The Superiority of the King James Bible - Pr. Danny Jack (In

SAVE OFFLINE

The Superiority of the King James Bible

By Pastor Danny Jack Pastor of GUIDING LIGHT BAPTIST CHURCH Shag Harbour, Nova Scotia

A thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Theology Historic Baptist Bible College And Seminary Copyright © October, 2003 1

Table of Contents Introduction............................................................………...4 Inspiration and Preservation...........................................................……….15 The Exercise of Faith.......................................................................……….29 There Is No Such Thing as Two Bibles....................................................................………..34 The Text is Superior.................................................................………..37 Two Approaches Taken to God’s Word......................................................................……….39 The Old Testament Text........................................................................……….42 The New Testament Text.............................................................................……51 The Translators Are Superior........................................................................….105 The Technique Is Superior.........................................................................…128 2

The Theology Is Superior.....................................................................……149 Conclusion........................................................................176 Appendix A............................................................................………187 Bibliography........................................................……….188

3

Introduction As I begin to write I am reminded of the fact that there are many great people who have spent their lives studying the subject of Bible versions1. We would do well to read the writings of these men that we are so indebted to in this area. Some of these men will be quoted and referred to in this study. Please keep in mind that just because I quote someone does not mean that I stand for all that person stands for, and that I agree with him in every area of doctrine. The basic outline that I have used comes from a book by D.A. Waite.2 The Bible version issue is a battle that has been going on for quite some time and shows no indication of going away, nor should it!3 As long as there are multiple versions in the English language the truth must be told. The Bible is the final authority of all that we say and do as Christians. If Satan can keep us from the Bible than we have no direction as believers. If he can keep us in the dark concerning the version issue than he has won the victory. If I am not using the proper Bible then Satan has me defeated as a Christian and I would then have no authority for my life. Is it any wonder that he has been doing all that he can to rid us of the Word of God and to corrupt any copies that we have! Hugo W.K. Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered (n.p., n.d.), 3. 2 D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Version (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1992). 3 Schönhaar, op. cit., 5. 4 1

This is not intended to be a scholarly study. It has been purposely written for the person in the pew, who has for far too long been told that we cannot know for certain whether or not we really do have God’s Word today. Any preacher who has such a view regarding God’s Word would be doing everyone a favor to get out of the pulpit and find a job doing something he does believe in4. This is written for people who have never taken the time to look into what has been done in the modern versions and who is behind them. It is written for people who have been asking, “Is there a difference in the various English versions or do they all say the same thing?” These people need to be made aware of what Satan has been doing to the Bible. For a personal reason, I am writing this because I hold a very jealous regard for God’s holy Word, and I cannot keep silent when it is being tampered with. Abraham Lincoln once said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” Hosea wrote, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...”5 Satan is destroying the Bibles of many Christians through their lack of knowledge of the English Bible. There are many versions out there that have “Holy Bible” written on the front of them. We have learned a long while ago that we should never judge a book by its cover. Are all of these versions the Word of God? Is one of them the Word of God? Is the Bible that you carry the Word of God? This document is the result of years of study in the life of the author to answer that very question. 4

Ibid, 6. Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. 5 5

What has really bothered this author is how many of these modern versions are being accepted and used by many Christians who do not know where or why these versions were brought into existence, and even less about the men who wrote them. It is widely believed by many Christians that modern translations are merely an updating of the English language. What few realize, however, is that these modern versions (1) are translated from highly questionable sources, (2) tamper with the text in such a way as to change key doctrines in some places, and (3) omit words, phrases, verses, and even entire sections of Scripture which, we are told, are not in the “older and better manuscripts.” (We will deal with this later.) The reason why Satan hates the Bible so much and has been seeking to destroy it is because the Bible is the Word of God. He would love nothing more than to get us to the point that we would no longer have the Word of God in the English language. There are many people who would be just as content to sit down and watch it happen, but this author is not one of them. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that the world needs God’s pure words today. John W. Burgon stated it well when he said: “The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, it is the direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some of it more, some of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.”

