H.P. Blavatsky for the Defense

blavastkyWhen I began critiquing Chris Pinto’s absurd “Codex Sinaiticus” conspiracy theory that he presents in his documentary, Tares Among the Wheat, one of my chief criticisms I had was his misappropriation of historical sources.  This academic abuse primarily manifested itself as selective reading and the cherry-picking of specific citations Pinto finds favorable to his argument.  He then twists those citations, calls it “reporting the facts of history,” and uses them in support of his theory.  I document a handful of examples in previous posts.

That is a typical ploy found in KJVO apologetics. It doesn’t matter if the overall work of the author cited disagrees with the premise of the argument being presented. It doesn’t matter if the citation used even represents exactly the point of what the author was really stating. In fact, the citations may not even honestly portray the entire truth of a matter under discussion.  In many cases the material quoted can be so divested of the context that an entire fantasy world will be created.

Pinto employs that sort of quote mining throughout his documentary primarily to make Constantine Tischendorf come across as a nefarious, Jesuit change-agent and Simonides as a brilliant textual critic who became a sad victim of the Catholic machine. Pinto and his sycophantic fan club truly believe he is doing credible, unbiased, academic research.  It doesn’t matter what the context is saying where the quote is found, he considers it “relevant” to his thesis as a positive witness.

One key instance I pointed out previously is how Pinto continually repeats a citation from J.A. Farrer’s 1907 book, Literary Forgeries, in which Farrer writes how the controversy surrounding the Simonides affair and Codex Sinaiticus remains one of the great mysterious of recent history.  Pinto seriously thinks that quote provides him heavy support in favor of his argument.

However, if anyone were to go online and read Farrer’s book, that is not how he concluded his study. Farrer instead concludes that Simonides’s character was one of a constant liar. Pinto ignores that conclusion. He never seriously interacts with it or the overall context of Farrer’s review of the Simonides controversy. Instead, he distracts his audience by dismissing that withering conclusion as unimportant. 

At any rate, as Pinto attempts to do postmortem damage control on the debate he lost to James White in early December, he continues to flail about for any support he can find that will help him salvage his reputation as a legitimate documentarian. The most recent is his citation of a personal letter written by the occultist, Helena Blavatsky.

That’s right.

Christian J. Pinto has descended into Gail Riplinger territory by invoking the Theosophy Society founder and Victorian era crack-pot, H.P. Blavatsky, in his defense of his cockamamie Simonides/Codex Sinaiticus conspiracy.

On his December 21st, 2013 Noise of Thunder radio program, around the 41 min, 30 sec. mark, Pinto reports how he stumbled across a piece of information from an out of the ordinary source that sheds an “interesting” light upon the whole Tischendorf/Simonides controversy. He goes on to quote from a letter Blavatsky wrote to one V. de Zhelihovsky in June of 1877. The portion Pinto cites is found on pg. 321 of her collected letters and it states,

We have no manuscript of the Old Testament earlier than the tenth century. The Bodleian Codex is considered to be the oldest. But who can vouch for its authenticity? Tischendorf is the authority for it and has convinced the whole of Europe that he had discovered on Mount Sinai the so-called Sinaiticus. And now two other scholars (one of them a Theosophists of ours), who have spent several years in Palestine and have been on Mount Sinai, are about to prove that such a Codex never existed in the library. They have conducted investigations for two years and searched all the hidden places, with the help of a monk who has lived there for the last sixty years and who knew Tischendorf personally. And this monk stated under oath that he had known for many years every manuscript and every book, but has never heard of the one spoken of. The monk, of course, will be tucked away; and as to Tischendorf, he simply deceived the Russian government by a counterfeit.”  

Now to the undiscerning reader, Blavatsky seems to be supporting the Simonides’s controversy and by extension, Pinto’s documentary. She suggests strongly that Tischendorf is dishonest; that he has pulled a con of his own upon the entire European academic world by passing off Sinaiticus as the oldest complete NT manuscript,  while in truth it’s a modern day forgery.

Moreover, she says there are a couple of scholars, one of them a Theosophist, who have spent two years investigating all the hidden places in Palestine and on Mt. Sinai with the aide of a monk, who has also stated under oath that he knew every manuscript that was ever at St. Catherine’s and Tischendorf’s prize was never one of them. Thus, she concludes her comment by saying he has deceived not only the entire European world, but also the Russian government.

Let’s see if the Chris Pinto principle of selective reading holds up to scrutiny.  

First, and this may be a bit of a stretch, but I am fairly confident that Blavatsky is a complete ignoramus when it comes to ancient, biblical documents.  There may be some extremely rare exceptions, but pretty much every crank atheist and biblical skeptic who writes vicious attacks against the Scriptures are complete morons in the areas of biblical and textual studies.  At least that has been my experience.

Moreover, like all those atheists and skeptics attacking the Bible, Blavatsky assumes a priori the stupidity of her opponents and her intellectual superiority. The entire European academic world is so stupid that a simpleton like Tischendorf can trick them into believing Sinaiticus is from the 4th century. Of course, I would expect someone such as H.P. Blavatsky with her Hindenburg-sized ego, to dismiss every textual critic on the European continent as nothing but dullards.

