top of page
right hand 2.png

3) A Fake Bible


A fake bible .  ( bible ) .

if Orthodoxy and Catholics were once one unified religion, how did they finish up with a different canon of scripture each? Then they chide Protestant for making decision by Faith. Many of them even accept Psalm 151, the Book of Odes, Psalms of Solomon, etc. They are one long contradiction.

see link for the two different canons of Catholics and Orthodox:


Bel and the Dragon is such bunk it would settle the Protestant versus Orthodox canon. I mean Tobit even has Voodoo done with fish entrails in it. But translating the OT from the LXX means they corrupt not only the books of the canon, but the text as well, as Jesus said in Matt 4:4 the Hebrew Text would be preserved by God word for word, quote "every word". Thus the Catholics and the Orthodox have never even had a bible for 5 minutes. The Catholic Vulgate even erases half of Romans 11:6 because it refutes their theology, yet the Greeks and Orthodox leave it in.

The Holy Spirit reveals - both sides agree.

Protestants say "ask the Holy Spirit" about canon (relationship)

Orthodox say their bishops were inspired by the Holy Spirit to choose their Books (funny as the Orthodox add 4 extra Books more than Catholics).

So.... someone is not listening to the Holy Spirit, you must decide who.

The Catholics and Orthodox say they knew what was scripture "because their bishops were inspired by the Holy Ghost". I believe they were all witches, so far from God the Catholics have never had a bible, and they never will. Protestants too say we were led to recognize the canon by the Holy Spirit, it is just we believe he is our permanent teacher, we don't need Orthodox and Catholic wizards and witches who do hocus pocus magic tricks to teach us anything.

The Orthodox and Catholics do no examine what is scripture by Faith, they say their own coven of witches must tell them what it is. However the Catholic canon of scripture is different from the Orthodox canon. Not only that as in both religions some accept other books like Psalm 151, the Book of Odes, Psalms of Solomon, etc. even within their own sorcery religion (Rev 18:23) they have different canons, but in all 4 canons they accept bogus books like Bel and the Dragon, never accepted by the Jews as scripture.

The fake Orthodox bible :

They translate the old Testament from the LXX Greek, and add clearly bogus books such as "Bel and the Dragon" to their canon of scripture, in fact "Bel and the Dragon" is so clearly fake it proves the Protestants chose the correct canon not them or the Popes.

The Eastern Orthodox bible is heretical as it translates the Old testament from the Greek LXX, which in effect calls Matthew  4:4 a lie, as the Hebrew OT has been perfectly preserved and they deny that by absurdly translating out of the corrupted Greek. By choosing these OT corrupted ms to translate and use, they have also added heretical books to the OT canon, such as the clearly bogus book "Bel and the Dragon". Thus they also have a fake canon of well as a fake text of scripture. Can you imagine how stupid it is to translate the Old Testament from Greek? Absurd! 

(Another more modern heresy is that some Orthodox websites in order to be "more trendy and modern" have started to use and quote the corrupt Alexandrian modern bibles such as the NIV.)

The early church (who know the canon) was persecuted and hid under the Ichthus symbol. Then the sacerdotalist heretic movement gained strength under the murderer Emperor Constantine, who later split to become Catholics and Orthodox. This forced the true church into hiding again. The sacerdotalists created a fake canon of scripture based on the old LXX Greek, and injected bogus books into the bible, like the idiotic forgery "Bel and the Dragon" still in your bible today added to Daniel. So Catholics and the Orthodox always had a fake bible. the text was fake (written from Greek in the old testament) and the canon was fake adding bogus books never accepted by the Jews ever. Catholics then did in their bible further by translating it into Latin and using primarily that, missing things out like half of Romans 11:6.

The real bible was re-compiled by William Tyndale, and a man God converted from the Catholic Faith through Tyndale called John Rogers.


1) The text is corrupt. The Orthodox have a heresy to translate from the LXX Greek copy of the old testament, so at best their bible would be a translation of a copy not a translation, however the text of the LXX Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) contradicts the Jewish Masoretic Text, and so the TEXT and the CANON is corrupt.