6

Well did the hymn writer tell us our source of authority was the Bible when she wrote: “Jesus loves me! this I know, For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to Him belong, They are weak, but He is strong.”6

Contained in what we often call a children’s hymn is a very profound concept. How do I know that Jesus loves me? THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO! How do I know that Christ died for my sins? THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO! What is the basis for believing any doctrine of Christianity, for claiming any promise of God (including salvation)? THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO! For the Christian, our source of authority in all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice is the Bible. Our hope is not built on fables, philosophy or feelings. Our faith is based upon the written record of God’s revelation to man. In fact, without the Word of God we can have no faith as “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). The Bible is not merely an accessory to Christianity. It is our source of truth, wisdom, doctrine, assurance and hope. It is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Romans 1:16). It is not man’s concept of God, but rather God’s revelation of Himself. Because of the very nature of the Bible as our source of authority, it is crucial that the Scriptures themselves have 6

Anna B. Warner, Jesus Loves Me! 7

absolute authenticity. If it is something less than the precise and exact Word of God, then it no longer carries the authority of God. It is not enough for a Bible to just contain the Word of God. A Bible must be the Word of God. “Mixing the Word of God with the words of men results in a work which leaves the believer in a quandary. How would you know which words are God’s and which ones are men? Doctrine would be suspect; hope would be unsettled; assurance would vanish; revelation would be uncertain and faith would be without ground.”7 Realizing the truth that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is the final authority of faith and practice, is it any wonder that Satan has attacked it and sought to corrupt it. Satan began his work of questioning and corrupting God’s Word in the Garden of Eden8 and he has been at it ever since. Not only does Satan question, add to, subtract from, deny, and twist God’s Word9, but he has many modern day Eves10 working for him to accomplish this as well. Notice how he undermines the Word of God in Genesis 3 as he is still using the same method today. He has not changed at all. Norman Ward, Perfected or Perverted? (Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible? Society, n.d.), 1. 8 Genesis 3:1 - Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 9 Schönhaar, op. cit., 3,4. 10 Ibid, 4. 8 7

What God said: What Eve or the Devil said: The truth affected: And the Lord God Yea, hath God said,...? Satan questions and casts commanded the man , Genesis Genesis 3:1 doubt on the Word of God. 2:16a Of every tree of the garden We may eat of the fruit of the Eve takes away from the thou mayest freely eat: Genesis trees of the garden: Genesis Word of God 2:16b 3:2b ...the tree of life also in the But of the fruit of the tree Eve twists the Word of God. midst of the garden...Genesis which is in the midst of the God did not say they could not 2:9 garden, God hath said, Ye shall eat from the tree of life. not eat of it, Gen. 3:3a ...thou shalt not eat of it: Ye shall not eat of it, neither Eve adds to the Word of God. Genesis 2:17c shall ye touch it, Genesis 3:3b A lot of religions today do the same thing. ...thou shalt surely die. Genesis lest ye die. Genesis 3:3b Here Eve softens the Word of 2:17c God. ...thou shalt surely die. ...Ye shall not surely die. Satan denies the Word of God Genesis 2:17c Genesis 3:4 and changes it. 11

Here we can see the deceit practiced by Satan as he handles the Word of God. Eve was a part of the first revision committee that Satan came up with to corrupt the Word of God. The ultimate result of her “revision” of the Word of God was that death came to the human race. Men have been “handling the Word of God deceitfully”12 ever 11

loc. cit. II Corinthians 4:2 - But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 9 12

since the devil first taught Eve how to do so. The history of the Bible text is a history of a conflict between God and Satan. In II Corinthians 2:17 the Holy Spirit warned against the “many who corrupt the Word of God.”13 You can be certain that this corruption is of the devil. Any man or movement that encourages doubt in God's Word is satanically motivated. II Corinthians 11:3 states, “ But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” We need to be willing to stand against what is erroneous and be ready always to give a reason for the hope that lieth in us with meekness and fear.14 C.H. Spurgeon stated it well when he said, “The craving to alter the Word of God is accursed. This is the crime of the present day. The Lord preserve us from it.”15 Martin Luther said: “No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God’s Word taken from them or falsified, so that they can no longer have it pure and clear. God grant that we and our descendants are not witnesses to such a calamity. Let us not lose the Bible, but with diligence, in fear and invocation of God, read it and preach it. What would he say if he knew the situation that II Corinthians 2:17 - For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 14 I Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 15 Donald T. Clarke, God’s Miracle Book: The King James Bible (Halifax, NS: People’s Gospel Hour, n.d.), 8. 10 13

we are in today almost five hundred years later? We are living in a day and age where Satan has put out a malicious attack on the Word of God and many of his men have been busy on his revision committees. He is doing all that he can to cause people to doubt and question the Word of God. We can thank Satan for the confusion he has brought upon this issue. He is the mastermind behind it all. David Otis Fuller put it this way: “Born again Christians are facing the most malicious and vicious attack upon God’s inspired Holy Word since the Garden of Eden. And this attack began in its modern form in the publication of the Revised Version of the Scriptures in 1881 in England.”16