Further note how she mentions two other “scholars,” one even a theosophist, who had allegedly spent years in Palestine and had scoured Mt. Sinai and were on the verge of exposing how the codex was never at St. Catherine’s. Keep in mind this is 1877, nearly a dozen or more years AFTER Simonides claimed he was the author of the codex in the pages of The Guardian. She never names those two scholarly individuals, or the monk who allegedly took an oath. Who were they? Does she bring this up in later letters? What did they present? Were their findings into the matters of Codex Sinaiticus ever published? Seeing that even Chris Pinto isn’t even aware of what ever it was they allegedly found, I’ll venture a guess that ole Helena was lying. Or maybe the Jesuits got to them and shut’em up.

Those problems would be enough for any researcher to dismiss Blavatsky out of hand and to take her private comments with a massive grain of salt. Why any credible scholar would want to latch onto the ramblings of a 19th century mystic as a reliable source for anything, let alone textual criticism, would be bizarre. But we are dealing with KJVO sympathizer and conspiracy theorist, Chris Pinto here.

Anyone who gets online and reads any of her available works will quickly come to realize that Blavatsky was not only a new age occultist, but she hated Christianity and often ranted against God and the Bible (and the Jews) throughout her works. Thus citing from her goofy speculations about the background to Codex Sinaiticus would be equivalent to citing from something Deepak Chopra wrote saying the entire NT was originally written in Aramaic instead of Greek and the Illuminati has covered it up.

Yet it is understandable Pinto would use her, in spite of him acknowledging her new age occultism during his radio program, because he has a propensity for the selective reading and cherry-picking and so badly needs to establish the credibility of his 3 hour documentary. But instead of helping him, her letter is detrimental. That is because the context of her entire letter is nothing but a long, bitter screed against the infallibility of the Bible, the Christian faith and the Jews.

If the reader would merely start at the beginning and muscle his or her way through her paranoid revisionism, she goes on and on about how the Jews corrupted the Bible and no one can have any confidence about the historicity of Scripture. In fact, in the paragraph immediately following her comments about Tischendorf that is conveniently overlooked by Pinto, she writes how the books of Moses had been lost for centuries and then in 2 Kings 23 they suddenly appear. Then when the temple is destroyed, they disappear again, and then she mocks the ability of Ezra to reproduce them in 40 days after the captivity, and even then she asserts how that story is mere tradition and not historical fact.

When you read her letter in the context of what Blavatsky is truly writing, she was going after Tischendorf and Codex Sinaiticus because she wanted to find anything that would play into her agenda to discredit the Bible. In fact, she goes after Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort a lot in her written correspondence and books.  Her criticisms of them actually contradict the more wacked out KJV onlyists like Gail Riplinger who believes she wrote favorably of them and their views of textual criticism.  In point of fact, she hated and despised the work they were doing because it in essence affirmed the veracity of the biblical text against her many new age speculations regarding spiritualism and world religions. Hence anything she writes on the text of Scripture should be dismissed out of hand.

So rather than this letter of Blavatsky being a “very interesting” insight to the truth of the Simonides affair, it should be proof positive why we shouldn’t look to Chris Pinto as a reliable source on anything related to the history of the Bible and textual criticism.


21 thoughts on “H.P. Blavatsky for the Defense

  1. Up next for Chris Pinto: a documentary “proving” the massive Reformed conspiracy to produce videos of Ergun Caner he (now) says he never made.

  2. “….going after Tischendorf and Codex Sinaiticus because she wanted to find anything that would play into her agenda to discredit the Bible.”

    And I would say you, and others, are “going after Simonides and the Textus
    Receptus because YOU want to find anything that would play into YOUR agenda to discredit the Bible.”

    See? Goes both ways.

  3. Oh….and you DO know that Westcott and Hort were into mediums and spiritism, too….right? So we MOST CERTAINLY need to throw out everything they wrote and consider everything they said a lie. I mean….we wouldn’t want to be accused of having a double-standard, now would we? ;)

  4. Darlene writes,
    And I would say you, and others, are “going after Simonides and the Textus
    Receptus because YOU want to find anything that would play into YOUR agenda to discredit the Bible.”

    The problem with your assertion here is that unlike the anti-Christian, Blavatsky, I affirm the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture. Deal with what I point out about Blavatsky as a credible source in support of Simonides.

    Oh….and you DO know that Westcott and Hort were into mediums and spiritism, too….right?

    Seriously? Document that assertion with reputable proof. Not the lies of Gail Riplinger who made stuff up about them.

  5. Give me a break, Fred. That “news” about W&H is OLD stuff that everybody with a brain now knows. Deny it all you want…but it’s a tired, old game and EVERYBODY knows how it goes. And Gail Riplinger didn’t come up with that stuff….but you know that.

    If you don’t like the Bible, or don’t like certain versions, or you don’t like the TR, or you don’t like Chris Pinto, or whatever….just SAY SO and get on with your life. But don’t stoop to such levels.

