Why ? Because the public has to be made aware that the goal of certain very powerful Church Institutions (think Roman Catholic Hierarchy / Vatican) that are always trying to hold out THEIR OWN ALTERNATE version of the Bible AS IF it were the real thing.

We don’t find any way to escape this reality.

And there is no way to escape it in the Near East.

This Article could become a lot more complicated when we are referring to the septuagint.

That is the plain fact of it. And that is the "septuagint" that the Roman Catholic Church defends.

In order to defend it, circular reasoning is almost always used:

What is Codex Vaticanus ?

Codex Vaticanus is the Septuagint, Not the "real" or historic septuagint, but what is simply CALLED the Septuagint today. 

But TRY going outside of that model, outside of that conversation, and try defining those terms for yourself.

Try to do this from the Historic Records. Try to do this from Manuscript studies.

So many people in the Near East have been so misled by the term "septuagint" that many of them have trouble understanding that the Existence of the Septuagint is itself in doubt.

Of course, the Septuagint is never really in doubt, as long as you understand that what is being called the Septuagint…is actually Codex Vaticanus.

Yes, that would be Codex Sinaiticus.

But then when you investigate Codex Sinaiticus, it turns out that the main Roman Catholic Commentaries on it all agree…that Codex Sinaiticus is derived from the same family of manuscripts that were used for Codex Vaticanus.

In other words, Codex Sinaiticus is a copy of Codex Vaticanus.

So much for trying to escape from Codex Vaticanus

And actually – when you do start the investigation of the differences and similarities between Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, it turns out that they are far more DIFFERENT from each other than they are alike.

So the point – by Textual Critics (those who are paid usually to attack the Bible) – is that they will continue to use Codex Sinaiticus as if the passages in Codex Sinaiticus were identical to the passages in Codex Vaticanus.

But that is almost Never the case. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus contradict each other.

What does that prove, you might ask ?

1. It proves that outside of the Vatican claim that Codex Vaticanus is the "septuagint", there is NO OTHER COPY of this famous so-called "Septuagint"
2. It proves that since Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus DISAGREE with each other in almost every Biblical passage and on almost every page, that Codex Sinaiticus is not "Another Copy" or "Another Duplicate" of Codex Vaticanus.
3. It proves that when you ask the Vatican or Official Roman Catholic theologians to defend the Septuagint, they will always speak ABOUT the Septuagint, but will always leave the term UN-Defined.
4. When Vatican Theologians DO define the Septuagint, it always refers to Codex Vaticanus.

So the Whole point of the Vatican and Its Bible Versions, is to get people to agree with Codex Vaticanus.

Where does the story of the Septuagint come from ?

The story come from one of the books called Apocrypha (Apocrypha means Counterfeit, literally) – from the Letter of Aristeas.

That is one claim from supposed Antiquity. The claim of the Existence of the Septuagint has never actually been verified.

Most people think that the Septuagint is valued because it has the records that would demonstrate that the Early Church had the Old Testament in Ancient Greek.

After all, THAT – is what the Septuagint is supposed to be – the Old Testament written in Ancient GREEK and not Hebrew.

When many Christians hear the term "Old Testament", their mind takes them to the standard 39 books of the Old Testament.

But that is NOT what Septuagint-defenders mean when they use the term "Old Testament".

When Septuagint Theory-defenders use the term Old Testament, they mean

1. The Standard 39 books of the Old Testament, AND
2. OTHER BOOKS that are ADDITIONAL to the Old Testament 39 books, and those would be the Books of the Apocrypha.

So as the reader can now understand, the issue in the discussion of the term "Septuagint" does not really have much to do with the actual Old Testament 39 books that are historically recognized by Christians and Jews.

No, the issue for Septuagint-Theory Defenders is the issue of the CANON of the Old Testament.

IF the Septuagint only – ONLY – meant or represented the standard historic 39 books of the Old Testament, then Finding the Septuagint – or copies of it - would ONLY mean finding the SAME 39 books that are already known and accepted to be the Old Testament.

