The New Testament was originally written in the Koine Greek language at different times by different authors. The books were composed over approximately 55 years, from 45 to 100 AD, although there is no actual scholarly consensus on the exact date of composition for the latest New Testament texts. There are no original manuscripts (called autographs) by the original authors still existing. What we have now are copies of the original and copies of copies throughout the decades and centuries since the first century.

The New Testament, written in Greek, was translated into many different languages, including Syriac, Latin, and Coptic – all before the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. In the 4^th century AD, Jerome, a Christian scholar, completed translating both the Old and New Testament into Latin, known as the Vulgate version. Since the original manuscripts were no longer available for translating purposes and for making copies, naturally errors would occur despite the best efforts of scholars and scribes.

“Textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts arise when a copyist makes deliberate or inadvertent alterations to the text that is being reproduced. Textual criticism of the New Testament has included the study of its textual variants.

Most of the variations are not significant, and some common alterations include the deletion, rearrangement, repetition, or replacement of one or more words when the copyist’s eye returns to a similar word in the wrong location of the original text. If their eye skips to an earlier word, they may create a repetition (error of dittography). If their eye skips to a later word, they may create an omission. They may resort to performing a rearranging of words to retain the overall meaning without compromising the context.

In other instances, the copyist may add text from memory from a similar or parallel text in another location. Otherwise, they may also replace some text of the original with an alternative reading. Synonyms may be substituted. A pronoun may be changed into a proper noun (such as “he said” becoming “Jesus said”). Most variants among the manuscripts are minor, such as alternative spelling, alternative word order, the presence or absence of an optional definite article (“the”), and so on. Occasionally, a major variant happens when a portion of a text was missing or for other reasons.” {1} Textual variants in the New Testament – Wikipedia

There are four major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, the Western Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism.” Dan Wallace, who is one of the most respected Textual Critics in the world today, defines textual criticism as “The study of the copies of a written document whose original (the autograph) is unknown or non-existent, for the primary purpose of determining the exact wording of the original.”

So, when copies of the copies of Scripture were made, there were bound to be variants in the text. When two copies disagree with each other, you have a variant in the text between two documents: this is called a “Textual Variant.” Over 75 % of all textual variants are not meaningful, with most of them being spelling differences, often a single letter. Sometimes, the order of a two-word name is reversed, which doesn’t change the meaning, even if it changes the text slightly.

Textual variants that are meaningful but not viable (no chance of being original) typically are found only in a single manuscript, or in a small group of manuscripts from one small part of the world. Most often, they are simple scribal errors. These account for about 24% of all textual variants. 1% of all textual variants are those that have a good chance of being original (viable) and change the meaning of the text (meaningful).

Author’s Note: The following is taken from the following website,  Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 – Berean Patriot. This article is rather lengthy but has good information regarding textual criticism and the different sources from which our New Testament was written.

“Among the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there are three major divisions based on their content. Each textual family (or “text type”) tends to contain similar readings to other manuscripts in its family, but the readings are different from the readings of other textual families. (Again, in that less than 1% where it matters.) There are three major textual families/text types.

Alexandrian Text Type or Critical Text

The Alexandrian text type will need little introduction because nearly all modern Bibles are based on the Alexandrian text type. If you pick up any popular Bible (except the KJV and NKJV), it’s almost certainly translated primarily from the Alexandrian text type. Almost all of the oldest manuscripts we have are of the Alexandrian text type, probably due to the climate in the location where they are typically found. (Alexandrian is in Egypt, and their dry climate is ideal for preservation.)

The Alexandrian text type is slightly shorter than the Byzantine text type. The main sources for the Alexandrian text type come from the older manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Wescott and Hort (as well as Nestle-Aland) gave them tremendous weight, although they had many flaws. Please see the link above (Berean Patriot). Again, Codex Vaticanus is regarded as the single best New Testament manuscript by the adherents of the Reasoned Eclecticism/Critical Text theory. There are only two reasons for this: (1) it’s nearly complete, (2) the “older is better” mantra.