    We can ALL see that the emperor has no clothes. He’s only fooling himself.

  6. Darlene. You have descended into the ridiculous. What can I possibly say?

    Let me just stick to the Westcott and Hort stuff. To my knowledge, the claim that W&H were spiritualists originated in the fever swamps of KJVOism. In fact, Riplinger is the first one I ever read who leveled that charge. A good bit of her citations against them are manufactured and lies. Now if you are correct, that she didn’t come up with that claim, please direct me to some sources that document it other than KJVO apologists. Anyone.

  7. ‘Onus. (O-nus) n. A difficult or disagreeable responsibility or necessity; a burden or obligation. The burden of proof. “The onus was on the district attorney.” ‘

    Mt. Athos Meets Mr. Onus:

    The burden of proof rests with Pinto to refute evidence supporting Sinaiticus & it’s powerful Alexandrian-type, early witnesses. Chris Pinto needs to prove their illegitimacy, and make a convincing, academic case to conservative Christians & scholars that these ancient readings are rogue.

    He’s got nothing.

    Citing for support those who discredit Simonides (or hate the Bible) is one slippery business. Bad salesmanship, a disingenuous fan dance, but it’$ good work if you can get.

    It’s time for Pinto to man up and admit his real agenda: Textus Receptus Only (TRO). This agenda is an emotion-based, sentimental argument based on tradition & phony spiritual arguments.. just like it’s hillbilly cousin: KJVO. TRO can only be advanced by attacking Sinaiticus, and hawking the ol’ saints vs sinners scoreboard.

    Imagine if Book of Mormon proponents called for the abandonment of the Bible. Imagine if their early gypsy leader claimed the Bible was corrupt, and that the real Book of Mormon source plates & supporting artifacts _might_ be guarded in a temple footlocker in St. Lake City, Utah.

    Q. Would the onus be on Bible proponents to have that footlocker vetted?

    Q. Who has to prove what?

    Q. Should Bible believers reject the Bible in the meantime?

    If Pinto can call Blavatsky to the stand, then I say we send Peter Venkman and Egon “I collect spores, mold & fungus” Spengler out to Mt. Athos. Let’s settle this thing like men before Pinto releases his next DoCuMeNTaRy, exposing another Jesuit forgery known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Plot spoiler: the Jesuits hired Sand People to ride into Qumran single file..to hide their numbers.

  8. Hi,

    Fred, your writing is strange :).

    First, we have the normal red herring stuff, to avoid issues by painting “agendas”. So, I suggest your read the recent post by Kent Brandenburg discussing that style of argumentation, one that you share closely with James White.

    What is Truth?
    What Do the Multiple Version Men Leave Us With? – Dec 30, 2013
    Kent Brandenburg

    And which argumentation, your common attempt, is less than worthless.


    As for Blavatsky, the issue clearly is not her occultism. Nor how well she knew Westcott and Hort in the London scene. (Or even major and minor errors in some TR-AV defense writings.) Nor is the issue how close Blavatsky was to Augustus (mesmerist) and Sophia (occultist) de Morgan, with whom Hort and friends went to the table-tapping seance while working to deliver your preferred Vaticanus-primacy text.

    The issue is whether her very specific comments about checking at the monastery is a sensible and credible account. No more, no less.

    1) Would Blavatsky have a motive to simply lie with a gross fabrication on this question? (Even if she mistakenly thought Sinaiticus as beneficial to Christianity, such motives would be slim.)

    2) And, most significantly, does she have a history of outright fabrication of historical events? As you are almost claiming here. Yet you know better, so you try to hedge.

    The answer to the two questions are (1) minimal and (2) afawk, no.

    And thus, the report is prima facie credible, as one piece of the historical puzzle.

    And what this gives us is an additional corroborative report. Not even remotely as significant as James Anson Farrer corroborating Kallinikos and Benedict by checking the 1895 Lambrou catalog of Mount Athos, but still .. significant. (You mangle Farrer, to the detriment of your scholarship, especially since you avoid his emphasis that the key is Kallinikos, the gentleman who knew “Tischendorf to a T”.)

    You act as if the two men being unnamed is a big issue. In this case, far less than Tischendorf’s unnamed two German helpers in Cairo 1859, skilled in Greek, who were helping him transcribe, or mutilate per Kallinikos, the manuscript. Who were those strange masked men? In all the accounts, in all the histories, I have seen no names.

    The Blavatsky report would be stronger with more names and more follow-up. We have what we have, which is often the case in historical inquiry. A subject on which you show yourself incompetent, in the way that you try to spin and paint and harumph this report. (I’ll give you one credit, you include the actual report, which right on face shows your problems.)

    Now, if you showed that Blavatsky had a predilection for fabricating historical events, “I went to dinner with the Prime Minister” .. “we had a conference in Kansas” .. you would have an important point in arguing the non-significance of the Blavatsky report. However, on that account you give nothing.

    So, I’ll help you out. Blavatsky probably lied about her own life background. (We have a whole health system being built by an individual who has birthday day and year and location problems.) Blavatsky is seen as a typical medium fraud (this led to the big brouhaha between her and the Society for Psychical Research which was the outgrowth of the Ghostly Guild.) However, afawk there is no real history of her fabricating history, as you claim here.

