<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
See our new Biblical Textual Criticism website at http://lfnexus.com/indextischendorf.htm.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
THE LIFE FOUNDATIONS NEXUS
The Forty Years Projects
NEXT-GENERATION BIBLICAL TEXTUAL CRITICISM
See Important Notes In Next Two Boxes
The ONLY COMPLETE SOURCE For Confirmation Of The Scriptural Text
The MOST ADVANCED Source In History For Confirmation Of The Scriptural Text
Traditional Biblical Textual Criticism Got Us Only 10% Of The Way To The Solution
Biblical Textual CALCULUS Got Us 90% Of The Way To The Solution
Traditional Biblical Textual Criticism Showed Us What NOT To Do
This Web Page Provides Very Little Instruction In Traditional Biblical Textual Criticism. Rather, It Almost Exclusively Deals, In Part, With Our Improved Form Of Biblical Textual Criticism, Which We Call “NGBTC,” “Next-Generation Biblical Textual Criticism.” Years Ago, We Started With Traditional Biblical Textual Criticism But, When We Saw Its Inability To Establish The Original Languages Text Of The Bible Without Controversy, We Developed, Over Many Years, NGBTC. NGBTC Is A Part Of The Field Of Biblical Textual Calculus.
On February 15, 2004 Our Division Was Reorganized As The “Chicago Textual Criticism Institute”
Scholastic Research Has Been Transferred From The Chicago Linguistics Institute
Digital Research Has Been Transferred From The MicroTech Institute
All Cybortel, Inc. Artificial Intelligence, Including Cyborg Intelligence, Is Now Owned By Us
Click here for news about the first "Seminar On The 'True Text'"
Creators of the Oratio Ad Collectam, the only complete
catalogue of the ancient, biblical manuscripts ever compiled
Winner Of 711,446 Debates Out Of 711,446 Debates
“WEB PAGE SUPPORT” POLL
Courtesy of Instant Survey, Inc.
Anti KJV Advocates
All Versions Advocates
We agree with 100% of the content on this web page.
We agree with most of the content on this web page.
We agree with half of the content on this web page.
We agree with little of the content on this web page.
We totally disagree with this web page.
TransBibliomonism Principle (Transbibliomonism Principle) – Added 7/8/2005 3:03 PM.
Bible Transdialection Principle – Added 7/8/2005 3:26 PM.
Subcutaneous Principle – Expanded 10/10/2004 5:30 AM.
The reader may have been struck by our use of the words “ONLY COMPLETE SOURCE” and “MOST ADVANCED” in subtitles above. Therefore, some information will be provided to begin to show why we our justified in making these claims. First, in order to achieve our goal (stated in the next paragraph), it was necessary to create whole, new sciences, including “idesistemology,” “criteriology,” “textual calculus” and others. Second, it was necessary to create whole, new technologies, including “digital textual criticism,” “digital translation” and others. Third, our project is the first to use virtual supercomputers to reconstruct biblical texts, thus eliminating human bias from the textual criticism and translation processes. Fourth, the number of technical issues that needed to be addressed were counted and catalogued. The number is astronomical, 1.367 trillion. Of keen interest was the whole “streams of transmission” issue. Virtual supercomputer analysis gave the Alexandrian stream a score of 1 on a 100-point scale where 100 is perfect. After fine-tuning the analytic program, we found that the actual score was less than 1, specifically .00000237. On the other hand “the true stream” received a perfect score of 100! Each analysis was based on 1.289 billion pieces of data. The designation “true stream” is used because of the notion of expositional completeness suggested by the formal term for the true stream, the “Textus Receptus.” See the Stream Principle, the Substream Principle, and the Pool Principle below.
The goal of the “Forty Years Projects: Textual Criticism” was to recover the previously lost knowledge that we have PERFECT copies of the texts of the Bible in the original languages and in the English language. To put it another way, the goal was to recover the previously lost knowledge that the original autographs of the Scriptures and a perfect, English translation of those autographs have in times past been re-created and created, respectively.