D.A. Waite had this to say about the confusion that Satan has brought: “We are having a version battle all over the world and it is not going to go away. Some churches have been splitting over what version to use. There are many preachers who don’t know what to do. They are divided between one version and another. Their church can’t read a Scripture verse in unison. A lot of pastors are sweeping it under the rug, hoping it will go away. It won’t go away. The issue is before us. The King James Version is the Word of God in English and the other versions are not. That is the simple truth.17

Now what does your common sense tell you about who would be behind all this confusion. It certainly isn’t David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975), 9, 17 Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 51,52. 11 16

God!18 Satan is the master of deceitful doubting and he is the author of all this confusion. The devil wins if he can plant seeds of confusion and doubt into the hearts of people. Once you forsake a standard, you’re adrift on the sea of doubts. There is nothing to take its place. Satan has had a constant attack against two things: the Word of God and the Son of God. David Otis Fuller says: “The ‘god of this world’ directs his attack first on the character and person of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, and then on the integrity and accuracy of the written Word of God the Bible. From the beginning there has been no pause in the assault of God’s Son and God’s Word.”19

Just because Satan has been carrying out his attack on the Word of God does not mean that we are not to reverence the Word, which Satan seeks to destroy. Just because “Bible scholars” are putting question marks all over God’s Word does not give us a reason to belittle it. Rather, we are to magnify the Word of God even if everybody else is dragging it through the mud. Someday you and I will have to give an account to the Author of that Book for how we treated His Word and the place that it held in our hearts. It is important to note that God’s attitude towards His Word has not changed and God desires for our attitude to be the same towards His Word. Notice what Psalm 138:2 tells us: I Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 19 David Otis Fuller, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970), 4. 12 18

“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

What a profound statement! If God has “magnified” His Word even “above” His name, we ought to be doubly careful as to how we treat this precious Bible, the Word of God. What is our attitude towards the Word of God? When we handle God’s holy Word, are we fully persuaded that it is different from any other book ever written? We should be. It is a supernatural Book, a Book that our sovereign God has written through His servants of old. If we will but stop and think of how the prophets, apostles, and patriarchs of old treated the Holy Word of God with such reverence and adoration, it can be clearly seen that we need to adopt the same attitude. Thus we should have the utmost reverence and respect for it. The Bible is our infallible guide through a dark world. It is the anchor of our souls in a world of storm. It only makes good sense for the Christian to stand for that which God has magnified. Thank God that He has reserved to Himself many good Bible believers who have not bowed the knee to Baal. We find an interesting passage in relation to this in Amos 8:11-13, 11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst. 13

It is indeed true today, for so many there is a famine in the land. We have the “Bible” in many versions but yet Christians have never been so spiritually illiterate20. Almost without exception, people who use modern versions hardly ever read them. How many people do you know who own a modern version that is marked up and worn out from usage? Without this Book, our hope is without assurance, our doctrine without ground and our faith without foundation! We would be of all men most miserable. Without Scripture, we would fumble in spiritual darkness, unaided by the very bright beacon of the absolute and final authority of the Word of God. There would be no satisfaction for our spiritual hunger.

20

Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 5. 14

Inspiration and Preservation There are many views on the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. What I want to do here is very simply look at the truth of Scripture and not the teaching of men regarding this subject. Let us look at what the Word of God teaches in relation to inspiration and preservation. II Timothy 3:16,17states, 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice also what II Peter 1:19-21 says about inspiration: 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto Ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This verse does not teach the “mechanical dictation theory” that some people have tried to promote. The writers were not machines. God used the personality of each person while at the same time giving him the words of God. These verses do clearly teach us that God is the author of the Scriptures. The question then is, “Is God concerned about the words or just the concepts of 15

Scripture?” Let us see what God says about this. There are a number of references that teach regarding this, but we will look at just a few of them from the Gospel of John. John 3:34 - For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. John 6:63 - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 12:48 - He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 14:23 - Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 17:8 - For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

We have seen from the passages that are quoted above that God has placed a tremendous value on His Words. It is clear as we read through the Scriptures that God has inspired the very words and that He places great value on them. The Bible was inspired at a word level, not just a concept level. Therefore, the specific, individual words must be treated with a holy respect. It is evident from the Bible that God wants us to treat these individual words with a holy respect. Here are three strong warnings that He has placed in the Scriptures against tampering with His Words to show us the seriousness of 16

such a folly. Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Proverbs 30:5,6 - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18,19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 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.