Western Text Type

The Western text type is different from the other textual families mostly because of its “love of paraphrase.” One scholar said of the Western text type: “Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness.” Unsurprisingly, they aren’t given too much weight because of this freeness. Further, we have relatively few Western text-type manuscripts.

Byzantine Text Type or Majority Text

The Byzantine text family, also known as the Majority Text, is the most numerous of all text types since it became the standard text of the Greek-speaking church after the 4th century AD. It’s named after Byzantium (modern-day Istanbul), the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.

We have more manuscripts of the Byzantine text type by far than the other two families combined. Robinson-Pierpont said in their introduction to their Greek New Testament, “Of the over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basic Byzantine Text form.”  However, the majority of these manuscripts are later than Alexandrian manuscripts. The Byzantine text type does have some very early witnesses (in papyri from the 200s and 300s), but these often contain Byzantine readings mixed in with the other text types. The Byzantine text type is noticeably longer than the Alexandrian text type.

The Byzantine text agrees far more closely with the Textus Receptus than with the critical text, as the Majority Text disagrees with the critical text 6,577 times in contrast to the 1,800 times it disagrees with the Textus Receptus. (Note: the Byzantine Text type has several names, including the Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiochian Text, and Syrian Text.)

In 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman forces led by Mohammad II. The Byzantine Empire was no more. Constantinople was renamed Istanbul. Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1450, and the first major book produced during the years 1453-1456 was the 42-line Gutenberg Bible, which was the Vulgate, Jerome’s Latin translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

The Textus Receptus is similar to the Byzantine Text but is not considered part of this family. Although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly 2,000 readings from the standard form of that text type, as represented by the “Majority Text” of Hodges and Farstad. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind the King James Version and the New King James Version.

The History of The Textus Receptus

The primary Greek source for the King James Version was the 1598 version of Theodore Beza’s Greek New Testament. The main source for Beza’s New Testament was Robert Estienne’s 1550 Greek New Testament. (Estienne was also known as Stephanus.) Estienne’s New Testament is remarkably similar to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, but Estienne claimed he didn’t use Erasmus’ work as a source. The first document to be called “Textus Receptus was the 1633 printing of the Elzevir Greek New Testament, which was substantially identical to the 1565 version of Beza’s Greek New Testament.

Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus (and thus the King James Version) is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly 2,000 readings from the standard form of that text type, as represented by the “Majority Text” of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989).” {2} Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 – Berean Patriot

“Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek New Testament was published in 1516. The Reformation began the following year, 1517, when Martin Luther posted his ninety-five theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany. Erasmus’ second edition in 1519 became the basis of Martin Luther’s German translation. Erasmus’ work challenged the Vulgate’s supremacy and was also used by William Tyndale to translate the New Testament into English in 1525.

Robert Stephanus (1503-1559) and his step-father, Simon Colinaeus, were the next editors of the Received Text. They were French printers in Paris. Colinaeus issued an edition of the TR in 1534. The editions of Robert Estienne (called Stephanus or Stephens) were issued in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. His editions of the Received Text aroused the opposition of the Catholic Church so much that he had to flee Paris in 1550 and settle in Geneva, Switzerland. His last edition was from Geneva and was the first to be divided into chapters and verses.

Theodore Beza (1519–1605) of Geneva started with the third edition of Stephanus (1550) and published four major folio editions (1565, 1582, 1588, 1598) and five more minor Octavio editions (1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, and 1604). In his 1582 edition, Beza listed some additional materials he used. However, he rarely changed anything from the fourth edition of Stephanus.

The Authorized Version (KJV): The King James Version translators used more than one source for their translation. In 1603, the Received text was still developing, so the translators were open to the possibility that the text may still need to be edited. According to Frederick Scrivener (1813-1891), it is reasonable to determine that their primary source text was Beza 1598 because (among other reasons) the KJV is almost an exact match for it.