    There really is no reason to make the Blavatsky Sinai report major (and Chris Pinto does not do that). However there is no reason discount the Sinai report. Personally, I tend to think it is reasonably accurate, not particularly sensationalist, the details make sense, perhaps exaggerated a bit. And there was no great purpose to lie.

    As for the Blavatskyr knowledge of Bible scholars and issues in UK at that time, she referenced Brooke Foss Westcott’s views on the Clementine homilies. And also the Shepherd of Hermas. Also the views of Frederick William Farrar and Westcott on miracles. And the dating of Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum by Tischedorf. Also the learned Fabricius and Tischendorf on the Acts of Pilate. She mentioned en passant the Tischendorf and Westcott views on Marcion.

    In the 1880s Blavatsky’s magazine, (she was editor), even had a letter that referenced “the Ephrem codex, edited by Tischendorf” as not having “God was manifest in the flesh”. I mention that because it was rather an interesting letter.

    Blavatsky was an occultist, she was not a dummy.

    Yours in Jesus,
    Steven Avery

  9. Commenting on Pinto, a recent link posted on this thread states, “He comes across as disinterested in anything but the truth.” Oh please.

    Listen to the Pinto-White debate. Instead of tapping out, Pinto “explodes” at the end with a warning that hapless believers’ faith will be crushed if John 8’s ‘woman taken in adultery’ chestnut isn’t really an inspired account.

    There’s a type of argument I’ve heard for decades, it goes something like this: ‘If we’d only look at what the Bible promises about God preserving His word, we’d all be TRO, and perhaps use the 1611 KJV Bible alone. Happy, happy, happy.’ Sounds so pious, no?

    No amount of tortured eisegesis can produce a Biblical promise stating that ANY one complete, canonical “version” of sacred writ will exist, all together, at the same place, at the same time, continuously, & without interruption through history. Nor do legit ‘preservation texts’ specify what percentage of people would have uninterrupted access to God’s word down through time, or even that a MAJORITY of people would have access, or the majority of the elect etc.

    Preservation texts, taken at face value (a normal hermeneutic) don’t state any of this wishful thinking, no matter how long we waterboard them. Let’s not hold God accountable for something He didn’t specifically promise.

    What’s promised is that God’s inspired word will be preserved perfectly, forever. What’s NOT promised about NT preservation & its transmission are little details like: where, how, with whom, with how many, on what type of material, uncial or miniscule script, skins or vellum etc. The FACT of it’s preservation is promised. The details of how & where (etc) are not stated in scripture. God’s a big God though, and I believe He keeps all His promises.

    History shows that the Greek NT was UNavailable to the majority of man for a thousand years, give or take. If the ‘MY kinda God wouldn’t do this or that’ folks want to peddle some pious sounding argument about how ‘God would never let His NT be so sequestered for so long’, then maybe they should argue for the primacy of the Latin Vulgate?

    That said, the gadfly who wrote that Fred’s(?) “..argumentation..is less than worthless” seems to have more conviction about Madame Blavatsky “not being a dummy” than anything else I’ve seen him write on this forum. When you boil his posts down, it seems he a) doesn’t completely agree with Pinto, b) sure doesn’t agree with Fred, c) really doesn’t agree with White, and d) REALLY likes old occult magazine quotes, puzzles & mysteries in general. That’s all I’ve learned from the guy, other than he hits like a girl. In a spiritual way, that is. Each have gifts that differ.

  10. Hi,

    The less than worthless aspect is the attempt to smear anybody by the AV bogeyman. For that I suggested you read the post by Kent Brandenburg, which is excellent.

    If you think Blavatsky and skeptics and atheists and occultists are dummies, you underestimate the opposition to Christianity, to your own perisl.

    The rest of the “Insane” post is a good example of one type of person that finds Fred’s posts sensible. If it was my blog, and a person wrote like “insane”, I would likely bump them off, whether they disagreed or agreed with my positions. In order to encourage real conversation and dialgo, iron sharpeneth.


  11. Fred, just to get back to the issue at hand, and laying aside red herrings and straw man arguments for a moment. Can C. Sinaiticus be trusted? All parties agree this late appearing document is surrounded by controversy, even Tischendorfs friends don’t believe his account of accidentally finding it in a rubbish bin, and everyone agrees that it contains 23,000 corrections!! Whatever the true history of this document, surely every believer can agree it is unreliable. Pinto has presented historical information that is relevant to the issue at hand. His opponents on the other hand remind me of children with their hands over their ears, saying, “I can’t hear you.” I wonder at the firestorm this has ignited amongst Sinaiticus supporters. Why would professed believers in Christ go to such efforts to protect this obviously faulty document (23,000 corrections!!) and waste so much energy and display such venom toward a God fearing brother in Christ. If you choose to respond, could you please not use the straw man arguments of mentioning Gail Riplinger again or of calling people “conspiracy theorists”. Intelligent folks see through these debating “techniques” as the obvious distractions they are and a tacit acknowledgement you have no substantial argument to defend your position. Thanks.

