Facebook Twitter Google Digg Reddit LinkedIn Pinterest StumbleUpon Email

Go to the Home Page

The answer to this question is simple: the Golden Ratio pattern of UCCOO, found on every page of the Bible on 8 different levels, has now been proven to be integral to the Divine design for the Holy Bible.

See the detailed explanation of the Golden Ratio Format of the Bible here. Or read it in photos in your browser.

There are two particular portions of the Bible that are in question: Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 (in the Traditional Chapter and Verse numbering), although critics of the Aleph (the Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) Greek texts, have pointed out for many years that fact that there are literally thousands of words and phrases that exist in the Received Text, but are missing from the Critical Texts.

Supporters of the Critical texts claim that the Received Text is "inflated", meaning that text editors in the distant past added those words and phrases to the Received Text manuscripts in an effort to add support in the Bible to the Orthodox Christian doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and so on. The idea is that the Received Text has words, phrases, and even whole passages, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 that are "spurious"; and therefore they should not be part of the Bible versions that we Christians read. In accordance with this, versions such as the New International Version (NIV) have either removed the passage completely or put a very conspicuous note in the margins that this passage is not found in the "best" manuscripts (mss).

The view that the Aleph and B texts are the "best manuscripts" vs. the Received Text that supports translations such as the KJV, the KBV, and other Reformation-era versions is widespread, although not universal. Supporters of the Received Text group of Greek manuscripts (sometimes called the Byzantine text) are much fewer because of the heavy preponderance of professors in Christian colleges and Seminaries who will teach only one side of the issue, the pro-Critical text view. I have personally talked about this issue with some Seminary students at an area Seminary, and they knew almost nothing about the Received Text issue. As far as their professors were concerned, the Received Text was "persona non grata" on their campus.

This is very unfortunate, because as I will demonstrate, the Aleph and B manuscripts have been badly discredited by the Golden Ratio format of the Bible. Here is the proof:

Mark 16:9-20

Now here is the proof that the Critical Texts are fatally flawed: here is a picture taken of the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 2.5 in its entirety. You can easily see the UCCOO pattern in the text Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.

Isn't it interesting that the entire portion of the text in question (16:9-20) is in the Conclusion of this Chapter? The previous Chapter was the events of the Last Supper up through the Jewish Kangaroo court against Jesus and Peter's denials. This Chapter includes all of the events afterward, including the crucifixion, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus; so it is a complete unit. The format of this Chapter conclusively proves that the text omitted by Aleph and B is genuine Scripture, and that Aleph and B were tampered with. The Received Text includes this text, so it is the true text.

 

John 8:1-11

John 8:1-11 is the two-paragraph Conclusion to Chapter 1.4. 

Notice the textual integrity of the preceding paragraphs. All of Chapter 7 (old references) is Jesus' interactions with the Jews in public speaking in Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles. (Introduction with 4 paragraphs and 5 sub-paragraphs each).

The text in question (8:1-11) is the Conclusion to this Chapter. The following text begins Chapter 1.5 as Jesus describes Himself as "the Light of the World", which is a perfect lead-in to the story of the man who was born blind, whom Jesus healed and subsequently believed on Christ and was saved. The Pharisees, of course, rejected the Light of the world and continued in their darkness of unbelief.

So the text in the Conclusion has complete integrity, and knowing that every Chapter in the GR format has this pattern OO-OOCCU-CC (Introduction-Body-Conclusion) or OO-UCCOO-CC, then it is crystal clear that John 8:1-11 must be genuine Scripture. The Received Text contains this text, and Aleph and B do not; therefore Aleph and B are in error.

So if Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) have these 2 major errors in their text that I have just demonstrated, why is it not conceivable that it also contains numerous other textual manipulations, alterations, and/or deletions? In fact, the original manuscript of Sinaiticus shows exactly that, with clear evidence that text has been removed, erased, changed, etc.

For those of you who trained for the ministry in a Bible College that claimed that Aleph and B are the "best", how can the claims of your professors be true? Clearly, your professors taught you something that they doubtless believed to be true, but it was not true.

This is why I can never accept the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B) texts as reliable witnesses of the Original writings of the Apostles. Not now, not ever. And neither should you. Get a copy of "The Holy Bible in the Original Languages" published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, if you have formal training in Greek. This edition uses the Scrivener Received Text and the Hebrew Massoretic text. In all my years of working with the Bible, I've never seen any evidence whatsoever to call into question one iota or one tittle of this text. God's people everywhere should reject Aleph and B and all of their corrupt offspring: Wescott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS, and a number of others.

I recently had to update the arrangement of this part of the Gospel of John, because of some additional studies. I have pasted in Chapter 1.5 of John below to show how the text continues naturally into the story of the Light of the world. I am currently working to derive themes from the text each paragraph, and this sometimes reveals the need for changes to the arrangement, as in this situation. So until I have completed the process for themes for each paragraph, as you can see above for Chapter 1.4, changes to the arrangement are still possible. I don't expect to complete this process for several years yet, as it is very time consuming, and I am very busy. (Updated 12-1-2015)