The LXX includes:

The LXX additional canon beyond the deuterocanon :

1) Psalms of Solomon

2) 3 Maccabees

3) 4 Maccabees,

4) the Epistle of Jeremiah, (which later became chapter six of Baruch in the Vulgate)

5) the Book of Odes,

6) the Prayer of Manasseh 

7) Psalm 151 


are included in some copies of the Septuagint,[23] 

There is schism in Orthodoxy and Catholicism over accepting these books in their canon.

The deuterocanon or  Anagignoskomena :

(not in the Jewish canon)

1) They shorten the Book of Jeremiah.2

2) 1 Maccabees;

3) 2 Maccabees

4) Tobit; a voodoo book.

5) Judith;

6) Wisdom of Solomon;

7) Sirach;

8) Baruch,

9) The Letter of Jeremiah;

10) additions to Esther;

11) additions to Daniel

a) Bel and the Dragon: (outstanding proof they have a fake canon)

b) Susanna and the Elders: (I think the Vulgate may add chapter 13?)

c) The Prayer of Azariah

d) Song of the Three Holy Children:

The addition of these "books" to the canon, not found in Jewish canon, prove to Protestants the writers of the LXX Greek Old Testament were an heretic Jewish Cult, and that cult are the basis of the fake Orthodox Bible.

All of these latter books are considered by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church as canonical books, and some of the former ; to Protestantism, they are the Apocrypha. The Septuagint version of some Biblical books, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text

Pseudepigraphical .

Technically, a pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings that do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the texts listed above. Examples[51] include:

Often included among the pseudepigrapha are 3 and 4 Maccabees because they are not traditionally found in western Bibles, although they are in the Septuagint. Similarly, the Book of EnochBook of Jubilees and 4 Baruch are often listed with the pseudepigrapha although they are commonly included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Psalms of Solomon are found in some editions of the Septuagint.

How do they differentiate from Deuterocanonical from Pseudepigraphical?

In addition, two books considered canonical in the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, viz. Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, are categorized as pseudepigrapha from the point of view of Chalcedonian Christianity .

eg The Testament of Solomon .

This contains female demons like Abyzou, quote "A.A. Barb argues that in essence the Sumerian Abzu is the "grandmother" of the Christian Devil.[5]"

links: .  .

As an Evangelical / Protestant I hasten to say I deny altogether the existence of female demons.

Protestant versus Orthodox versus Catholic Apocrypha :

It is important to note that the Orthodox have a far wider list of books considered "New Testament Apocrypha"

see link:

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions thrive on diverting people away from real holy scripture into reading anything and everything else, and thus they present to people a far wider range of writings that acts like quicksand to dirvert and trap them in studies outside of the word of God.

When was the canon realised?

The first Christians had the bible and canon (obviously) but Roman persecution made them hide under the Ichthus symbol. At the time of Constantine they had to hide again, as the new sacerdotalist heretics (who became Catholics and Orthodox in 1054)  were killing them (notice before the Nicene Creed there were "riots where Christians were killing Christians" to quote historians). This meant that the bible only visibly emerged when John Rogers (a Roman Catholic convert who William Tyndale witnessed to) finally compiled the new and old testaments in English translated qt last from Greek and Hebrew. Like Tyndale he was then burnt alive this time by the Catholics.


A man fell asleep on the floor, and birds had a poo in his eyes, and he went blind. And that is holy scripture. St Paul had scales on his eyes, but apparently the Catholics and the Orthodox have so much bird poo in their eyes they cannot tell what holy scripture is.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible

includes 86 books, including all the books in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles, plus Jubilees, Enoch, Synodicon, Diddascalia Apostolorum, Testament of the Lord, Qalementus, and 4 Baruch.