  12. (take 3, thanks to Jesuits):

    Many believe the Textus Receptus is some monolithic, perfect piece of uncorrupted literature that was passed down without error & enjoyed (of course) by the majority for two thousand years.

    Nothing evil like textual criticism was ever involved in the creation of the TR. No collation, comparison, or anything remotely like that was involved. No human decisions had to be made between variant readings or underlying texts. The creators of the TR were holy human Xerox machines, like their predecessors all the way back to Paul & John. They weren’t faced with (nor did they introduce) errors. No smoothing, no scribal touch-ups to defend against heresy, or advance their pet doctrines.

    Who needs science or textual criticism, when angels guiding the TR project using the holiest men around? Angels glided men’s styluses across vellum, like a heavenly Ouija board. To be fair, some believe textual criticism was used by Erasmus & Co., but the outcome was divinely guaranteed as if the TRO compilers were born along by the Spirit so that their written product was God-breathed. But asking TROs to support that whopper from Scriptural exegesis is like asking a Catholic to support Purgatory. You get lots of earnest & special pleading, that’s it.

    Behold the grandeur of the TR’s origins, as opposed to the embarrassing truth about the Critical and Majority Texts. These Multiple Version interlopers, with their dumpster-diving gypsies; all belong in the Multiple Version hall of shame. The TRO camp constantly argue as though the CT textual form stands or falls on Codex Sinaiticus. It doesn’t, but that is their favorite straw man, their whipping boy.

    So let’s illustrate absurdity with the absurd:

    What Do the Multiple _Translation_ Men Leave Us?

    TRO proponents need a more consistent argument. This means a call for the abandonment of all translation. Yes, even King James English. We must return to God’s Word, the Greek NT alone. Since no autographs exist, Sola Scriptura = Textus Receptus in the world of the TRO advocate. Nevermind that most translations (esp. the KJV) have histories as colorful & rocky as that attributed to ancient Greek texts like Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, the Papyri et al. Verily, verily: God’s word doesn’t go hand in hand with rocky histories, alterations, updates, scandals, insertions & omissions. Those are telltale signs of Satan.

    A Proposed Solution for TRO:

    1) TRO types like Pinto typically believe that only the original NT Greek autographs are inspired. But the TR is a bitcoin-like uncorrupted clone of the inspired originals, they’d have us believe. A clone of the original autographs, enjoying a unique, supernatural transmission mechanism & history. Hence: perfect at every turn, down through the ages. The TR is for all practical purposes: the very Word of God.

    TRO eisegetes will torture certain transmission & preservation passages in the Bible as though they’re some checksum-like divine validation of the TR. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate they’re right about those verses. Problem: those verses don’t promise preservation & transmission of _translations_… only God’s original word, which was written in Koine Greek & Hebrew.

    So believers can’t really share the faith once delivered unless they & their audience are all proficient in the TR, and the TR Only.

    2) Every argument TRO folks marshal against the dreaded ‘Multi Version Men’ drags out the usual suspects. They (rightly) point out all the changes, updates, scribal margin notes etc in many ancient witnesses. But this argument cuts both ways. It argues just as strongly for the abandonment of all translations, and for a fierce apologetic against ‘Multi Translation Men’. If changes, updates, variants are the Hallmark of Hell, then welcome to the real world of translation.

    What’s wrong with translations? For starters, translation involves historical, grammatical& linguistic considerations. Grammars, lexicons & all that rationalistic, scientific, pick-and-spade, archeological etymology stuff simply amounts to the *same type of Academic Crutch* used by the evil ‘Multi Version Men’. Translators have to study Greek usage of Philo, Patristics, Josephus, the LXX, Homer, Plato, & other (pagan) Classical Greek writings. The same indictment cuts both ways. Seems the TRO camp wants it both ways, no?

    But that Metzger/Wallace sounding, scientific, archeological method is like showing Dracula the cross: if you’re a TRO (or KJVO) type, that is. They’re trying to defend God, they don’t understand providence, so they end up making Him too small. A normal, historical, natural-albeit-providential method of preserving His word just couldn’t have happened. The ability to recognize holy writ (i.e. that closest to the autographs) shouldn’t require modern tools of language & historical inquiry. Divine communication is too important a task! Almost too important for language, as some would reason (arguing instead for channeling, divine Twitter accounts from Blavatsky dot com etc)

    Sidebar illustration: How can we make a case for the meaning of huios (or theos) monogenes in John 1:18, without a full background study of the term monogenes? Does monogenes derive from monos & genes? Or is it: genes..genos…gignomai, a variant spelling of ginomai? Yikes. Grab your Indiana Jones hat, because that takes us to lexical study and THAT leads to the dark side i.e. science, linguistics, etymology, scholars of questionable faith, heterodoxy, sinners etc.

    These same wordly, academic tools & disciplines which produce modern translations apparently(?) are dangerous & carnal. They lead away from Jerusalem, towards Rome. Translation itself hijacks the authority of Sola Scriptura (read: the TR & KJV) and deposits it in the hands of Multi Translation Men.