The Elzevir Editions were published after the publication of the King James Version. The Elzevirs were a Dutch family of printers. They published three editions in 1624, 1633, and 1641. There was a statement in the preface of the 1633 edition that declared this text was now the Greek text received by all. Hence, the name Received Text or, in Latin, Textus Receptus, is applied to the entire Greek text tradition starting in 1516 with Erasmus’ first edition up to the 1881 edition of Frederick Scrivener.

All of the foregoing can give background for a study of specific textual issues between the TR and the KJV. The first thing to realize is that a comparison of the 1550 Stephanus edition and the KJV is an erroneous comparison. The KJV was not primarily based on any of Stephanus’ editions. Any difference between them is irrelevant. The KJV was based primarily on Beza’s 1598 edition. This was corrected by Scrivener based on the work of the KJV translators. Therefore, any comparison should be made between the KJV and the Scrivener edition. The Scrivener edition is where the TR is NOW.

Frederick H. A. Scrivener: The Scrivener edition of the Received Text (1881) is usually ignored by liberal and liberal-leaning scholars. However, it is a valid edition of the TR and a further purification of the Greek text. It is entirely based on the Beza 1598 edition with the edits made by the King James translators. When it was published in 1881, it was said to be “According to the text followed in the Authorized Version.” Scrivener used a process to find and adjust the differences between Beza’s text and the KJV.” {3} understanding_the_development_of_the_textus_receptus.pdf (bpsglobal.org)

“There are definitely places in the Textus Receptus that are wrong (as with other text types), and we know this from manuscripts we’ve found that they didn’t have access to then, but overall, it’s a very good document. One could even make the case that the Textus Receptus is overall the best Greek New Testament out there. It certainly agrees with the Byzantine Majority Text quite well, and the differences are not typically very large (though certainly some are).  Personally, I would say the Textus Receptus is overall a very good document.  Not perfect by any stretch, and it definitely has mistakes, but very good overall.

God certainly preserved the scriptures through the ages. However, He never promised to preserve them perfectly , and to assert that He did is to put words in God’s mouth. That’s a bad idea. There’s no scriptural basis for the idea whatsoever, and so asserting it dogmatically is a very bad idea.

We know God preserved the scriptures because even in the New Testament, over 99% of the Textual Variants have no effect on anything. The remainder don’t impact major doctrines, and certainly nothing concerned with salvation or the Gospel. I believe God preserved it; I just don’t think the preservation was word-perfect. While the Confessional Position holds no water, the Textus Receptus itself is a very good document. Not perfect by any stretch, but very good.” {4} Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 – Berean Patriot

“It must not be supposed, however, that the text of the NT rests upon precarious grounds because of the multitude of copies through which it has passed or because of the great number of variants found in the MSS. There is, in fact, virtually no question concerning by far the greater part of the words of the NT. Indeed, the same is true of ancient lit. in general. It is only a relatively small portion of the words of the text that requires the attention of the textual critic.

Virtually all MSS of any given part of the NT say essentially the same thing. It has been stated that there is no question at all concerning seven-eighths of the words of the NT; if differences of no significance be disregarded, only about one-sixtieth of the words can be regarded as in doubt; and only about one word in a thousand involves both a substantial question of meaning and serious doubt of the correct text (Westcott and Hort, The NT in the Original Greek, “Introduction” and “Appendix 2). No Christian doctrine rests upon insecure textual evidence.” (5) Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament – Encyclopedia of The Bible – Bible Gateway.

Here are a couple of good websites for a comparison of major textual variants between the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, Critical Text, and extant MSS sources. List of Major Textual Variants In the Greek New Testament In English Translation – Christian Publishing House Blog. Textual variants in the New Testament – Wikipedia.

Some Bible versions that rely on the Critical Text include the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). The KJV is of the Textus Receptus family, as is the NKJV. The NKJV is of the same family, but it has footnotes with different variants or translations of certain words. Let’s look at some Scripture that has different variants amongst different versions of the New Testament.

In Acts 12:4, “So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Easter” (or Passover). The KJV is practically the only translation that uses the word “Easter” instead of “Passover.” Even the NKJV uses the word “Passover.” The Greek word for Passover is Pascha. This word is used 28 other times in the N.T. and always means Passover. By Jesus’ time, the actual day of Passover (Nisan 14) was called Preparation Day, and Nisan 15-21 were called the Passover. Obviously, the KJV mistranslates this one word in this instance.

