Some years ago I was teaching at prayer meeting in my church. I was teaching at prayer meeting on the verses that were paramount to our beliefs. Sitting in the congregation there was a lady who had used a NIV for years.

As I listed and read each verse to the congregation and expounded, I kept noticing a commotion where this dear lady was sitting. The more I read, the more she looked upset and was asking the lady next to her questions. After the service she cornered me and said: "brother Tim, these aren't in my book". One in particular was Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. This verse is a direct statement made by the Savior Himself about His purpose for being here. After she had showed me the other verses missing, I knew something was rotten in Denmark. The next day I began this article which is growing each time I dig deeper and deeper into the Bible version subject.

History is my thing. And especially church history. Even though we like to pin junk like this on Westcott and Hort, the problem really lays with a rascal by the name of Origen Adamantius, c. 185–254 AD. He was the one that said "Did God Really Mean What He Said?". (more later)

By the end of the first century, the New Testament had been completed and distributed among the churches in Sardis, Laodicea, Philadelphia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and the largest concentration in Antioch. These were the letters (epistles) and Gospels written by the Apostles and Luke the physician. The language used to write these letters and epistles was the common Greek language of the day.

Once these were completed and diligently copied, around 120 AD, some of the brethren from the Waldeness valley of France then translated these into the common or "vulgar" Latin language and distributed around the Roman empire.

Later in the 1600's, the letters from Antioch know as the "Received Text" was translated in their entirety into the English language giving us the King James Bible. The King James translators also used the Waldenessian Bible to check their translation so that we really have the originals translated into the English language without error.

At or around 230-240 AD, Alexandrian scholars got their hands on the New Testament in Antioch and took them back to their universities, where a man by the name of  Origen Adamantius, c. 185-254 AD began to translate them into the Classic Greek of the day.

To give you some insight into Origens way of thinking, there was a paper he wrote called the "Allegorical Exegesis". In this paper we find that Origen didn't believe that God really meant what He said through the Apostles and wanted to enlighten the Christian world about what God really meant to say. I'm not sure about you but that kind of thinking really bothers me. Doesn't it you?

Once Origen had completed his translation there was a complete mess. First thing I want you to clearly understand is that the Alexandrian Text from Origen was not the original letters and Gospels. They were a translation from the common Greek into the Classic Greek. And not only this but were translated using Origens twisted belief that God didn't mean what He said.

With this simple understanding it should be quite easy to realize why there are verses missing and meanings changed in the newer versions of the Bible like the New International Version, the New King James, and the Holman Christian Standard bibles. They were translated using the Alexandrian Text or more precisely from the Nestle Text translated by Westcott and Hort.

The deception is that you and I are being lied to when publishers say they are translating their new bibles from more reliable texts. In reality they are translated from a translation that is purely corrupt.

Related Article: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Great-Bible-Deception&id=3090812

Are you saying Origen was conspiring to defraud like a whacked out conspiracy? Or was he just a nut case?

Actually, I believe Origen had his own agenda. He believed in the superiority of Greek. But he also believed the Apostles were a bunch of ignorant hicks so to speak. He also didn't believe that they were intellectual enough to really say what God had told them to say. That's my theory anyway. So he took the original letters and translated them into a more "learned" version of the Greek language sifting his own twist into the reading.

It's a pretty deep and actually dark history.

Just a footnote. Of all the articles I've written, the basis for this thread, The Great Bible Deception has been read more than any Christian article I've written. I'm wondering if it's the title or the content that draws so much interest...

Other Places Where This Article Is Featured:
http://101info.org/pcimarticles/bible-versions/the-great-bible-deception.html
http://receivedtext.org/articles/christianity/the-great-bible-deception_1.html
http://pcimunity.blogspot.com/2009/10/great-bible-deception.html
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2080795
http://searchwarp.com/swa551413-The-Great-Bible-Deception.htm
http://articledirectory.com/Art/283326/329/The-Great-Bible-Deception.html