    Why don’t we just leave Textual Criticism _and_ Translation all in the hands of a divine clergy class? The laity shouldn’t be dabbling in disciplines fit only for elect angels.

    Isn’t that what the TR & KJV developers really were? A special, supernatural clergy class? Isn’t tradition a wonderful, opt-out substitute for hard work?

    So the downfall of ‘Multi Version Men’ turns out to be the same as ‘Multi Translation Men’ i.e. their reliance on rationalistic tools, scientific disciplines, history & archeology. Who knew?

    I doubt many Americans today could even read or understand much of the English used for the _original_ 1611 KJV.

    “Any so-called “1611” King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. .. it is the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even say “1611” in the front… it’s just not true. Prepare to be shocked! The spellings have been revised, and some words changed, in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885!”


    Christ Pinto needs to urge all thirteen of his supporters (incl. the guy who carries Pinto’s water and hits like a girl) to call for a new movement: Dump all translations. Their T-shirts & coffee mugs could read: Tears Amongst Defeat. Those who don’t want to learn Koine Greek should at least start using the –>original 1611<– KJV …ONLY.

    "Their hope is built on nothing less..

    ..than Blavatsky's hunch
    ..and phantom texts."

    Sure hope I don't get "bumped off".

  13. Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh

  14. Truth has fallen in the streets. …. See 2 Thess 2. The arrogant & willful ignorance of those claiming to be ‘impartial’ & somehow above the Holy Spirit even, of the substantive arguments in serious BELIEVING study of the received & masoretic texts ——speak for themselves.

    Why the fear for this discussion to come out of the darkened ivy halls & back-scratching fraternal /gnostic orders & classes and out into the light of day? What is being protected that cannot stand the light of day? Could it be vanity & idolatry? How humbling for such to realize they’ve been schmoozed & seduced by purposeful misleading & puffing up of their own egos! Deceived…and defending the indefensible to the death. Jesus & the Spirit said it would be so.

    Such arrogance by these ‘protectors’ of truth & sanity! —to think a few shepherds, laborers, prostitutes & tax collectors could know Truth & enter in before those draped in worldly accreditation & initiation into the mysteries of ‘higher learning’ is simply unthinkable! ….to simply & plainly inform men of the ‘mysteries’ they know that sets them apart, higher & above —-appears to be beyond them….which causes their claims to be questionable at best, & highly suspicious—–else why should such tactics to be resorted to? Early on studying the logical fallacies inherent in the material evolution ‘story’ & its defense, I began questioning why the same camels were swallowed without comment or note when it came to the issue of spiritual & religious evolution with the textual issues & legitimacy of Romanism as a valid voice in the discussion?

    Why such a love for the progressive Unitarian view of society by men wrapped in multi-layered cloaks of sophistry & accusation & vaulted academia set to put the ‘great unwashed’ back into it’s place? ….’hillbilly’? …..Is that anything like …’could anything good come out of Nazareth’? …..You can almost see the sneering sophisticate Agrippa and the political pragmatist Annas & his toady Caiphas! The Spirit through Paul wrote that he feared men would be wooed from the simplicity of Christ…and also of ‘worldly wisemen’ , as well as ‘signs and wonders’ factions. Through John He wrote….little children, keep yourself from idols. How could such proud men ever humble themselves to ‘little children’ status when they believe themselves to be the guardians of all knowledge, needing no aid of anyone—certainly not the ‘superstitious’ spirituality of the Holy Spirit rooted in preserved rational words & evidences ———and certainly no correction from a little objective & forensic historical light long shunted aside & disregarded by ‘those in the know’, coming back to haunt the ‘steerers into the better way’ —-or those fools, self-deluded by their own sin, to play along with Satan’s dialectic believing they’re fighting for the only Lord of glory!? (or at least representing themselves as such for those not initiated, or not yet attaining to the level of knowledge & ability necessary to receive such ‘light’…)

    Personally, coming out of Unitarianism to the Word by faith, I was unconvinced by the histories of Westcott, Hort & such that they could possibly be in the line of biblical preservation or fidelity. …Their spiritist & biblically skeptical connections were as known & as blatant as those of the Darwins & Wedgwoods…(Why recent ‘Christian’ & erudite films have chosen to present their Unitarian ‘Christianity’ as orthodox without critically examining where their views divided from the plain word falls among such suspicious facts as the largely uncritical acceptance of the Roman Catholic Chesterton’s ‘Orthodoxy’ & the veneration of immensely unbiblical & strange mystical-rational admixtures preceding from C.S. Lewis’ philosophizing by ‘academia’ among high church types & Calvinists & ‘low churchers’ weary of the world’s arched eyebrows & labels of ‘ignorant’ …….’hedonistic’ Christianity indeed! ) I, too, was deceived for a time by the neo- manifestations of this —but no more.

    It’s just a replay of old Romanism & the ‘my-way’ for my purposes fraud perpetrated by Jeroboam. The only solution is repentance & utter dependence upon God…and if you haven’t His words? ….well then, one possesses an apparently custom-made excuse to worship one’s own way. Shades of Cain & Babel.