We can see from these passages that God has inspired every word of the Bible and that for anyone to tamper with what He has said puts him in serious trouble with God. We need to be like the church in Thessalonica who accepted the Word of God as the Word of God.21 The question needs to be answered, “Did God preserve that which He has inspired? Do we have the pure Word of God today?” Jack Moorman, in commenting about this says, “We have a strange anomaly today; Christians claim to believe what the Bible says about its own inspiration but virtually ignore the 21

I Thessalonians 2:13 - For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 17

equally direct statements concerning preservation. To say that you believe in the full inspiration of Scripture while at the same time accepting textual theories inherent in the modern versions, is about as incongruous as taking Genesis one literally while holding to the theories of Darwin.”22

He goes on to say, “The questioning of the Bible’s preservation is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Satan in Genesis three did not begin his attack by questioning whether there was a God, or whether God created, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true. Nor did he begin with the question of whether God’s Word was inspired in the originals. Apostasy began when Satan asked Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” “Eve, are you certain that you presently have a full recollection of what God said?” When doubt was given a bridgehead at this point, the other defenses soon fell. The same principle applies today: has God preserved His Word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact, that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture.”23

Bible believing Christians believe that God directed the whole process of inspiring and preserving His Word. If we believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired of God, then we must believe that they were providentially preserved down through the ages to today. These two beliefs go hand in hand; you can’t have one without the other. Modern critics (or should I say critiques) tell us that Jack Moorman, Missing in Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story Being Told? (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1989), 66. 23 Ibid, 66. 18 22

we cannot, with any degree of certainty or reasonableness, claim to have the actual words of God today. That is what they say, but Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall not pass away.” To say that no one Book contains the preserved Word of God is to charge the God of heaven with falsehood24. Most Christians will readily agree that the original writings were inspired. Yet many of these same Christians readily accept the dictums of modern critics who say that “numerous errors” and “spurious additions” have crept into the text in the intervening centuries. What an incredible theory! They are saying, in effect, that God took the time and trouble to give to man His inspired, infallible Word and then either could not, or would not, protect and preserve that Word. How do the modern revisers justify their actions in the light of God’s clear promise for preservation? If we accept the fact that God inspired the Bible, then we must also accept the fact that He preserved the Bible. Inspiration without preservation is useless. Ralph Yarnell says, “It should be clear that in reference to the Word of God, either God has preserved His Word, or He has not preserved it. If He has not preserved His Word, then there seems to be no alternative than that He has abandoned it. The word preserved in its primary meaning is to keep from corrupting, keep from spoiling, or to keep pure.”25

Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered. Ralph Yarnell, A Fresh Look at the King James Bible (Marietta, OH: n.p., 1983), 13. 19 24 25

Many people who do not believe that we have God’s Word preserved in the English language today in one Book hide behind the styrofoam wall of the “inspiration of the originals.” What is the good of believing that the originals were inspired when nobody has them today? William Grady referred to is this way, “In fulfillment of their end-time propensity for a “form of godliness,” apostate fundamentalists engage in clever double-talk. While they don’t believe in a preserved Bible, they often deceitfully employ language that gives the impression they believe “the very Book they hold in their hands is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.” For the record, not a one of them believes it. How can they if inspiration is limited only to the autographs?”26

If we cannot know that the Bible we read from is the completely accurate and Divinely inspired English translation of the original God-inspired manuscripts (II Timothy 3:16), then no pastor or individual Christian may say that he knows what GOD HAS SAID WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY! Thus, the work of churches will degenerate into a conglomeration of conflicting human opinions on what man THINKS GOD HAS SAID! If you are not sure that you hold the preserved Word of God in your hand than you are no better off than modern day cultists. If you can’t believe every word in your Bible you can’t really believe one word! To cast doubt on one verse is to cast doubt on every verse! The “almost Bible” leaves too much of a gap. It makes the Grand Canyon look William P. Grady, Final Authority (Scherervile, IN: Grady Publications, 1993), 18. 20 26