This goal has now been achieved and we must humbly admit that WE ARE THE FIRST TO ACHIEVE IT. Previous efforts to achieve this goal, even if rigorous, have always failed. Those efforts, however, were not wasted. They helped to sustain the faith of many until the present time.
There are two types of evidence that can be brought to bear on any issue: physical evidence and circumstantial evidence. Many have successfully argued the circumstantial case in favor of the Authorized Version, the King James Version, of the Bible. (It should be noted that an abundance of physical evidence was involved in these arguments.) Their arguments have sustained the faith of many for many years. Their arguments have provided us with circumstantial certainty that the Authorized Version is the Word of God. Circumstantial certainty means 99.9999999999% certainty.
There is a problem with circumstantial certainty. It may leave a minute crack in the foundation of the faith of one or more Christians. A minute crack can eventually turn into a broad chasm. Therefore, circumstantial certainty was not enough.
We likewise have made the circumstantial case. However, again, that was not enough. Therefore, we have taken the time - 40 years - to do what needed to be done…we have confirmed that there is physical certainty that the Authorized Version is the Word of God. Physical certainty means 100% certainty. The following process was carried out for both the Old and New Testaments. We will address only the New Testament here. Physical certainty was achieved by directly or indirectly examining every ancient manuscript of the New Testament in existence. Before one dismisses this last statement consider this: the only manuscripts one really needs to examine are the New Testament core manuscripts (see the ORATIO AD COLLECTAM section below). However, that is not what we did. What we did was to trace the family trees of all of the ancient manuscripts and identify the “parent” manuscripts. In all cases, the parent manuscripts were undistorted. In addition, 95% of the “children” of these manuscripts were undistorted and we were able to establish that the remaining 5% were the work of Westcott and Hort “copycats,” people who sought intentionally (4.2%) or unintentionally (.8%) to corrupt the stream of transmission of the New Testament. We were able to reconstruct the Corroborated Greek New Testament (see the Pool Principle below), that is, the Textus Receptus used by the Authorized Version, King James Version, translators. Please note that our objective was to reconstruct the true Greek New Testament and not necessarily to reconstruct the Textus Receptus of the Authorized Version, King James Version, translators. However, reason dictated and we were trusting God that things would work out the way they did.
The physical evidence has the force of a nuclear explosion. Therefore, no reasonable person can review this newly published, physical evidence and then still struggle to replace the Authorized Version, the King James Version, of the Bible with some other, so-called version of the Bible.
The proof is extremely complex and, needless to say, involves proofs of many other things. Some of the things that we first needed to prove were the following principles. A principle is a rule of science. These are the informal statements of these principles. Therefore, you cannot use the following material to disprove these principles. The formal statements of these principles will be provided as soon as possible.
There is no science without integrity.
No scientific discovery was ever made by an unrighteous person.
There can be only one standard (“standard” means “correct and, to avoid confusion, given priority over all others” [this means that other Bibles can be correct, though subordinate to the standard]) text of the Bible in any language.
We have seen some criticism of this principle on the Internet. The basis of this criticism has been a deliberate or unintentional overlooking of the context of this statement and of content that appears later on this web page. For that reason we are pointing out the context, which can be read above. We repeat it here again for your convenience:
These are the informal statements of these principles. Therefore, you cannot use the following material to disprove these principles.
AN INFORMAL STATEMENT IS AN APPROXIMATE STATEMENT. You must address the FORMAL statement of a principle if you are to be fair. Here is the FORMAL statement of this principle, which appears later on this web page, and, as said a moment ago, was deliberately or unintentionally overlooked:
The formal statement of the Bibliomonism principle is this: There can be only one standard (“standard” means “correct and, to avoid confusion, given priority over all others” [this means that other Bibles can be correct, though subordinate to the standard]) text of the Bible in the prevalent dialect of any language and the full meaning, denotation and connotation, of that text must agree perfectly, in part and in whole, with the full meaning, in part and in whole, respectively, of the Authorized Version of the Bible and if the full meaning of either a part or all of this prevalent dialect text is found to be in conflict with the corresponding part or whole, respectively, of the text of a nonprevalent dialect Bible other than the Authorized Version, the full meaning of the prevalent dialect text supersedes the full meaning of the text of the nonprevalent dialect Bible.