In the famous verse of Revelation 13:18, about half the translations read, “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666” (NKJV). The other half read, “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six” (KJV). I believe the ones that contain the number 666 (χξς) instead of spelling the number six hundred sixty-six (ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ) can’t be correct, as the ligature for six (ϛ) is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, as it was obsolete by the time of the writings of the New Testament. ἕξ is used for the number 6 and not ϛ in all other instances where “six” is used in the New Testament.

In Revelation 22:14, the KJV and the NKJV which represent the Textus Receptus text (TR), say, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” The Majority Text (MT) also agrees with this translation. However, the versions that use the Critical Text (CT), such as ASV, NIV, ESV, and NASB, say “Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.”

Naturally, these variants (different words in the Greek MSS documents) cause the isopsephy to be different as well. The TR/MT text has an isopsephy of 13,638, whereas the CT text has an isopsephy of 14,163. This is where you have to be very careful about saying a verse (or verses) has a certain isopsephy value when there are variants involved amongst different text types.

In Revelation 22:19, the TR text says, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” The CT and MT text says, “and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which is written in this book.” Evidently, a scribe made an error in one of these translations when making a copy of a document that was available to him at the time. The English word tree is translated from the Greek word ξύλου (transliteration is xylou). The English word book is translated from the Greek word βίβλου (transliteration is biblou). 

The isopsephy of the TR text is 19,838, whereas the MT and CT text’s isopsephy is 22,543. Regarding the isopsephy of this verse, 22,543 is a prime number. 19,838 has 16 divisors, including 91 (or 7 x 13) x 218 (or 2 x 109) and 14 (or 2 x 7) x 1417 (or 13 x 109). It appears the TR version’s gematria is more significant but is non-conclusive regarding which translation is best.

So, which one is correct or closer to the original writings of John? Scholars and Christians have been asking that question (regarding this verse and many others) for tens of hundreds of years now. I usually like the KJV (TR text), but this time, I prefer the CT version. As I wrote about in Millennium or Eternity (rev310.net), I believe Chapter 22 is referring to the Millennium and not the Eternal Order. The punishment for taking away from the words of the Book of Revelation will be the taking away from eating out of ‘a’ tree of life, as described by Ezekiel 47:12, and entering the holy city.

The only reason a person would be blotted out of the Book of Life is for not accepting Jesus/God as LORD. The sin of revising the Book of Revelation is not an issue of salvation; however, there will be consequences (as sinning always does). This verse appears to be a second reference to verse 14 in which the tree of life and being able to enter through the gates into the city are mentioned (as confirmed by all the text types).

Let’s examine one more passage of scripture and its variants, Mark 13:32. Some Christians believe this is a Rapture passage (as is Matthew 24:36), while others believe it is a Second Coming passage. First, let’s look at the TR text (KJV), which reads in English, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” This verse has 23 Greek words. περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. The isopsephy is 7920.

Now the MT text (RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005) reads, “But of that day or hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” This verse also has 23 Greek words. Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας οὐδεὶς ο ἴδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ, οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. The MT text uses the word ‘or’ instead of ‘and’ (like the TR text does) and doesn’t include the word ‘that’ before the word hour. The variants are in bold. The isopsephy is 7389.

The CT text (Novum Testamentum Graece 28^th edition) reads, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (NASB version). This verse in the CT text has 22 Greek words, Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. The CT text uses the word ‘or’ instead of ‘and’ and does not use the word ‘which’ (are in heaven), as does the TR text. The isopsephy is 7817.

These are minor variants that don’t affect the meaning of the verse. This is the majority of cases regarding variants in the New Testament. Most of them are not meaningful (however, some are), but they do affect the isopsephy. The isopsephy value of the CT text is 7817. This is a prime number (#988). The value for the MT text is 7389. Its divisors are 1, 3, 9, 821, 2463, and 7389.