like a wormhole. The gap between the “almost Bible” and God’s inspired Word is the lake of fire. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). ONLY GOD’S WORD BRINGS LIFE! Rejecting God’s Word will destroy a Christian or a church more quickly than anything else. Those who doubt that God has preserved His Holy Scriptures are invited to turn in their Bibles to II Timothy 3:15. Paul tells Timothy, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures...” Was Paul inferring that, from his childhood, Timothy had the actual autograph manuscripts of Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel? Of course not! Those autograph manuscripts had most likely turned to dust centuries before Timothy was born. Paul did, however, view the copies that Timothy did have access to as being the inspired Word of God, divinely preserved through countless copying. We can see what kind of a straw man that these people who believe God’s Word is only in the originals have to hide behind. They have successfully stripped the Christian’s authority away from him. When you ask them where we can find the Word of God they boldly proclaim “in the originals.” Thus you can see they are trying to get us to put our faith in something that has never existed. As you can see the Old Testament originals would have been turned to dust even before the New Testament. There never was a full copy of the Word of God in the “originals.” What does exist is a copy of the originals that had been faithfully copied and preserved. We have no reason to be 21

concerned that no original writings are preserved. If it had been the will of God that original writings be available in our age, God most surely would have preserved them.27 After criticizing Madelyn Murray O’Hare for expelling the Bible from America’s schoolrooms, they are exposed as ministers who cannot even profess to have Bibles in their studies.28 Time after time, Jesus Christ and the apostles referred the people to the Scriptures. The Scriptures that they referred them to were not the original autograph manuscripts. They were copies of that Scripture and Jesus viewed them as authoritative. Our Savior and His apostles accepted divine preservation as a fact. As Christians, we place ourselves under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. If He commands that we should not add to, take from or change His Word, then we are to be obedient to that command. If He promises that “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away,” then we should believe Him and trust in that promise. Notice what Acts 17:11 says of the Berean Christians, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” The Scriptures that they searched were not the original manuscripts but rather James F. Holmes, From the Mind of God To the Minds of Men (Texarkana: TX, Bogard Press, 1987), 37. 28 Grady, op. cit., 20. 22 27

copies of those Scriptures. Obviously, the Bereans had full confidence that those copies were the divinely preserved Word of God. Ralph Yarnell had this to say about Acts 17:11 and the Westcott-Hort scholars, “The Westcott-Hort scholars will not receive the Word with all readiness of mind, nor will they search the Scriptures daily to prove these things so. They would rather search the archives of Rome and Egypt than they would the Holy Scriptures. That is why they can never be sure how close their revisions are to the original Word of God, yet they continue to teach that no one can ever know this side of heaven. So their hypocritical search for the phantom goes on and on in more and more translations, hoping against hope that they will stumble upon the Word of God somewhere somehow. They are no different in this respect than the evolutionist who is forever looking for the missing link to verify their monkey theory, when there is no missing link. Neither is there missing Scripture, God has preserved it all.”29

Norman Ward had this to say about the modern critics: “These men have spent their lifetimes trying to ‘reconstruct’ and ‘recover’ a text that Jesus Christ promised could NEVER be lost! The last thing these men want is for you to believe that you actually do have the Word of God because they make their LIVING trying to convince Christians that God LIED to them about divine preservation. For these men, the pure, perfect, infallible and inerrant Word of God began and ended with the original autograph manuscripts. They have made the mistake of thinking that the Word of God was the 29

Yarnell, op. cit., 11. 23

paper and ink the words were written on rather than the words themselves. The preface of almost any modern version will accurately convey this attitude on the part of the scholars. Does the Word of God exist today? In the preface to the New International Version, ‘Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its aims.’”30

There are many other things that could be said on this subject but I believe what I have said is sufficient to prove the point. Sometimes, these critics will hide behind the empty argument that King James only people believe in double inspiration. Let us deal with this cheap argument before we move on. “Those of us who hold to the inspiration of the Authorized, King James Version, have often been accused of believing in double inspiration. That is a weak and foolish argument to say the least. What they mean is that they think we believe God inspired the translators of the KJV just as He did the writers of the 66 original manuscripts. We believe no such thing. If that were true, the translators of the King James Version would not have needed any manuscripts to translate from. They would have direct inspiration as the original writers did. Those critics evidently fail to see the difference between Original Inspiration and Continuing Inspiration. It simply means that God is preserving an inspired Word not an uninspired Word.”31 “Double inspiration” is rendered unnecessary Norman Ward, Famine in the Land (Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible? Society, n.d), 5. 31 Yarnell, op. cit., 32. 24 30

because of “infallible preservation.” Let us look at what the Bible has to say about the preserving of God’s Words. Psalm 12:6,7 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 119:89 - For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 59:21 - As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Notice in Isaiah 59:21 we find both the inspiration of Scripture and the preservation of Scripture. Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 28:19,20 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 25