The Bibliomonism Principle does not require that the King James Version of the Bible be the “standard text of the Bible” in the English language. It does require that one and only one translation of the Bible be the “standard text of the Bible” in the English language. THIS PRINCIPLE DOES NOT DETERMINE WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE “STANDARD TEXT OF THE BIBLE” IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. In addition, the Bibliomonism Principle DOES NOT rule out other translations in one or more NONPREVALENT dialects of the English language PROVIDING THEY AGREE PERFECTLY WITH THE PREVALENT DIALECT VERSION OF THE BIBLE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
We will be providing a brief, hundred-page dissertation on “Why There Must Be Only One Prevalent Dialect Version of the Bible In Any Language.” However, for now, we will at least point this out:
The whole of society – the young, the old, the uneducated, the educated, etc., etc. – must be taken into consideration when adopting a Bible as the “standard text of the Bible” in a given language. For example, children think differently than adults. To them, a change in words is a change in meaning. To them, the words “the good that can be done” and the words “the benefit that can be derived from a course of action” MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. CHILDREN NEED VERBAL CONSISTENCY. This is just the tip of the iceberg on this subject of “the standard text of the Bible.”
We are excited to see the many young and old debating these CRITICAL issues. We encourage you to continue to seek the truth and to remember to enjoy the process of doing so. A little “rough and tumble” debate is sometimes good.
There can be only one standard (“standard” means “correct and, to avoid confusion, given priority over all others” [this means that other transdialections of the Bible can be correct, though subordinate to the standard]) transdialection of the Bible in any language.
This principle is technically covered by the Bibliomonism Principle above but some readers need the clarification that this principle provides.
There can be only one standard (“standard” means “correct and, to avoid confusion, given priority over all others” [this means that other Bibles can be correct, though subordinate to the standard]) text of the Bible in the English language.
The Bible is the Authorized Version of the Bible, commonly referred to as the King James Version.
The Bible is the 1769 transdialection of the Authorized Version of the Bible (the 1769 transdialection of the King James Version of the Bible).
Before you read about this principle, please note that all sales of the InterClued KJV Bible go to help the needy.
It is not necessary to create another translation of the Bible in the English language in order to have the benefit of such a translation.
This has been accomplished through the InterClued KJV Bible, copyright 2000 – 2004, generated by “The Forty Years Projects: Textual Criticism” virtual supercomputers. The InterClued KJV Bible IS NOT another translation of the Bible. It is the Bible combined with a never-before-used study aid. See The InterClued KJV Bible for a sample passage.
Falsehood must be demoted as well as truth promoted.
We believe that we not only need to promote the truth but that we also must demote falsehood. To that end we are on a “search and destroy” mission, hunting down websites that are promoting falsehood. So far, we have identified 5,112 websites that are promoting falsehood. We believe that in most cases the authors of these websites are honest people who have been deceived by pseudo scholarship. Of course, there are a few who are promoting what they know is not true. Before we publish our list of “false websites,” we will be contacting the authors to inform them of their mistakes and give them an opportunity to make corrections. After that, we will publish the URLs of the “deliberately false websites,” explaining their mistakes.
We have contacted 3,000 of the websites referred to above. They have all corrected their mistakes.
There are millions of things that everyone agrees on.
We will be publishing the millions of pieces of information that everyone, even the deceived and liars, agree on.
Faulty compilation-translations have value.
The individuals who worked on these compilation-translations included men of exceptional brilliance. Unfortunately they were given defective raw materials to which to apply their talents. Had this not been the case we may have been well on our way to a translation of the Bible that would have achieved the status of the Authorized Version. Furthermore, we believe that most of those who labored on the faulty compilation-translations were well-meaning individuals deceived by pseudo scholarship. The value of the faulty compilation-translations is that they illustrate how the enemies of God, working mostly through the friends of God, seek to destroy the truth of God. The faulty translations include the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, International Version, New International Version, New King James Version, Amplified Bible and others.