The isopsephy value for the TR text for Mark 13:32 is 7920. This number has 60 divisors, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 30, 33, 36, 40, 44, 45, 48, 55, 60, 66, 72, 80, 88, 90, 99, 110, 120, 132, 144, 165, 176, 180, 198, 220, 240, 264, 330, 360, 396, 440, 528, 660, 720, 792, 880, 990, 1320, 1584, 1980, 2640, 3960, 7920. Some of the more significant divisors are listed below. Jesus represents the number 33, as I have written about numerous times.

5 x 1584 (or 12 x 132). 132 = 4 x 33

18 x 440 (or 5 x 88).  88 = 8 x 11

20 x 396 (or 12 x 33).  33 = 3 x 11

24 x 330 (or 10 x 33)

30 x 264 (or 8 x 33)

33 x 240 (or 12 x 16)

It appears that the TR text has the most significant isopsephy out of the three texts for this particular verse. However, I don’t think this is absolute proof that the TR text is closest to the original autograph for this verse in the Book of Mark. The nearly identical verse to Mark 13:32 is Matthew 24:36. Interestingly, all three text types agree on the word “and” (καὶ) for “the day and hour.” However, the words “nor the Son” are only in the Critical text. It reads like Mark 13:32 (except for the ‘and’), “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (NASB 1995). The TR and MT read, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” The Son is not mentioned in these text types.

Ivan Panin claimed that his translation of the New Testament from the Greek critical text (CT), established by himself, approached the autographs nearer than any extant copy of the New Testament. He believed numerics (gematria or isopsephy of the critical text) could prove his translation was the superior translation of the New Testament. However, like Westcott and Hort, Panin dismissed out of hand the MT and TR texts because he thought the older MSS documents (mostly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) were the superior ones (closer to the original autographs) that should be used for translating Greek into English. I think this might have been a mistake. I believe that all types should be examined, and then one can determine which translation fits into the context of the preceding or succeeding verses or chapters. The NKJV is good for listing most of the variants (in the footnotes).

CONCLUSION

“The intricacies of textual variants in the New Testament are indeed a complex field of study. These variants, the result of a multitude of factors over centuries of text transmission, offer rich insights into the historical and cultural contexts of the New Testament era. While they present challenges, they do not detract from the essential truths of the Christian faith. The task of the diligent scholar and the faithful believer, aided by the Holy Spirit, is to navigate these intricacies in the quest to better understand and live out the teachings of the New Testament.” {6} The Intricacies of Textual Variants in the New Testament – Updated American Standard Version (uasvbible.org)

“Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). 

Randy Nettles

rgeanie55@gmail.com

 

 

William F. Buckley once wrote that he would “rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.”

His point was that ordinary people have common sense, and understand the struggles of life, and can be trusted more than those who have ‘book sense’ and live in ivory towers.

That was over 50 years ago, and our Ivy League universities are far more morally and intellectually bankrupt today than they were then.

Our latest example is Harvard President Claudine Gay, who found herself in an international controversy due to her inability to answer a simple question. When Representative Lauren Boebert inquired regarding whether it was against Harvard’s rules regarding bullying and harassment to call for the extermination of the Jews, she struggled to answer along with her equally morally bankrupt colleagues.

The obvious answer to this inquiry is, ‘Of course it is.’

After all, if anyone called for the extermination of the mythical group we call “Transgenders” or for members of the LGBT, they would have been expelled and had legal charges brought against them.

However, at Harvard, it is apparently open season for Jews.

Ms. Gay responded, “It can be (against Harvard’s rules) depending on the context.”

I wonder under what context it is acceptable to call for the extermination of the Jews. When Adolf Hitler did it, things did not work out so well for the Jewish people.

I guess we should not expect much intellectually from an alleged serial plagiarist.

Even after this outrageous admission, Harvard continued to stand behind her. This institution revealed itself to have absolutely no academic or moral standards whatsoever.

And these Ivy League incompetents are educating the vast majority of our Supreme Court justices.

When we review which colleges these people went to, it is easy to see where the problem lies.