But IF the Vatican could find a copy of that "septuagint", and IF THAT Septuagint DID contain MORE than the 39 books of the Old Testament, do you realize what this could demonstrate ?

It could demonstrate – that the Septuagint – The Old Testament in Greek – actually Contained – DIFFERENT books of the Old Testament, or – in other words – 39 Books of the Old Testament AND

The books of the Apocrypha.

Therefore, using and finding, and discovering this "Septuagint" would be the "Proof", the Authentication, that the Vatican was Correct and Accurate…in Canonizing the EXTRA books that the Vatican formally added to its own Bible …at the Council of Trent.

Therefore, the use of the term "Septuagint" is designed to accomplish one task:

To establish the Legitimacy of the books of the Apocrypha, so that they can be used by the Vatican.

To you or us, perhaps that is only a "Detail" of history. (actually it is much more).

To the Vatican, finding and claiming to have found a Septuagint is the HIGHEST value that a Vatican Theologian can have.

The reason is that establishing that the Septuagint had APOCRYPHAL books in it, would once and for all demonstrate that the Protestants and the Reformation – were WRONG in their decision to question the Vatican and its policies.

In other words, the issue of the Legitimacy of the Vatican is what the use of any Septuagint demonstrates and Validates.

If the Vatican can establish the legitimacy of whatever it can call "Septuagint", then it has successfully defended its claim to be the true representative of Christianity on earth, BECAUSE it was the Vatican that has championed the Apocryphal books for centuries.

Although written in Greek, and although it DOES contain portions of the New Testament, Codex Vaticanus ALSO contains portions of the Old Testament.

Codex Vaticanus ALSO contains several Apocryphal Books.

Because Codex Vaticanus contains not only the New Testament and the Old Testament, but several Apocryphal books, it is PRESUMED to be a copy of the Septuagint.

The Vatican does not Recognize ANY OTHER manuscript (except Sinaiticus) as being the Septuagint.

Here is the Conclusion – about this issue:

When the Vatican uses, promotes, endorses or facilitates any Bible Translation or Bible Translation work, the Goal of those translations and translators is ALWAYS – ALWAYS – to have the particular translation agree with Codex Vaticanus.

Now that we know a bit of background, we will try to answer the following question:

What does any of this have to do with the Arabic Bible of Cornelius Van Dyck ?

A lot., because the Newer editions of the Van Dyck Bible have been changed to Conform the Van Dyck Bible to Codex Vaticanus.

The American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society

The Ink was barely dry on the 1882 Revised Version of Westcott and Hort and it was welcomed with open arms by the American Bible Society at the time of its publication.

The New Testament of Westcott and Hort marked a noted departure from more than 700 years of following the Textus Receptus (Received Text) that Protestants have always followed.

Protestants had done much research and much searching for numerous manuscritps around the world, in order to find accurate copies of the Bible. This process of having to search was necessitated by the Monopoly and Censorship exercised by the --- better known as the Inquisition all over Europe for more than one thousand years (from before 800 to after the Italian Revolutions of the 1846-48).

Westcott and Hort – through their agents – had succesfully lobbied the Bible Societies to change their Greek Texts, from the ones that they had been using and that were historically based, to the Fraudulent Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus.

It is easy to be offended. To hear the explanation takes courage. Contrary to impression, Codex Vaticanus is NOT the result of ONE author. In fact, the penmanship and the writing shows that it is the result of at least TEN Different scribes writing over a period of several centuries.

In several places, Codex Vaticanus shows where earlier words have been washed out and replaced with later changes and additions. 99% of the Manuscripts in Koine Greek DISAGREE with Codex Vaticanus.

But Westcott and Hort allowed themselves to be persuaded that the Bible was not true, because of a very small group of leaders inside Cambridge University in the 1800s. This group was led by Neo-Platonists, who are today better known as Theosophists.

The American Bible Society agreed to use and promote the Westcott and Hort Vaticanus-based Greek Text. This was the specific text of Westcott and Hort, and they are the ones who actually did the collation on their own Greek text. The Translation committees (both in the UK and in the U.S.) simply translated that text into English, but they accepted this NEW Collation of the greek text by Westcott and Hort.