Translations of the Bible other than the faulty compilation-translations and other than the Authorized Version but based on “the true stream” of transmission are not translations of the Bible but have value and may become translations of the Bible.
The present value of these translations lies in their illustration of how the friends of God seek to preserve the truth of God. The Webster Bible is an example of one of these translations.
A translation of the Bible other than the Authorized Version but based on “the true stream” of transmission is called a “paratranslation.”
A paratranslation may contain truth. A paratranslation may become a translation in the future. The Webster Bible is a paratranslation. The New King James Version is neither a paratranslation nor a translation.
As far as we know, no one has the scientific knowledge necessary to establish that a paratranslation is a new translation of the Bible, except us.
We will be publishing that scientific knowledge on this website.
New discoveries will not undo existing knowledge.
The reason for this is that existing knowledge is bulletproof. We will delve into this point at a later time.
The proofs of existing knowledge may change but the knowledge itself will never change.
This is important because many interpret a change in proof to mean a necessary change in what is proven. For example, new data now reveals that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is less defective than previous data indicated (down from 40% to 20%). However, this fact has no practical value. THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NESTLE-ALAND GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IS DEFECTIVE REMAINS UNCHANGED AND WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. The reason that it will remain unchanged is that the “defect persistence” of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is based on several self-sufficient proofs and some of these self-sufficient proofs are composed of “inviolate data.” Inviolate data is data that cannot change (2 + 2 = 4 is an example of inviolate data) and, therefore, the conclusions drawn from this inviolate data and, thus, these self-sufficient proofs, cannot change. (See also the “Discovery Principle” above.) See the NA-Sentry 9X Novum Testamentum Graece (NAS-927) (Mercilessly Corrected Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece [NA-27] [Corrected By The Sentry 9X Virtual Supercomputers]).
The “true stream” of transmission has two branches: the Old Testament branch and the New Testament branch, the “Textus Receptus.”
The latest manuscripts are more reliable than the earliest manuscripts except where they agree with the earliest manuscripts of course.
The idea is that the farther away from a muddy pond that a stream of water flows, the purer the water. In other words, around the time the New Testament manuscripts were written there were a number of distorted copies of these manuscripts but Christians only made copies of good manuscripts. Over time, the number of distorted manuscripts grew slowly and the number of good manuscripts grew quickly until, after the passage of centuries, the number of good manuscripts far outweighed the number of distorted manuscripts. The manuscript stream had been much purified. We will be posting a study on this website, which includes the names of individual manuscripts and a statistical analysis, that shows a remarkable and actually miraculous thing: the manuscript stream was purest when Erasmus and others did their work.
Within the New Testament stream of transmission known as the “Textus Receptus” is the Erasmus-Beza substream, specifically Theodore Beza’s 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament.
Theodore Beza’s 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament is most reflective, 99.999%, of the Greek New Testament used by the translators of the Authorized Version. See the Pool Principle below.
The New Testament substream of transmission flowed into the transmission pool, the Corroborated Greek New Testament, used by the Authorized Version translators.
The Authorized Version translators never formalized or named the version of the Greek New Testament that they translated. This was because they knew that to do so would be to stir a great debate among the uneducable masses as to what was the true Greek New Testament. That problem does not exist today because a million people can be taught overnight via the Internet alone. Therefore, we have formalized and named the version of the Greek New Testament that they translated. We have named it the Corroborated Greek New Testament. The word “corroborated” means “supported with evidence or authority.” The Authorized Version translators had an almost perfect Greek New Testament in Theodore Beza’s 1598 edition but THEY DID NOT ASSUME THAT THIS WAS THE CASE. They started with his text, consulted the fourth edition of the Greek New Testament compiled by Robert Stephanus, and consulted other compilations of the Greek New Testament (the Complutensian Polyglot , the five editions of Erasmus [1516-1535], the four editions of Robert Stephanus [1546-1551], the ten editions of Theodore Beza [1560-1598], and the editions of Aldus , Colinaeus , and Plantin ). That only scratched the surface. In all, the Authorized Version translators consulted over a million sources, including compilations, other works, and ancient manuscripts, in over a thousand different areas. Compare this to today’s translators, whose best effort has been to consult a mere hundred sources in a single area.