Since part of the Great Commission is teaching them to observe all things, obviously God knew that we would have it all to teach them. Otherwise, He would not have commanded us to do something that we could not do. I Peter 1:23-25 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

These are just a few of the verses that God has put in the Bible that prove the preservation of His Word. Other verses are II Kings 10:10; Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 111:7,8; 117:2; 119:152,160; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Mark 13:31; Luke 6:17; 21:33; II Timothy 3:15,16; and Revelation 22:18,19. God has clearly promised that He will preserve His Word; man is saying that God has not preserved His Word for us today. Obviously, somebody is lying! Who would you say it is: man or God? Norman Ward has this to say in relation to the preservation of the Scriptures, “The operative factor in the doctrine of divine preservation is not inspiration, but rather providence. God has promised to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6,7) and He faithfully fulfills His promises (Romans 4:21). The clear teaching of Scripture is not that God only foresaw that the Bible would endure forever, but also that He would cause it to endure. By this we understand that God exercises providential care over His Word.”32 32

Ward, op. cit.,18. 26

Seeing that God has clearly promised to preserve His Word, how do the modern revisers justify their actions in the light of God’s clear promise of preservation? The answer is simple; they simply change God’s promise. Notice the deceit that Satan and his workers have been up to in the following illustration: Psalm 12:6,7 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7, NIV - And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay purified seven times. 7 O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

As Christians, we know that the Bible is inspired, pure, perfect, inerrant and infallible. It is the source and foundation of our faith, our absolute and final authority. As such, it must not merely contain the Words of God, but rather it must be the Word of God. The Word of God must be the rule by which we measure all faith and practice. In order to do this, we must study the “Word of Truth.” How can we study the “Word of Truth” (II Timothy 2:15) if we do not have the “Word of Truth” (an inspired, inerrantly preserved Bible)? If I do not believe in the providential preservation of the Scriptures than I have no Word of God now or in the future. Inspiration and preservation stand or fall together. It is impossible to believe in one and not the other. There was no need for God to inspire the Bible unless it was to be preserved and there was no need to preserve it unless it was inspired. The doctrine of 27

inspiration can fulfill its objectives only through the doctrine of preservation. The question is: am I willing, by faith, to believe what God has said?

28

The Exercise of Faith “If we begin (as the modern versions and scholars do) with the premise that God was either unable or unwilling to keep His promise to preserve His Word, then our final conclusion must be that we do not have His word today. On the other hand, if we approach this problem with faith (believing God), then our conclusion will be that we do have the Word of God today. The primary question for the believer then is, “Do you believe God? If you do, then believe His promise to preserve His Word. If you can’t believe His promise to preserve the Bible, then you have no business believing any promise contained in the Bible!”33 Edward Hills puts it this way: “But what if we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and deal with the text of the holy Bible in the same way in which we deal with the texts of other ancient books? If we do this, we are following the logic of unbelief, which leads to maximum uncertainty. When we handle the text of the holy Bible in this way, we are behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an important fact, not important enough to be considered when dealing with the text of the holy Bible. But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He of infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is it important to insist that the Gospel is completely true? And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine

33

Ibid., 10. 29

Son of God?”34

Unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text. “If we do not have the pure, perfect words of the living God, then every other facet of the Christian experience is without validity and value. Why adhere to doctrine when you doubt the veracity of the book that gave you that doctrine? Why trust in a promise if you don’t trust the book that gave you that promise? Why contend for a faith if you have no confidence in the book that gave you that faith? Why look to a book as your absolute and final authority if you do not believe that it is the absolute and final authority? If the Christian life is to have any validity whatsoever, then it must, rest on a Bible that is unquestionably the pure, perfect, infallible and inerrant Word of God.”35 The Bible believer is satisfied simply to know that God will do that which He has promised to do.36 The primary directive for the Christian is simply to believe God. This faith is to transcend our trust in any man or group of men, including educators, scholars, clergymen, and even ourselves. Psalm 118:8 tells us, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” Jeremiah 17:5,7 also teaches us Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: IA, The Christian Research Press, 1956), 224,225. 35 Ward, op. cit., 1,2. 36 Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 30 34

