Battle of the Bibles - Present Truth

"Since the great advance in manuscript evidence has only amplified with greater
numerical preponderance that text-type deliberately chosen by Erasmus, Stephanus,
and Beza, they would chose no differently today in any major respects" ("The Majority
Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate" 1987, pp 139, 140).
Could we suggest to our readers that, when offered this red herring, they counter
by asking a simple question: "Which manuscripts?"
We have already acquainted ourselves with the so-called better manuscripts on
which most modern versions are based, They are held to be none other than the
survivors of Constantine's Origen-impregnated Bible, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
We could further embarrass our proponents of Rome's tainted Bibles by asking
why the KJV was allowed to reign for over two and a half centuries unchallenged by
Protestantism until, in 1870, these two survivors of Constantine's Bible were suddenly
exalted to a place of dictatorship in the work of revision? Says Dean Burgon:
"These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence ... [they] are,
demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the depraved class thus characterised"
("Revision Revised", pp 315, 317).
Yet another question is pertinent. Why does the tide of modern revision flow
relentlessly Romeward?
An appropriate answer is to be found in the Protestant New Brunswick review of
August, 1954, which has turned out to be quite prophetic. Speaking of that traitor to the
Church of England, Cardinal Newman who along with his co-traitor, Cardinal Wiseman,
engineered the fraud of revision, we read:
"He had left the leprosy of Popery cleaving to the very walls of Oxford, to infect
the youth of England through an unknown future" (p 322).
And then, speaking of Dr Schaff, the American reviser, and his apostate position
adopted in his "History of the Apostolic Church"
"The positions he has already advanced, are such as to lay the whole truth and
grace of God, and the whole liberty, hope, and salvation of the human race, at the feet of
the Roman Papacy" (ibid p 325).
It is this phenomenon that caused Wilkinson to observe:
"This so-called Bible revision has become one of the deadliest of weapons in the
hands of those who glorify the Dark Ages and who seek to bring Western nations back
to the theological thinking which prevailed before the Reformation" ("Our Authorised
Bible Vindicated", p 103).
No wonder Cardinal Wiseman exulted over the way Rome had used Protestants
to insinuate the Catholic Vulgate into their very own Bible!
Now that we have a clear insight into Rome's grand plan for the subversion of
Protestantism, there is no need to consent with awesome wonderment to the learned
scholars who tritely refer to the "original Greek text" in order to substantiate Bible
renderings which are in conflict with the Received Text. Rather, we should ask them to
identify their Greek text. Do not be surprised if they should reveal their ignorance of the
fact that there have been two streams of New Testament texts throughout the history of
post-apostolic Christendom - the uncorrupted Word of God and the philosophical
corruptions of man. Do not be surprised if they have never heard of Dr Burgon and his
devastating exposure of the fraud of revision. His "Revision Revised", is a monumental
work which modern textual critics prefer to ignore rather than expose their ignorance
20