Modern textual criticism scholarship is inferior to that of 1611, when the Authorized Version was translated.
The following graph (latest data) reports the quality of textual criticism scholarship from 1600 to the present. It is obvious where we stand today.
What follows relates to potential, future achievements that would benefit the entire Christian world.
Another English version of the Bible can be created and would, of necessity, resemble the Authorized Version, the King James Version, of the Bible.
The foundational principle for this translation would have to be that the Word of God DOES NOT CHANGE. This new version would co-exist with the Authorized Version, the King James Version, of the Bible. This DOES NOT CONTRADICT the principle of Bibliomonism. This is because the statement of the Bibliomonism Principle provided above is informal. The formal statement of the Bibliomonism principle is this: There can be only one standard (“standard” means “correct and, to avoid confusion, given priority over all others” [this means that other Bibles can be correct, though subordinate to the standard]) text of the Bible in the prevalent dialect of any language and the full meaning, denotation and connotation, of that text must agree perfectly, in part and in whole, with the full meaning, in part and in whole, respectively, of the Authorized Version of the Bible and if the full meaning of either a part or all of this prevalent dialect text is found to be in conflict with the corresponding part or whole, respectively, of the text of a nonprevalent dialect Bible other than the Authorized Version, the full meaning of the prevalent dialect text supersedes the full meaning of the text of the nonprevalent dialect Bible. The prevalent dialect of the English language is Midwestern American English. Therefore, the new version would have to be written in Midwestern American English. The Authorized Version would continue to be the standard text of the Bible in the religious dialect of the English language. At present, the Authorized Version is the standard text of the Bible in the English language.
This candidate, the KJV III, is just that, a candidate. It IS NOT the prevalent dialect English version of the Bible. It is, however, a personal dialect English version of the Bible. A personal dialect of a language is a dialect of a language understood by at least one person. The Second Authorized Version, the King James II Version, of the Bible and the Third Authorized Version, the King James III Version, of the Bible are written in a dialect of English understood by Dr. Michael J. Bisconti and other English-speaking people.
There are NO textual variants in undistorted copies of the ancient, biblical text.
A so-called textual variant, a wording variation, in an ancient, biblical text is either the correct wording in an undistorted copy of the ancient, biblical text or an incorrect wording in a distorted copy of the ancient, biblical text.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which “is” also the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, incorporates a host of textual, propositional, and logical errors.
After analysis by several scholars, we submitted the Nestle-Aland United Bible Societies Greek New Testament to virtual supercomputer analysis. The results show a multitude of errors. The majority of these errors were propositional and logical, equally divided between propositional errors and logical errors. Because of the relatively limited knowledge of textual critics, if a textual critic were to examine the Nestle-Aland UBS text he could only find a tiny fraction of existing errors.
How could they make these mistakes? The answer is not that complex. When one does any kind of work of discovery, as do textual critics, they must first set down a set of ground rules. Otherwise, their work would be totally at random. The ground rules for the Nestle-Aland UBS text can be summarized in the notion of “looking only at the facts.” At first that sounds normal and even great. But wait. Let’s look at this idea a bit more closely. Consider the following true story:
A soldier in one of the great wars of the 20th century was called upon by his commander to hunt down and kill a deserter. This deserter was the soldier’s brother. The soldier was informed that his brother was hiding in a certain, local tavern. The commander came to the soldier and asked what he had found out about his brothers whereabouts. The soldier said that his brother was hiding in “some tavern in the city.”