John Roberts: Harvard Law School

Sonia Sotomayor (the wise Latina): Yale Law School

Elena Kagan: Harvard Law School

Ketanji Brown-Jackson: Harvard Law School (and still cannot define a woman)

Clarence Thomas: Yale Law School

Neil Gorsuch: Harvard Law School

Brett Kavanaugh: Yale Law School

Amy Coney Barrett: Notre Dame Law School

Samuel Alito: Yale Law School

Of all these justices, only two seem to take their judicial duties seriously: Thomas and Alito. That means we can expect a little less than a 25% success rate when we draft justices from these institutions.

And don’t get me started on Notre Dame.

According to Blackstone, the primary purpose of the judiciary is to protect people, their liberty, and their property. This is what serious jurists do.

The premiere guide to serious jurisprudence is offered in the Blackstone commentaries and his observations on the laws of England. Blackstone’s ideas were cited in support of the American Revolution and the United States Constitution, so they were instrumental in the founding of this country.

That means his writings should carry a lot of weight.

His purpose in writing his commentary was to take all the statutes and legal decisions and create a coherent legal system that was understandable to the layman.

If we look at how our Supreme Court has ruled over the last sixty years, they also seem to have created a coherent legal system that is understandable to those who are paying attention.

According to Blackstone’s legal theory, no human law has any moral validity or force against natural law. What this means is that no human law has validity if it contradicts God’s divine law.

That is bad news for Ketanji Brown-Jackson. She believes there are more than two sexes, that abortion is lawful, that there is such a thing as gay marriage, etc.

Even though our Supreme Court is not in line with God’s law, they seem to have a somewhat coherent legal system that is in line with another agenda.

Most of their rulings seem to be in line with the desires of the evil Globalists. Although we are thrown a bone or two to make themselves look reasonable, there is no question that the hopes and dreams of our overlords are taking precedence over the liberty of the common citizenry at (NS)SCOTUS.

There is no question that the evil Globalists are trying to take down America so that they can institute their Satanic one-world government. They have purchased a number of our politicians who, in turn, have selected jurists who are morally flexible.

It seems that our courts are slowly doing the bidding of their masters while continuing the façade that they are acting in the best interest of the American people and the law.

Nowhere is this more obvious than their rulings on the fictional group of people called “Transgenders.” No one in their right mind would think that just because a guy dresses like a girl, he should be able to hang out in the girl’s locker room.

That is completely insane and was recently illegal in all fifty states since the founding of the nation.

However, many of the not-so-serious jurists on our Supreme Court have refused to hear lower court cases where they upheld ‘Transgender rights’ in violation of the rights of sensible Americans.

Apparently, decent young women who object to guys violating their privacy in the restroom are discriminating against men who are basically exhibitionists and voyeurs. The ACLU, a group that could care less about civil liberties, zealously defends boys who want to be able to enter the bathroom consistent with their ‘identity.’

And ogle the ladies in the process.

I wonder why we never hear about girls who dress like guys hanging out in the men’s showers.

Refusing to allow guys to shower with girls now violates Title IX, which was passed in 1972 to prohibit sex discrimination in an educational setting. The fact that the people who passed this act never considered it being used in this way meant little to the court.

The original purpose of Title IX was to get more girls to go to college so they could become girl bosses and sacrifice family for a career.

Not only do those dastardly bigots who reject transgenderism theology violate Title IX, they are also in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thanks to SCOTUS, it is now common knowledge that the civil war was fought so that guys could hang out in the girl’s bathroom.

The reality is that this amendment had everything to do with protecting those whose labor was stolen under slavery. The stretch from protecting ex-slaves to protecting guys dressing like girls was so obscene that I cannot believe any lower court could write this decision with a straight face.

The ACLU, who, once again, cares nothing for civil liberties, is proud of their achievement for a ‘transgender’ middle school youth from Indiana. In this court case, we learned from the lawless and corrupt courts in Indiana that kids who have been manipulated by deviants to use puberty blockers should be able to use the bathroom that reflects their gender identity.