The reason it is tricky is that the number of books is actually misleading. Much of the actual text is present in both canons, but it’s distributed differently. Esdras in particular is picked to pieces; there is a ‘3 Esdras’ book that is very similar to 1 Esdras that is in Greek Bibles but not (most) Catholic Bibles, and yet some Latin Bibles contain up to 4 Esdras, which is chaos considering how very much of it is repeated material. Most of the actual differences are like this, such as the ‘Epistle of Jeremiah’ which is its own book in the Orthodox Bible but is appended to Baruch in the Roman Catholic. The only really unique material is the Prayer of Mannaseh, 3 Maccabees, and the 151st Psalm.

Tobit :

The prophet the Jews don't even know they had.


Sinaiticus contained a longer and older Greek edition of Tobit, which is used in modern translations. Five fragments of Tobit were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: one in Hebrew, four in Aramaic. The fragments confirm the Sinaiticus edition and suggest an Aramaic original.


Preposterous :

Tobit is made blind by birds having a poo in his eyes.

(It is interesting that in the different versions it is sparrow poo in the RSV but it is "hot dung out of a swallow's nest" in the Douay version.)

wildly Idiotic :

Sarah has been married seven times but a demon killed each of her husbands before the marriage could be consummated (3:8).


The angel Raphael is disguised as an Israelite named Azariah.


hilarious :

Raphael convinces Tobiah to marry Sarah, despite her track record of dead husbands.


Voodoo :

Tobiah uses parts of the fish to ward off the murderous demon and he survives the wedding night (8:2).


never knew angels were into money :

Raphael retrieves the money


Quackery :

Finally, Tobiah uses the fish's gall to cure Tobit's blindness (11:11).


it figures....

The story draws on themes from a few Mesopotamian myths from the same time period,


fiction is not God's word, Catholic quote:

"Tobit is very different from most biblical books because of its fiction"


The Apocrypha .

The Apocrypha proper then would be classified as follows:

Palestinian Jewish Literature




1 Esdras (i.e. Greek Ezra).


1 Maccabees.




Book of Baruch


Book of Judith




2 Esdras (see also Apocalyptic literature)




Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus)




Hellenistic Jewish Literature:


Historical and Legendary


Additions to Daniel


Additions to Esther


Epistle of Jeremiah


2 Maccabees


Prayer of Manasseh




Book of Wisdom  ,    ,

The Fake Orthodox Bible:

Their fake canon came from their racist decision to translate the OT out of the Greek LXX, introducing the LXX fake books never accepted by the Jews.

No official Bible???

Orthodox Christians tell me the bible they use has the NKJV of the new testament in it, but the old testament is based on the LXX. How can they have a Protestant new testament? The mind boggles! And then they make the mistake of choosing the corrupted NKJV over the KJV. That they have not ratified bible by the hierarchy they claim has such authority. or one they say is the most accurate and good for reading, is amazing. And what was the new testament then they were using for 1,000 years before the Reformation? Apparently they never bothered to compile one. It shows how the bible to them historically is nothing to their man made traditions.

After discussing this with the Orthodox there maybe an EOB in Greek, that uses a Koine Greek basis that is not Textus Receptus, but even if there is why should I go to the trouble to do massive analysis on possible differences between the Greek if its not their official bible, in some way ratified by their top wizards (bishops)?

The Ancient Faith edition- research :

I met an Amish woman who told me she used the Greek Orthodox Greek new testament text not Textus Receptus, but I was never able to locate such an ms (and we departed as facebook friends over Amish Rumspringa and Shunning doctrines). So the Orthodox Religion has no official ratified Bible? Fact is in Greece the Orthodox church is really two separate churches split over the calendar and other issues. Would have been interesting to compare their new testament Greek and translation of them, but apparently neither exist and they both use the Protestant KJV. So in GREEK in GREECE surely they d not use a Greek translation of the NKJV ???