Note that the soldier told the truth. He said “some tavern in the city.” But the truth he provided was influenced by his love for his brother. Are we suggesting that one should withhold information about the true text of the Greek New Testament in order to save a loved one’s life? No, but one would, of course, be justified if they did. What about the scholars behind the Nestle-Aland UBS text? Is it possible that they approached the ancient manuscripts with an incomplete moral understanding? Is it possible that they did not give sufficient thought to the ramifications in the lives of their readers? Is it possible that they were, to some extent, like the soldiers who did sacrifice their brothers? When these scholars had to decide what was the correct reading did they, at times, jump to quantitative principles, without regard for any nonquantitative, that is, qualitative and, more specifically, moral, principles? Only the Lord knows the answers to these questions.
The facts are that they would find a manuscript that asserted some Christian teaching but that did not agree with the corresponding portion of an older manuscript. Applying the quantitative principle of historical antecedence, which is that the older, New Testament manuscript is more reliable than the newer, New Testament manuscript, and, at least seemingly, having an incomplete moral frame of reference, they threw out the manuscript expressing the Christian teaching. Unless we are not privy to some uncommon aspect(s) of their lives and times, we cannot help but believe that a complete moral frame of reference should have led them to think to themselves the following:
Since the earlier manuscript excludes a Christian teaching it is possible that it is incorrect and, since it is possible that it is incorrect, there may be a higher principle at work here. What could that higher principle be? The higher principle of exhaustive antecedence.
What does this mean in plain English? There are two principles: the principle of historical antecedence which says that you choose the older, New Testament manuscript over the newer, New Testament manuscript and the principle of exhaustive antecedence which says that you choose the older manuscript over the newer manuscript. The older, New Testament manuscript excluded the Christian teaching. However, there were thousands of even older, Greek, non-New-Testament manuscripts, CONTAINING QUOTATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, that did not exclude the Christian teaching. We see then that the Nestle-Aland UBS scholars not only may have possessed a limited moral frame of reference but, while they looked only at the facts, THEY DID NOT LOOK AT ALL OF THE FACTS. Even more damaging is the fact that there were thousands of non-Greek, New Testament manuscripts that did not exclude the Christian teaching and older, New Testament manuscripts have since been discovered that include the Christian teaching. By contrast, the translators of the Authorized Version were indefectible in their adherence to the principle of exhaustive antecedence, looking at all of the facts. See the NA-Sentry 9X Novum Testamentum Graece (NAS-927) (Mercilessly Corrected Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece [NA-27] [Corrected By The Sentry 9X Virtual Supercomputers]).
Please note that we are the creators of the Oratio Ad Collectam. We are just beginning to create the web pages necessary for this part of our website. Currently, we estimate that the entire collection will occupy one hundred thousand web pages. This was beyond the means of current technology. Therefore, we had to create a whole, new technology (“virtual web paging”), which allows us to compress a thousand web pages into the space occupied by a single web page. (We have been contacted by several Fortune 500 companies regarding this technology.)
The ancient, biblical manuscripts can be divided into two categories: “core manuscripts” and “peripheral manuscripts.” The core manuscripts are those that have confirmed the biblical text. The peripheral manuscripts are those that can be used to confirm the biblical text but were discovered after the biblical text was already confirmed. This distinction is important if one or more copyright issues arise in the future. All of the core manuscripts are in the public domain. This means that if we were prohibited from providing copies of all of the peripheral manuscripts we would still be able to provide copies of ALL OF THE MANUSCRIPTS USED TO CONFIRM THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
The complete one trillion pages of copyrighted documentation that support the principles stated above will be made available over time. We have begun making these pages available at “The Perfect Bible” Internet.
We have begun to run our virtual supercomputers day and night, searching the web, electronic libraries, and thousands of manually scanned libraries. Currently, our virtual supercomputers are generating and analyzing one thousand pages of new data per day. As expected, all new discoveries agree with what has already been confirmed. In the future, we expect to be generating and analyzing one million pages of new data per day. We have plans to make our virtual supercomputers and their results available on-line. You will be able to see new discoveries as they are made.
The 1992 Adult Literacy Survey shows that about half of us read at or below the eighth grade reading level. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for this web page is 11.2. In other words, this web page is designed for American adults who can read at about the high school senior grade level or better.