We were informed that this case was about the fundamental right of every student to a safe and inclusive learning environment.

Unfortunately, no one asked the young ladies if they had a right to a safe and inclusive learning environment. They do not even have the right to play their own sports without being brutalized by ‘transgenders,’ so they should not have the right to shower with people of the same sex.

Who do these young women think they are violating this guy’s Title IX and Constitutional rights?

And our illustrious Supreme Court failed to rise and put a stop to this insanity.

In November 2023, the State of Tennessee had the audacity to ban ‘gender-affirming’ health care for youths under 18. In other words, Tennessee does not want its children sexually mutilated by mindless freaks who want to make money off ‘gender dysphoria.’

I am certain that when the lower courts correct this discriminatory law, the Supreme Court will not bother to hear that either.

It is the hopes and dreams of the evil Globalists to cause havoc in American society to bring it down. These rulings are not coherent unless they are understood in the context of powerful people who want to degrade our culture.

So, the Supreme Court just offered up one big win for the evil Globalists.

Blackstone must be rolling over in his grave.

It is amazing to me that whenever the left needs a big victory at SCOTUS, one or two of the allegedly conservative justices switch teams to deliver a serious blow to society.

This was evident regarding their decisions in favor of the LGBT community.

In a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court declared that it was federal law to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The court found that discrimination against homosexuals is barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, this act was designed to protect against discrimination based on the sex that people were born with, not who they chose to sleep with.

This new definition of sex will now extend into education, health care, and every other facet of our lives. The degrading of our culture is now on steroids, and the people of this country have no one to blame but themselves.

After all, allegedly 72% of Americans support nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people. That means their rights will trump the rights of the rest of us every time there is a dispute in court.

Due to this ruling, the Days of Lot are now upon us.

Although SCOTUS has been upholding religious liberty when it conflicts with homosexuality, these rulings are only temporary. Their previous ‘nondiscrimination’ rulings have caused our culture to devolve into chaos. This kind of moral anarchy will soon cause all our religious liberties to become obsolete.

And our right to keep and bear arms, as well as every other right, will be lost as well.

Once our culture is sufficiently degraded, removing all our rights will be like taking candy from a baby.

Moving on, the evil Globalists also care deeply about climate change, even though the term is nonsensical and silly. After all, the climate changes in most places about four times a year.

Be that as it may, our illustrious Supreme Court is not about to let their masters down.

SCOTUS recently allowed lawsuits brought by any municipality against our oil companies to move forward. That means any knucklehead who thinks that oil is causing climate change can sue for loss of business interests.

The left has been desperate to gain the ability to sue oil companies in State court rather than Federal court. They have a much better chance of winning awards and putting the oil companies out of business in State court.

Imagine these lawsuits in California, New York, or Washington, D.C., where it seems impossible to find one decent person to serve on a twelve-man jury. The oil companies had better fall in line with what the left wants if they want to stay in business.

The oil companies would prefer to develop technologies and public policies so they can produce ‘affordable energy.’ The last thing they should be involved in is pleading lawsuits for billions of dollars. Dollars that will inevitably find their way into the clammy hands of climate activists who want to eliminate reliable energy production.

This, of course, plays right into the hands of the evil Globalists, and oil companies had better start taking their dictates seriously. The Globalists understand that if they can control our energy production through the threat of lawsuits, they can control the oil companies.

That puts them in charge of our energy production.

It is their desire to put a stranglehold on the supply of all things that make civilization possible in an effort to control us. And they are achieving great success, especially by eliminating farms that produce our food.

If they can turn off your heat or air conditioning, they can return us to a more primitive means of existence. There is a lot of power to be had for those who control the energy sector.

Sometimes, the Supreme Court makes a few decent decisions, but only just in time for new bad ideas to take over.

Recently, the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action policies, which ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities. The six allegedly conservative justices invalidated these programs.

They reversed a ‘precedent’ that such programs were constitutional, even though they clearly were not.

Of course, these programs were outdated and had already been replaced with the completely insane Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda. This is out-of-control affirmative action in which people who are clearly unqualified for a position can get it based on ethnicity or sex.