So let us get this straight...... God gave a promise in Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3) that every word of God will be perfectly preserved word for word. You say this was fulfilled by translating the entire OT into Greek, then the Hebrew was corrupted, and only the Greek LXX remains pure? When the Greek LXX is not word for word anyway? Absurd....... And then God preserved with it bunk books like the portion of Daniel called "Bel and the Dragoon" an obvious forgery. Oh...... and as your church is infallible but not your Titular Head, that makes your church practice on this "infallible". Wake up thou that sleepest - and Christ will give thee light! That would potentially require that the men who translated the LXX to have done so under inspiration - that is quite some serious doctrine to hold!

ok show us that in the canons or the fathers, so you can show your own bible is not to you "heterodox".

If the LXX was a copy of a perfect old Hebrew Text

1) Why did God preserve the LXX but not the Hebrew text it was taken from (in your theology)

2) Did this original Hebrew the LXX was copied from have Bel and the Dragon in it? And why if the Jews have never said it was scripture?

The Eastern Orthodox do not publish their bible online, perhaps in case you find out how corrupted it is - like how they falsely insert the word "priest" over and over again.

The Septuagint (LXX) used to translate the Old Testament.

1) The LXX contradicts the Hebrew - giving an underlying heretical basis that the prophecy of Matthew 4:4 that "every word" will be perfectly preserved by God is supposedly fulfilled in the LXX (heresy).

2) Translating from a translation into multiple languages is a corruption of text and a concoction.

3) The LXX contains Books not in the Hebrew

The official Orthodox bible is a fake from the very start, because they translate the old testament out of the Greek Septuagint, making it at very best a translation of a translation. What is more they did this for racist reasons, just as the modern Judaizing movement translate the new testament from absurdly corrupt and late Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, as the inspired Textus Receptus Greek new testament (or any other come to that) blows apart the who fake premise of their cult by never calling God Yahweh once, or Jesus Yeshua once.

Orthodoxy also add clearly bogus books to the old testament canon, like the absurd book "Bel and the Dragon", with the hero stuffing pitch into a dragon's mouth until it explodes (ridiculous). This is why they try not to discuss "the canon" but the new testament canon only, so they can fantasize that they "gave it to us". It was given to us by God through the Apostles and disciples, and we simply recognize it, as the spiritual discern all things spiritually, just as we reject the absurd counterclaims of Orthodoxy and Catholicism - that they both represent the model of the early church, yet are both massively different in hugely important doctrinal areas, such as the Pope, the nature of Hell, and divorce, to name but a few. They both claim all the history scrolls prove beyond all doubt they are the real deal, but both are radically different. Full well the Evangelicals and the Protestants trust the bible instead.


The bible of the Eastern Orthodox is utterly corrupted by racism from the start, and even the Russians, and other countries, not just the Greeks, have bought into the Hell sent lie the old testament should be translated from the Greek. Maybe Asians think you should translate it from Chinese. The Orthodox are ridiculous, but the Catholics that translate it out of Latin are even worse. 

So just how accurate is the septuagint? The old testament should be translated from the Hebrew. Full stop. Period. Using the version of the 70 introduced fake apocryphal books, and made the old testament text itself fake.

Death by inhaling ashes.

2 Maccabees Chapter 13

this was a heathen king, thus criticisms are invalid.

The same technique of deception is used in the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) as was used in the modern versions of the bible, like the NIV, and it is basically very similar to a Jehovah's Witness fake new testament, except the word Jehovah has not been falsely inserted into it, as it has been in the JW modern Greek version (how dim Greek Jehovah's Witnesses must be not to notice the deliberate replacement of Theos and Kurios with Jehovah).  

that's as dumb as saying Orthodox or the Pope gave us "One God Father Son and Spirit". Both are simply divine truths. Rather it is their false churches that tried to give us Bel and the Dragon etc.

Modern version fakes:
When the modern versions of the bible came out, they relegated scriptures like the end of Mark 16, and John 8:1-11 to footnotes, just as the Watch Tower version does now. This meant the English speaking public largely rejected these versions, and so the sales tactic was used to put the huge number of missing verses in the text of these fake new testaments, instead of as footnotes, thus the public was tricked into reading fake bibles. 

Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) fakes:
The Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) is based on the bogus Greek "Patriarchal Text" (PT ).
Quote: "The Patriarchal Text ( PT ) was selected on Mount Athos from among a large number of reliable ecclesiastical manuscripts, the text underpinning the official ecclesiastical text published in 1904 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople." and also, quote: "The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church)." Preposterous, using ms from the 9th to 16th centuries only!

As time went by he Authorized Bible defenders, also known as The King James Bible, began to so thoroughly prove that the Alexandrian School of Manuscripts is corrupted, that a number of crafty tactics are now being adopted in the Eastern Orthodox New Testament to hide how totally corrupt their own "Patriarchal Text" is, in a similar, but perhaps in an even more cunning way as is seen in modern versions like the NIV and the ESV.

If the EOB stuck to its bogus Greek called "The Patriarchal Text", which was based on shallow research by green scholars, who lacked the Faith to discern the true word of God, then in just the same way as the English and American public at first shunned the modern versions, the Greeks and Russian Orthodox believers (etc) would probably dump the EOB. Therefore an even more clever way of hiding the corruptions of the Patriarchal text was found. The tactic used is to not translate only the PT (Patriarchal Text) in the OEB, and leave everything else as footnotes, but to include all the verses that are missing into the body of the actual bible text itself, and then to either 

a) use angled brackets and section it off from the Patriarchal Text translated verses, example:
<For yours is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and unto ages of ages. Amen> Matthew 6:13 
with a footnotes stating quote "CT omits this" etc. Angled brackets like this infer it is not scripture. 

b) simply omit to say "PT omits" or "TR adds" and give no footnote. example:
Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. 

c) Instead of writing PT misses out a verse, or a lot of text, they state instead far more frequently TR adds it, not PT omits it, deceiving you yet again. Example:
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. Where it adds in a footnote quote: "TR adds "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:". This might be done with or without an asterisk. 

d) And finally, and perhaps most craftily of all, brackets off part of the text, and then states it is in the Patriarchal Text ( PT ). This infers their precious Patriarchal Text is wrong after all. When? Confusingly sometimes when it is in fact plainly accurate and correct, for instance when PT includes the longer ending of Mark 16, as the Alexandrian Text has no resurrection, or ascension, in the Gospel of Mark, which would mean it is not a synoptic gospel if that was true, which of course it is not, the long ending of Mark 16 is the inspired word of God. example:
Mark 16: verses 9 - 20 are put in double brackets from <<Mark 16:9 Now after Jesus* had risen 16:20 the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied [them]. Amen.>> and then the footnote tells you quote:

16:9-20, are not present in some ancient manuscripts, including the fourth century Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although the omission has unusual features that make the absence of the longer ending less than decisive. Mark 16:9-20 is preserved in its traditional form in about a dozen uncials (the earliest being Codex Alexandrinus) and in all undamaged minuscules. The longer ending is generally not considered to have undisputable canonical authority but it is part of the Patriarchal Text (PT) and is attested by ancient and widespread liturgical use. It is therefore included in the main EOB text as being part of the received text of the Gospel of Mark. See print version's Appendix F for a full discussion.

The question is...... why does the EOB section off with angled brackets huge amount of scripture, (if it is really in the Patriarchal Text?) yet add others often omitted from the NIV etc and add footnotes. What is special about the angled bracketed verses that get omitted from the NIV?  And why are they giving any credibility to manuscripts like the Alexandrian text if they really believe it is corrupt?
CONCLUSION *** edit:
I contend that if the Orthodox believers in the USA, Europe and the UK,  had been given an EOB bible version that stuck only to the Patriarchal Text, it would have been rejected in the same way the modern versions were at first rejected. Instead both the EOB and the NIV and other modern versions used a deliberate deception tactic.  With the NIV it is Bible verses the general public regard as the definite word of God, like the Lord's Prayer, Mark 16 (or you have no resurrection) and John 8:1-11 (or the preposterous theory must be believed someone made up the story and it was inserted - when it is one of the strongest pacifist stories in the bible, and neither Catholics nor Orthodox are pacifists). 