The case of the British and Foreign Bible Society is a bit different. They continued their policy of adherence to the Textus Receptus. This was continued but there were those inside the leadership of the British and Foreign Bible Society that agreed to accept the new collations of Westcott and Hort and the text of Vaticanus.

The one most responsible for this change was a Textual Critic by the name of Tregelles. Scrivener gives him praise for his talent of translation, but then also commented that the work that Tregelles had done was – Biblically speaking – of no value.

Tregelles became a convert to Codex Vaticanus as a result of his friendship with Nestle. Nestle was a German Textual Critic who was dedicated to overthrowing the Protestant Reformation. Nestle himself had been a protégé of Tischendorf who was a mentor to the young Nestle. Tischendorf – with the help of the Pope and after visiting him in Rome - is the one who had gone over to the Monastery of St Catherine and found Codex Sinaiticus which the Eastern Orthodox monks had already rejected.

In 1904, after two years of lobbying (by Nestle who spent a great deal of time in England in this task), the British and Foreign Bible Society adopted the policy of changing from the Textus Receptus to the Nestle edition of the New Testament. The Greek New Testament of Nestle came from 2 sources: 1. Codex Sinaiticus (Tischendorf) and 2. The Greek New Testament Collation of Westcott and Hort (Based on Codex Vaticanus).

However, the year of official changeover for the British and Foreign Bible Society was 1910. And as they have had the chance, the Bibles that the British and Foreign Bible Society had sponsored and promoted began to be changed and altered to conform to Codex Vaticanus and the Roman Catholic Bibles.

What is unfortunate about these events – is what is often overlooked.

One of the marks of authenticity of portions of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been the Received Text of the New Testament.

When Protestants have used the Textus Receptus, it was not born out of thin air. It was based on the texts of the Eastern Orthodox New Testaments.

That is why the Textus Receptus defenders often refer to the Byzantine Manuscripts.

Those are the manuscripts of the Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox Churches that existed originally in the same areas of the Near East during the days of the Roman Empire.

One of the few things that has survived into this century has been the 5000 fragments of Koine New Testament Manuscripts, and the 20,000 (yes – Twenty THOUSAND) copies of Lectionaries (whole or partial) that are written in Koine Greek. These manuscripts are those of the early Christians. Over and over they support the Textus Receptus.

These Eastern Orthodox Manuscripts are what the Textus Receptus is based on.

The idea that the "real" bible somehow supports Codex Vaticanus is a real trick indeed. And, to convince the Eastern Orthodox to abandon their own historic byzantine manuscripts as authoritative, and to INSTEAD agree to use Codex Vaticanus as the basis for their Bible translations, that is an amazing development, within the recent history of the various Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates.

The American Press in Beirut (Lebanon) issued the First Font Reference Bible in 1916. The changes that were made (by F.E.H.) to that edition were based on the Revised Version of 1880/82 of Westcott and Hort. (The Old Testament in this edition was 1068 pages. The New Testament was 357 pages).

Already during the lifetime of Van Dyck, changes were already introduced into the draft versions of Arabic Bibles. It was Cornelius Van Dyck who Insisted that the Arabic Text conform to the Textus Receptus.

The theory is that the Bibles Must be revised around the world, so that they conform to the latest language and the most modern methods of expression. But Why ?

Why is this necessary ?

The answer is that this practice is NOT necessary. The actual purpose of the Revisions is NOT linguistic clarification but Doctrinal Changes that are altering the meaning and the context of the words being used.

The goal is to remove and take away the spiritual power of the Bible. And the only way to do that, is to make people THINK that they have accurate translations, when they do not.

The Old Christians and the Christian Church has stood strong for hundreds and hundreds of years. In fact they stood strong, until their Bibles were Changed and Altered by those working for the Modern Bible Societies.

That is something that all of us should think about. Those who want to have a strong faith and a real relationship with God should pay very close attention to the Bibles that they have, and make sure that they have not been changed or modified by those attempting to give the world over to an occult spirituality.