As usual, this precedent was overturned because it was no longer useful, and something more sinister had already replaced it.

Our airline industry has now applied DEI to our pilots who want to put women and minorities in the cockpit, even if they do not know what they are doing. This is done because there are too many white males who are aviators.

My guess is DEI will be upheld by the Supreme Court, or they will refuse to hear a lower court’s decision to uphold it.

The Supreme Court also finally ended Roe v. Wade, which could in no way ever be considered constitutional. However, it was time for it to go, not because it was unconstitutional but because it had already severely damaged the country.

And the abortion pill is now becoming the preferred means of infanticide.

And the left was more than happy to see it go because not only had the damage been done, but now they had something new to lie and scaremonger about.

The evil Globalists love it because it allowed them to kill a large number of children, which aided their population control efforts. The only reason that SCOTUS was able to overturn this demonic decision after 50 years of infanticide was because a new and improved way to kill the unborn is being developed.

And there are plenty of States run by Democrats who are eager to continue this genocide.

Finally, we get to the subject of immigration. It is fairly obvious that we have immigration laws, and it is the job of the courts to uphold these laws.

How is that going?

Well, the state of Texas is fighting against the evil Biden administration to stop the invasion of millions of people who have not been vetted. When SCOTUS got the opportunity to help Texas out and enforce immigration law, they failed by just one vote.

Two of the ‘conservative’ justices joined with the other three deluded morons.

There is no question that the evil Globalists are using immigration to bring down Western culture. Their lackeys teach this in our universities under the auspices of ending colonialism or racism but instead is designed to cause cultural chaos and make the world more amenable to totalitarianism.

It is estimated that over 6 million unvetted immigrants have crossed the southern border of the US in the last three years. This has inflicted a great deal of harm on millions of Americans across the country.

And most of them live in sanctuary cities, so it is hard to feel sorry for them since they voted for the corrupt politicians who ran on this misguided policy.

These voters may lose most of their rights, but at least they can still have their abortions.

Unfortunately, the illegal aliens can now move from the sanctuary cities to other states effortlessly.

My guess is that was the whole point of the Sanctuary City movement.

This has now resulted in a standoff between the state of Texas and the corrupt Biden administration. The state of Texas is putting up barriers to keep illegal aliens out until they go through the proper legal channels.

So, who did SCOTUS side with?

They sided with the corrupt Biden administration and the evil Globalists. SCOTUS voted 5-4 to let the feds remove the razor wire that Texas had put up to stop illegal immigration.

Do we really need any more evidence that the majority on the court serve the evil Globalists rather than the citizenry?

SCOTUS has abandoned its true duty to protect the common citizenry’s liberty and property.

By now, we should all be tired of hoping and praying that the current members of SCOTUS actually rule in our favor for once without introducing ‘poison pills’ in their decisions. That is not going to happen.

Even when they get rid of bad precedent, that is only because the evil Globalists and the Democrats have devised something worse to replace it.

Yes, we still have our guns, but I can assure you that right is precarious, especially when our society devolves into anarchy.

If we evaluate the time that we are in and have a proper understanding of Bible prophecy, we know how this is going to work out. Hard times are coming for those of us who wish to live a Godly life in Christ.

Our voting system has been so corrupted that it is becoming nearly impossible to remove Godless and corrupt politicians in favor of those who will represent us.

And our courts have no interest in attempting to restore sanity.

Everyone who wants to live a Godly life in Christ will be persecuted as a result of this kind of wickedness. All the same, Christ calls us to patiently endure until he comes for us.

One day soon, the Lord will look upon this evil and be sorely displeased that there is no justice. He will be appalled that there is no one to intercede for the righteous.

He will then don his garments of vengeance and wrap himself in zeal as in a cloak.

According to what they have done, he will repay wrath to his enemies and retribution to his foes. He will come like a pent-up flood that the breath of the Lord drives along.

When this occurs, we will no longer need to worry about corrupt judges ever again.

Can I get a Hallelujah?

www.gospelist.net