will be given on this page to show how these deceptions were used to cover up the absolutely staggering amount of the new testament that is either MISSING or CHANGED in the Patriarchal Text ( PT ). For a comprehensive list of almost all the corruptions found in the Patriarch Text and the modern bible versions see this link:

The Authorised Bible defended:



​under construction........
I do not believe in patronising people by leaving out so called "tough questions" meant to refute sola scriptura. One question is a question Hebrew Roots heretics and Judaising heretics love to ask, namely "If scripture is sufficient what did the church do in the years before any new testament scripture was given?" This is meant to imply that the early church for a short period relied solely on tradition and word of mouth. 

1) First Jesus directly stated in Luke 24:44-48, when first defining the Evangelical Gospel (later repeated in 1 Cor15:1-4) that the new covenant (Jer 31) and the gospel (Is 53, Psalm 22, Malachi 4:2, etc) and was predicted in the old testament.

You need to study the Adamic, Edenic, Noahic, Abrahamic, covenants. The Law was given by Jesus immediately in the new covenant, as did Moses Earlier, but the many other books of scripture where given to the Jews over several thousand years, such as Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Malachi, etc. The new testament was thus given FAR quicker. Which books are inspired to form a canon was discerned, but was totally misunderstood by the Orthodox, who on a racist basis chose to translate the Old Testament from ancient Greek, a foolish mistake, leading them to OK heretical Books like "Bel and the Dragon".

People act as if once Moses Law was given, everyone in Israel was given their own copy of the 4 Books of the Law  (yes 4!!) and Genesis and Job. The word Deuteronomy means "a second law" and was only written later on, and it is therefore impossible that it was placed next to the Arc of the Covenant at first with the rest of the books ( actually singular) of the law. Thus from the very beginning even after the law was written down and carried with the arc the people were taught SCRIPTURE verbally. Therefore the thousands of people who heard Jesus preaching sharing what he said, is not in contradiction to it being later written down. It was still his inspired words. It was still not man made traditions.


If the men guiding the Eastern Orthodox Church are so anointed and godly, why do they keep the online version of the bible away from their own flock? Obviously they do not want their followers to read it, and instead want them to concentrate on things other than the bible. Or perhaps it is because their new testament is a fake. That is right!

The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church).

Then where is the promise fulfilled both in the old testament and the new "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."? The EOB gives the impression the scholars who put it together used the Patriarchal Text ( PT ) but were ashamed of it in places, and were apologetic is sound, as if their minds were a hodge podge of different theologies, as if they actually believed the corrupt Alexandrian ms are in fact more accurate. 

The incredible fact is that not only has the Greek nation failed to preach the true gospel of Jesus (except a remnant of Evangelicals there today) but they have failed to defend the new testament that is written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their own language, as the following comparisons will show.

Where is the indignation from the Greek people that their bible is not put online properly by their so called church? Where is the outrage! Where is the protest? Where is the demand it should be? Why can the Greek and Russian people not plainly see, that these Pharisees are hiding the bible from you! As it is written "ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52.

I cannot presently obtain these verses. Be diligent and go check them out for yourself? What have they REMOVED and CHANGED in the word of God?
REMOVED VERSES - are in RED (put in brackets)
CHANGED VERSES - are in green (different translation than KJV) sometimes it is different Greek words in different texts. 

The following link is the only one I can find (not from their church), and it has whole pages missing:

Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible


Quote: "The Patriarchal Greek New Testament (PATr) was published by the Patriarchal Press of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on February 22, 1904. It was published as: The New Testament, Approved by the Great Church of Christ, with the intention of being the most authoritative text of the Greek New Testament available. As more critical or eclectic editions of the NT became the norm by the nineteenth century (replacing the Byzantine Text), the Patriarchate of Constantinople assembled a committee of scholars for the purposes of studying various manuscripts of the NT at both Constantinople and Mount Athos. Their goal was to provide “the best reconstruction of the most ancient text of ecclesiastical tradition and, more specifically, of the Church of Constantinople” (from the preface to the 1904 text). The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church). After the Patriarchal Greek New Testament’s initial publication in 1904, Professor Vasileios Antoniades of the Theological School of Chalki made some minor corrections to the text in 1912."

