Romans and the New Greek

This is the first of a series of four studies to show how the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, used as the basis for modern day bible translation, affect Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews and Philippians. 

Why these books?

I have shown in another book that these men were Antichrist (against Christ) by the way they treated Him in their Greek text and these books promote Jesus.

There were two English translations that they could have used both by reputable scholars but they chose to ignore these and alter the Greek of the Sinaiticus ti what they believed it should say.  The only reason for doing this was to impose heir heretical doctrinal views on the Greek text they were creating and which had no basis for existing as it was not based on any Greek text.

If they were genuine they would not have altered the Greek text of the Sinaiticus this caused the translation to be different in places from that of the Sinaiticus.

Their Greek text has no foundation as there is no real Greek text to back it up.  I have shown in another book that they took from Sinaiticus and the Authorised Version that which suited their doctrine and how their Greek humanises Christ and removes His divinity and what He did at Calvary wherever they were able to do this without really being that obvious about it.

Sinaiticus also has been proven to be a forgery so that they took from a forged codex that which they wanted which really means there is no basis for their Greek to exist except in t heir imagination; in otherwords what they thought it should say to promote their heresies.

It is in all books I have written which are freely available on my web site ‘nevillesalveti.com’.

The above is the result of many years research into the Greek of the modern bibles and all has been verified by research I and others have done.

For purposes of comparison I will be using the AV’/RV 1906 interlinear bible and Anderson’s 1861 translation of the Sinaiticus (which is more correct than the translation of Westcott and Hort as it was modified by them as much as they could to reflect their beliefs).

The translation by Anderson is still the standard or others to follow and is preferred to the translation of the Sinaiticus that Tischendorf made.

I will only comment on verses where the RV and Sinaiticus differ from the AV.

Chapter 1

Notice the AV has a capital ‘W’ while the Sinaiticus has a lower case ‘w’.  When this was written things to do with the character or attributes or the person of God always had a capitalised letter at the beginning of the word)s.  By using a lower case ‘w’ they are implying it is not from God so that the promise is not from God.

You could argue hey are following the example of the AV using lower case elsewhere in the verse this argument falls flat as they did not follow the AV when it used upper case.

Firstly the RV and Sinaiticus do not identify Jesus as The Son of God so it could be anyone. Son of God was applied to a few people in thew time of Christ and Westcott and Hort believed Jesus was born of normal sex and was born as a normal human being.  So in the first three verses they have hidden Jesus as being the subject of the book of Romans

The latter part of the verse also reinforces this.

The AV implies He was made of the same flesh David was made from but not by natural birth.

The RV states He was born through normal sex.

The Sinaiticus just says He is a descendant of David.

So you can see that already the Antichrist  attitudes of Westcott and Hort  are being revealed.

I will mention I am only looking at the English text as that is all most will read and any deceit by Westcott and Hort in their Greek will be reflected in some way in the English translation of the text.

Webser Dictionary defines CONSTITUTED, pp. Set; fixed; established; made; elected; appointed.

In other words something made and not natural to the person.  The Sinaiticus implies Jesus was made these things but the RV would not openly promote such a heretical thing so kept the standard rendition of this verse.

The RV and Sinaiticus demean the resurrection of Jesus by using ‘of’ instead of ‘from’.  The word ‘of’ refers to all who died so that the resurrection of Jesus was not special but just like any other human.

The AV has ‘his name’.  The RV and Sin (Sinaiticus) has ‘his names sake’.

‘His Name’ refers to his title and who He is.  His name’s sake refers to his authority they believe came from God when He was made a God so is not inherent in whom He is but was given to Him.

Also ‘by’ is replaced with ‘through’.  Jesus is treated like a medium who demons work through instead of the person actually doing the giving of Grace.  In otherwords the RV and Sin imply God gave Grace using Jesus and that it was not from Him alone.

The heresy of the Greek of Wetcott and Hort is shown by them inserting ‘to be’ which is not in the Sinaiticus showing they chose from the Sinaiticus what they needed to promote their heretical doctrine.

In the AV and the SIN Jesus does the calling.  In the RV someone does the calling, not necessarily Jesus, but they are called to be His implying God did the calling and gave them to Jesus and Jesus was not able to call them in His own right.

‘’Impart’ means to give a person something of your self so that they too have it.  Sinaiticus has ‘share’ which I different because you can share something without actually giving it to a person so that they also are able to share what you are sharing with them.

In this is there antichrist attitude shown because they leave out that the Gospel is of Christ so that it could be of anyone and by this demean Christ.

The AV has ‘hold the truth’ which is an attitude about truth but does not mean they express or suppress it as the RV and Sinaiticus imply.