the error of trusting in men and the blessing of trusting in God. In Romans 14:23b it says, “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” From this verse it is clear that in the life of the Christian, everything we do must be in the exercise of FAITH or it is sin. The matter that I am referring to of course is the matter of how we receive or reject the Bible today. Do we by faith receive it as the inspired, and inerrantly preserved Word of God, or do we take the attitude that we cannot know if the above is true or not? If we take the Bible to be literal (and I do), then according to Romans 14:23 we are sinning if we take a doubtful or uncertain position concerning the Word of God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Edward F. Hills had this to say about the logic of faith: “The spiritual man is drawn to the holy Bible by the logic of faith as by a magnet. For how else can he take God at the starting point of all His thinking save through the diligent study of the sacred Scriptures. They are God’s revelation of HIMSELF, the eyeglasses through which we may view aright God’s revelation of Himself in history, the pure well of salvation to which the preachers of the Gospel must continually go to for fresh supplies of living water.”37

In other words, the best and surest proof of an inspired and inerrantly preserved Bible is the internal 37

Hills, op. cit., 239. 31

evidence right within the pages of the book itself. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, that is, what the Bible does for you when you continually feed on it. By the way, for a Christian to read anything else more than he reads the Bible is sin!!! This has always been the mark of a true believer in confining his faith to the truth within the Word of God, and not placing his faith in the teachings of men that change or contradict the Word of God (I Corinthians 2:13; I Thessalonians 2:13; I Timothy 6:20,21). Any scholarship that causes a Christian to doubt (if we have the inspired and inerrant Word of God today) is a scholarship (science) falsely so called. When the teachings of men contradict the truth of God, any person who is truly a Christian will know which one he needs to follow. The internal evidence of the Bible makes it quite clear that men were at work corrupting the text even before God had finished giving it (II Corinthians 2:17, 4:2, and 11:4). History confirms that the text suffered its greatest corruptions in its first few centuries. Our faith is not built then upon philosophy (Colossians 2:8), fables (II Peter 1:16), the traditions of men (Matthew 15:9), the “whispering” of some spirit to our heart (I John 4:1) or some good man (Romans 3:10). Our faith is built upon the rock of the true utterances of the living God. This is why the doctrine of divine preservation is so vital. 32

“God has called us to believe in Him, to believe on Him and to believe Him. If we deny the doctrine of divine preservation, then we deny the authority of the Bible. If we deny the authority of the Bible, then we deny the authority of God. “He that believeth not God hath made Him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son” (I John 5:10b).38 Romans 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

“When men change the truth of God, they invariably are worshiping themselves (the creature), for no matter how sincere they may be, they are setting themselves up as knowing better than God, and able to correct God. They are not exercising faith, but are setting up their education, experience, etc. against the inspired, preserved Word of God. That is without doubt (tampering with the Word of God) the ultimate end of humanism.”39

38 39

Ward, op. cit., 12. Yarnell, A Fresh Look at the King James Bible, 3. 33

There Is No Such Thing as Two Bibles If you have two books that both claim to be the Word of God and they contradict each other, you must draw one of two conclusions. Either one is the Word of God, or, neither of them is the Word of God; by no stretch of the imagination can you say that both of them are the Word of God. Saying they are both the Word of God makes God the author of confusion,40 and makes Him contradict Himself, and if either were true He wouldn’t be God. How supposed Bible believers can say that of the more than 100 versions from the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (of which no two agree) are the best, and the closest (at this point in time) we come to the Word of God, staggers my mind. “We find that the modern versions frequently contradict the Authorized (King James) Version, often contradict each other, and sometimes even contradict themselves. Most importantly, we note that these different versions seem to have a whole different attitude toward Jesus Christ. While the Authorized Version exalts our Saviour, the modern versions attack His deity, His virgin birth, His blood atonement, and His miracles.”41 David Cloud summarizes what we have said so far by saying this: “The only position in the issue of Bible versions which leaves one with a Bible preserved in its words and details is that which stands in I Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 41 Ward, op. cit., 1. 34 40

defense of a Received Text and the King James Bible. All other positions leave one, to varying degrees, with uncertainty and doubt. They leave you dependent upon scholars rather than the testimony of the Word of God itself.”42