"RPT, RPTE - Revised Patriarchal Text.  This Greek New Testament text is based on the public domain Greek Orthodox Church text (GOC in Bible Works). The text has been revised in a little over 100 places to bring it into conformity with the 350AD Byzantine Gothic text of Wulfilas. The English version is RPTE. Provided by Wayne Mitchell."

What the Orthodox Church is not telling you is that their so called "original church" was so unconcerned about the bible itself, so preoccupied steering the people to read dusty tomes written by spurious so called saints, hermits and pillarists etc, hey had not bothered to put together a proper new testament for 1900 years! And even after the Reformation they did not bother to do it, all they had was regional inaccurate versions, missing out and changing scriptures. Is such an attitude to the word of God representing a holy and zealous and godly view of the importance of the Holy Scriptures? The fact is the Orthodox religion has spent over a thousand years directing people away from the bible into reading the warped and heretical writings of their pseudo sages and saints, just as the Pharisees in Judaism used the same kind of diversion tactic with volume after volume after volume of the Talmud. Orthodox priests and Jewish Pharisees look identical down to the fuzzy beards and uniforms that are worn to receive the glory of men, and use the same diversion tactic away from reading the Word of God himself. 

Make no mistake about it, one of the most devastating changes occurs in changing the interpretation of the Greek word "porneia" in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, and other changes to those verses! The changes are catastrophic!


Orthodox defence:


"Your New Testament canon comes from St. Athanasius' paschal letter and the syndo's of Hippo and Carthage"

Insertion of the word "priest".

The word priest is falsely inserted into the EO new testament by the Orthodox .

Fake Book of Revelation Author .

Fake Epistles of John Author/s .

In a cave on Patmos the authorship of the Book of Revelation is sometimes attributed by the Orthodox to another author other than the St John who wrote the Gospel of John, variously called  and " John the Presbyter" or " John the Elder" . The same with the epistles of John. Can you imagine how serious this is? To invent a spurious Orthodox / Catholic invented person who never even existed, and then say part of the bible, even several books, were written by him, even the sacrosanct Book of Revelation! (see Rev 22: 19-20 and the threat to those who change that book!)  Why is it they their traditions do not get it clear? They have so many strange traditions they insist are true, but they cannot get this right, leaving many Orthodox teaching that the bible was partly written by one of their fake religious figures!! Did Jesus not plainly say at the end of the Gospel of John:


20Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 

21Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 

22Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.


this indicates it is John who wrote the Book of Revelation, revealed t him later by Jesus. 


Saint Thecla is said by the Orthodox to be a "saint equal to the Apostles". It seems very likely none of the Apostles knew such a woman or her life. She appears in The Acts of Paul and Thecla ia 2nd-century text (circa AD 180) which forms part of the Acts of Paul but also circulated separately.

Facebook conversation

  • What they followed is what I follow now. People say this and that is scripture. To whom do I turn? God. The Holy Ghost is my teacher. He has led me to totally reject your canon for reasons given. I studied The Book of Enoch (as it is supposedly quoted in Jude) and prayed if its scripture and got a clear NO. That is how they did it then and now. You accept the Popes canon, which is very different from the Orthodox canon.

  • What I am saying is your canon is proven BOGUS. So you have therefore never ever ever let the people read it, as u=your cann is false. The Catholics burnt people alive anyway who printed bibles for people. Making your whole premise false from the start. Ironically the first person to give the complete bible to the people in more modern times was the converted Catholic John Rogers, who you then BURNT ALIVE for doing it.

bottom of page