    Ivory tower types with a bent to philosophy & assumptions of knowledge equating to goodness & righteousness, need the balance of plain reality that those in touch with reality & suffering can bring: in a word: they need to stop blaming & blasting & misrepresenting the Anabaptist, Baptist/pilgrim church, & ‘KJO’ position & traditions. They need, instead, to man up & to put their lives & money where their mouths are to examine the reality of the mess in all of its awful gore & glory, & give up their simplistic arrogant willfully blind & vain-glorious view. They need to turn from the hope of Lord Bacon, to the hope of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    If ‘bigotry’ still has a valid meaning in these days of ‘evolving’ meaning: it’s surely at work here.

    To exchange the sweetness & majestic power & Rock of the very word of God for humanist rationalism & puffed up philosophizing a la Calvin who could never bring himself to come entirely out of Romanism ….despite his bitterness over the loss of his & his family’s position in ‘society,’ and his attempts to vindicate himself & to prove his piety by means of vile persecution unknown to even the falsified texts, & growing out of Augustine’s divided & ‘merged’ faith rather than the biblical faith once delivered…..is beyond one’s comprehension who has done so. Especially when one has taken the time to peek behind the cloak & curtain erected of men to examine the actual documented history involved for oneself.

    At the end of the day if comes down to the fact that the myth of Darwin’s ‘great idea’ and the myth of an evolving faith are both necessary to the ‘meta-narrative’ and the ‘vision’ of the powers of this world. (And it’s not as though God’s unadulterated & non-amended plain word doesn’t warn us of this …or as though God were not in control! Even the adulterated & suspect texts casting doubt on Christ’s deity & the particulars necessary for the true faith to stand apart from, & utterly un-mergeable with every other —-the bane of the one world ‘catholic’ unity—-don’t dare to openly & directly make such claims: preferring to come at them ‘sideways’ as that old antichrist Voltaire advised.)

    Even when one’s eyes are opened to the lie of one of the myths, the Enemy is able to keep many entangled in the other due to lack of humility & fear of man —and idolatrous love of the man-glorious ‘vision’ replacing the biblical view of Christ’s return & Kingdom. They have set down stakes in this world. They have a vested interest in the perishing! –refusing to see the true state of all men, the world & it’s ‘progress’ to unity, because of a misconception of the biblical term of election to create an elite —to which, of course, these men belong: just ask them. —-The Bible sets that boast where it belongs: there is no glory in being among the universally corrupt in need of rescue, but only in the glory of God Almighty & His grace coming through His Word by His sovereign ordination.

    The simple fact that all ideas & beginning presuppositions are of faith & spiritual so that Augustine’s secular-religious divide upon which many erroneously build is shown to be as bogus & unbiblical as his views on baptism & persecution & separation —–is adroitly side-stepped. We who believe Christ’s words to Nicodemus, & who take to heart the words of 1 & 2 Romans —-and indeed all of scripture in light of Revelation 19:10 ————-beg to differ with them.

    And the argument is to be handled as per 2 Timothy 2 …. & Romans 16:17. Plainly & in the light, & without persecution or force —-or lowbrow tactics such as intellectual intimidation in the name of wisdom…. Let their yeas be yeas, and their nays be nays & we might give them heed & follow them as true shepherds —-but their tactics, their words & their presuppositional grounds as shown & witnessed above are suspect and antibiblical, so that we may disregard them in good faith & without fear: they are blind guides of the blind. Do not be shaken to follow men rather than the Word as they set themselves as higher than He —and as ‘interpretors’ of the revelation every bit as off base as the tongues-speakers they love to lampoon & lambaste. Stand firm. And, pray that God gives them grace to repentance. 2 Corinthians 10.

  15. the textus receptus is the word of god. the critical text (part of which was hidden away in the desert of sinai and part of which was in the basement of the vatican, i.e. the seat of antichrist) is not. end of story. if you dont agree then throw out all your theology books that were written before the advent of the revised version because they all used the textus receptus.

  16. “In fact, she goes after Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort a lot in her written correspondence and books.”

    Let’s put aside the Sinaiticus-Tischendorf aspect, which relates to the one quote and looks simply like her report from the field …

    Do you have any actual references where Blavatsky attacks Westcott and Hort? Or even mentions Hort?

    (She mentions Westcott in Isis Unveiled, Vol 2, five times, but simply in scholarship references.)


    Steven Avery

  17. She goes after him there and in another collection of her letters if I recall, I am wanting to say volume 2. It is clear that in her writing, she was no fan of Christianity or Scripture. Even in the citation that i noted above, she is calling the OT “Jewish fables.” It is ridiculous of Pinto, along with other KJVO apologists, to insist she looked favorably upon the textual criticism that was flourishing in the day. She wanted to debunk Christianity and men like Tischendorf and Westcott were foiling her plans.

  18. “She goes after him there”

    No, Westcott was not mentioned there. Tischendorf is criticized, but even those who consider Sinaiticus authentic should easily understand that he was a thief and liar about how it got into his hands.

