AD and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic, Edomite Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. They felt that they could discredit the Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD. We have already noted how the early Catholics attacked the Vulgate translation of Jerome because it was the first to be based upon Hebrew, and they continued for a very long time to use the Old Latin because it was based upon the Greek Septuagint. One of the most famous examples of how the Jews attacked the Greek Septuagint regarded the word virgin. The particular verse in question is Isaiah 7:14, which reads in the Greek Septuagint:

    "Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Emmanuel."

In the Greek, the word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin, and the word in every case translated virgin in the Revised Version, is bethuwlah. This verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23. The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians and that the Christians changed the word in the Septuagint to read virgin instead of young woman so that it would support the reading in Matthew. Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint. The Jews are the ones who changed the Hebrew, replacing the word virgin with young woman. The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for the Hebrew. They then began revising the Hebrew documents to support their Jewish contentions. By the time of Jerome, they began taking the soft approach and gave Jerome their new Hebrew for him to use in his translation. But, as we said before, the Christians at first rejected the Vulgate. So the Jews continued working on their text...

At the end of this time, all other Hebrew manuscripts except for the Masoretic Text disappeared. The fact is that they were destroyed by the same people who had gathered them up - the Talmudic, Masoretic Jews. Then the Jews began presenting themselves as the diligent preservers of the Hebrew Bible and began deceiving Christians. They no longer blatantly attacked the Septuagint but rather touted themselves as being faithful servants of God. To this end, when the Masoretic Text was finished, they counted every letter and word and contrived mechanisms to insure that the manuscripts would be faithfully transmitted, but they did not bother to account for the editing and corruption that they themselves had been doing for the previous 600-700 years. The early English translations of the Bible were based upon the Latin Vulgate, but the Jews intended to deceive the Christians into translating their Bibles from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. So their new strategy was to win over the stupid Christians, but the old motives were always there. At this time, they had to do an about-face on the issue of virgin. They had learned that the Christians would not accept the Hebrew as long as such blatant blasphemies were contained in it. This deception on the part of the mongrel, Talmudic Jews can be seen in an early Spanish translation of the Masoretic Text. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, The Bible in the Making (pg. 279) writes:

    Translations of the Hebrew Bible into various languages, began to appear about that time. In 1422 Rabbi Moses Arragel translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew into Spanish, for the Christian Church and with the assistance of Franciscan scholars, and it is upon that version that the Ferrara Bible, printed in 1553, was based. This famous Spanish Bible was intended to serve the needs of both Jews and Christians. Certain deviations were made in the copies intended for Christian readers. For example, where the copies intended for Jews read 'young woman,' the copies set aside for Christian use put 'virgin.'


Through this means of deception, the Jews pulled off the grand deception when they convinced the translators of the KJV to use the Masoretic Text instead of the Latin or Greek. Today, the so-called "Christian" world believes in the lie of the Hebrew Bible, even though all Christians for the first four centuries of Christianity universally used the Greek Septuagint or a translation of it, including the Master Jesus the Anointed and His Ambassadors.

When this so-called controversy is examined from a purely textual point-of-view, then we find that the undisputed facts are the following, and I say 'undisputed' because these facts are admitted even by the most staunch supporters of the Masoretic Text.

In regards to the Masoretic Text, the manuscripts date from around AD1000. The manuscripts are admittedly altered from their original form, for vowel symbols have been added and the text has been revised in light of Talmudic tradition. The Masoretic Text is based upon the Hebrew which was rejected by the early Christians, who were the true Israel of God.

In regards to the Septuagint, the oldest manuscripts date to around AD325-350 (though fragments are much older). It was never purposely changed or edited, but the oldest texts of the Septuagint represent the oldest surviving descendants of an ancient translation made of the Hebrew in the 3rd century BC which was considered divinely inspired by most Judeans at that time. It was universally accepted by the early Christians for the first 400 years of Christianity and was used and quoted from by Jesus and His Apostles, who quoted from it under divine inspiration.

Again, the above facts are admitted even by the supporters of the Masoretic Text. What logic, then, is used to justify the use and preferment of the Masoretic Text? Those who use it believe that the Talmudic, Edomite Jews who murdered Jesus Christ are the chosen people of God and therefore the chosen preservers of God's Word. However, we are told the following by Jesus in John 8 regarding these same Edomite Jews who wrote the Talmud and created the Masoretic Text:

"You neither know Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, then you would have known My Father also. ...Where I go, you are not able to come ... You are from below; I am from above. You are from this world, I am not from this world. ... If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. ... You do the works of your father. ... If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I went forth and have come from God. For I have not come from Myself, but that one sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to hear My Word.. You are of your father the Diabolical One, and the lusts of your father you wish to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it" (AST).

Notice that Jesus said that these Edomite Talmudists were not capable of hearing His Word, they were not capable of doing anything but the works of their father, who was a liar from the beginning. Now this means that in no way were these Talmudic Jews, who later called themselves Masoretes, capable of being divinely inspired "preservers" of God's Word. Because of the Words of Jesus, we must assume this to be a blatant lie.

But even beyond these points, from a purely objective, scientific point-of-view, when we apply the science of Textual Criticism to this controversy, we must again decide in favor of the Greek Septuagint. We remember that the fundamental rule of Textual Criticism is usually that the older the text, the better, and the complete Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by 650-700 years.

The second rule that we must implement is that not all manuscripts are of the same value. Again, this value issue is clear for these two witnesses: the Septuagint is representative of a 3rd century BC Hebrew text; the Masoretic is representative of a 7th-9th century AD revision of the Hebrew.

Thus, there can be no doubt as to which text is to be preferred. The Septuagint is superior in every way to the Judaized Masoretic Text (V. S. Herrell, The History of the Bible, p. 51-57).



Adam Clark's Commentary

Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.

In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:

"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."

Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" – a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.

Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text – namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.



Louis Cappel, Hebrew Scholar:

One of the first scholars to investigate the matter was Louis Cappel, a French Huguenot divine and scholar who lived from 1585 to 1658. Consider the following excerpt from the article, "CAPPEL, LOUIS," found in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

"As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars."

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Yeah, the Masoretic text. It alters the prophecy in the OT about the virgin birth, among other things. Muslims took this lie hook line and sinker.

[pas]

Timothy Fitzpatrick wrote:

Muslims took this lie hook line and sinker.

You have showed yourself to be very sensitive when people critisize your religion but here you are doing it yourself to the Muslims.If you don't like to be critisized on your religious beliefs, you should also aply that to others.(something like this is actually written in the Bible, if i'm not mistaken)

But i don't see anyone else has a problem with this.It's only when the non-religious offer some critisism to the religious people it seems to be a problem.
Don't want come across as a whiner but i just hate double standards.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Pas, don't kid yourself, and stop comparing me to the ad hominen attackers. What I wrote is nothing like the virulent hate by a few on this forum.