    “and in another collection of her letters if I recall”

    Please, if you have some references, simply give them.


    Ok, so you actually do not have any case where she went after Westcott and Hort. We know that Blavatsky was an occultist, thus anti-Christian in general However, she does have a number of comments that use the scholarship of Westcott. Since you are still running with the bogus claim, I will give you a few of the quotes:


    Isis Unveiled: Theology, Vol 2, 1891 edition,

    “Marcion… came to Rome toward the latter part of the half-century, from a.d. 139-142, according to Tertullian, Irenseus, Clemens, and most of his modern commentators, such as Bunsen, Tischendorf, Westcott, and many others. ” – p. 159

    “If Christ,” say Dr. Farrar and Canon Westcott, “ wrought no miracles, then the gospels are untrustworthy.” But even supposing that he did work them, would that prove that gospels written by others than himself are anymore trustworthy? And if not, to what purpose is the argument? p. 370


    Or, as I wrote earlier:

    “As for the Blavatskyr knowledge of Bible scholars and issues in UK at that time, she referenced Brooke Foss Westcott’s views on the Clementine homilies. And also the Shepherd of Hermas. Also the views of Frederick William Farrar and Westcott on miracles. And the dating of Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum by Tischedorf. Also the learned Fabricius and Tischendorf on the Acts of Pilate. She mentioned en passant the Tischendorf and Westcott views on Marcion.”


    Steven Avery
    Dutchess County, NY

  19. – No, Westcott was not mentioned there. Tischendorf is criticized, but even those who consider Sinaiticus authentic should easily understand that he was a thief and liar about how it got into his hands.-

    You have the second volume of her collected letters in your library? I am not talking about Isis Unveiled. Her collected letters. As I recall, she had a few disparaging remarks against him. I don’t have the exact reference, because I don’t care to keep her works handy nearby. The same with her other book, the exact title escaping me at the moment.

    You seem to suggest that she was favorable to their work or that she used their work for her ends. Knowing you as I have over the years, I am sure it all comes back around to the ridiculous KJVO conspiracy that they were secret Theosophists or had some nefarious new agey reason behind their textual criticism. Even in the examples you cite above, if you read those quotes in their entire context (something KJVO apologists never do) she is NOT appealing to their work favorably.

    For instance, in the first quote about Marcion, she merely cites the church fathers who wrote about Marcion (because it is only really from their apologetic material refuting Marcion that we even know about Marcion) and then she cites modern Bible scholars (people of her day, Westcott, etc) who confirm the history of the church fathers she just cited. If you read just that page, it appears she has bought into the Bauer thesis that Christianity and the Christian communities were diverse with no unified doctrinal conviction as to what Christians believe. IOW, they were all over the map, Marcion being one of many views of Jesus. That theory is easily debunkable as seen in the book the Heresy of Orthodoxy, a book I would recommend that you read if you have not.

    The second citation she mentions Westcott and Farrar, but you will note that it is a passing comment chiding their view of “miracles,” that being specifically, the NT Gospels are reliable in their recording of miracles. Westcott is defending biblical Christianity. She is disparaging it.

  20. Fred, You wrote a lot above without saying anything. You seem to be more intent on trying to attack me than offering any substance.

    And I simply pointed out that you were misrepresenting how Blavatsky related to Sinaiticus., and that her comments should be read, and considered at face. They are interesting. And in order to misrepresent her comments, you misrepresented how she related to Westcott and Hort. And you went around the horn in order to fabricate the idea that she had some malicious motive for discussing the checking that was done about the manuscript and the monastery. All very strained.

    The basic fact is that Blavatsky’s historical commentary on the monastery remains a decent, albeit minor, additional note to a mountain of evidences. Your harumphs about mentioning her comments are simply a reflection of the fact that you do not have a historical sense about the Simoneidos manuscript, and wanted to posture a bit.

    I’ve always opposed errors in analysis, and in the Bible discussions some of those have involved Blavatsky, sometimes with misquotes. Gail Riplinger had two Westcott’s mish-a-moshed.

    And I tussled with some of those errors years back. Will Kinney properly took out a Blavatsky reference section when I carefully shared with him that some quotes (from Brian Sorios) were simply inaccurate. This came up again, because on Facebook some of the errant quotes were being “shared”, so I corrected them, and wrote for reference: One lady very nicely pulled her post. Here is where I documented some of this correction:

    Pure Bible Theory and Praxis
    correcting misinformation about Helena Blavatsky and Brooke Foss Westcott

    As for her report on Sinaiticus, it made my Sinaiticus studies in the second post on this work-in-process thread.

    Sinaiticus – authentic antiquity or modern?
    before 1844 – poof provenance

    Fred, you would do well to simply study the Sinaiticus material. Study the colouring where we have an amazing visible BEFORE and AFTER, the homoeoteleutons, the historical impossibility quirks, the condition of the manuscript, and much more. The evidences now are way beyond what Chris Pinto originally sniffed out.

    Yours in Jesus,
    Steven Avery
    Dutchess County, NY

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s