It is interesting today that when one stands for the King James Version he is looked at by other people as being divisive. We are classified as troubling the people of God with our beliefs when really it is the modern critics who are the ones who are being divisive. Here is a very good quote that brings out the truth of this: “There can be no doubt that the King James Bible has been the historic Bible of the English speaking believers for almost four centuries. In fact, the King James Bible is a revision of that line of Received Text English Bibles stretching back to Tyndale in 1524. Today, though, this ancient position is looked at as new and divisive! King Ahab charged faithful Elijah with troubling Israel. In fact, it was Ahab, with his apostasies and improvisations, who was doing the troubling (I Kings 18:17,18). We are convinced that this is precisely the case today. It is the modern version proponents, with their roots in nineteenth century Rationalism, who are troubling churches with their innovations.”43

As we continue, we will see that in contrast with the modern English versions, the King James Version is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates superior theology; it embodies a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it David Cloud, For Love of the Bible (Oak Harbour, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1995), 48. 43 Ibid, 9. 35 42

has a superior history. Now let us see how the King James Version is superior in each of these areas.

36

The Text Is Superior We have looked at the fact that God has said that He not only inspired His Word but that He has preserved it for us today. Either we believe God or we call Him a liar. Those who favor and use the modern versions call God a liar in this area as we shall see in the pages to come. The question is, “If God cannot be trusted in what He has said about the inspiration and preservation of the Bible, how can I trust Him about anything, including what He has said about salvation?” To shake one’s faith in the Word of God is to shake one’s faith completely and leave him in grave danger. Alexander McClure had this to say, “Whoever attempts to shake the confidence of the common people in the common version, puts their faith in imminent shipwreck. He is slipping the chain-cable of the sheet-anchor, and casting their souls adrift among the breakers.”44

Before we get too far into the manuscript evidence behind all the versions, it is important for us to realize what constitutes “manuscript evidence.” Many people are under the false assumption that there exists, somewhere, a single authoritative Greek texts from which all translations and versions are made. However, what we have is a collection of what is called “manuscript evidence.” At present, this collection includes something in excess of 5,000 pieces of evidence. This evidence takes in different forms. It includes: 1. The Papyrus Fragments. They are fragments of Alexander McClure, Translators Revived (Mobile, AL: R E Publications, 1858), 25. 37 44

papyrus scrolls that contain portions of Scripture. They date from the second to the eighth centuries. 2. The Unical Manuscripts. These are usually codices (books) although some are in scroll form. They are written in capital Greek letters and range in date from the fourth to the tenth centuries. 3. The Cursive Manuscripts. These are manuscripts written in the flowing lower case Greek. They date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries. 4. The Early Translations. These are the translations from the Greek into other languages. They date from the second to about the fifth century. 5. The Lectionaries. These are aids to service worship quite similar to responsive readings used in some churches today. 6. The Church Fathers. The writings of early Christians (second to fifth centuries) comprise a very important body of evidence. Almost the whole of the New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone. This is a very impressive body of evidence. No other book in the world can lay claim to a body of evidence as varied, as ancient or as voluminous as can the Bible. It is equally impressive that ninety-five percent of this evidence supports the text of the King James Version.

38

Two Approaches Taken to God’s Word There are two approaches that can be taken to God’s Word, only one of them however is Biblical. First of all, there is the Bible believing approach. This means that I take God for what He has said. I believe that God has inspired and preserved His Word, just as He said He would, and that I have it today. I believe that God’s Word has never been lost because He has said that it will never pass away. As a result of this I handle the Bible with respect for it is the Word of God. Many of the modernists take what they call a neutral approach to the Word of God. They say that the Bible should be approached in the same manner as any other book and judged by the same criteria. The people who do so do not see the error and folly of their ways. “It is not possible to be neutral about the Bible. If you try to be neutral, if you ignore the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Bible and treat it like an ordinary human book, then you are ignoring the very factors that make the Bible what it is. If you follow such a neutral method of Bible study, you are still playing about on the surface and have failed to come to grips with the very essence of the Bible. In your textual criticism you have not yet dealt with the very real, divinely inspired and providentially preserved Bible but with a false, human Bible of your imagination. And since you are dealing with a false, purely human Bible, doubts as to the purity of its text must necessarily arise in your mind, doubts which you 39

can find no means of banishing.”45 “The problem with this approach is: GOD HAS NO NEUTRAL CORNER. He is not ‘neutral’ about sin (Ezekiel 18:4), sinners (John 3:16), His Son (John 15:9) or His Scriptures (Revelation 22:18,19). Jesus said, ‘He that is not with me is against me’ (Matthew 12:30). The only way that the Bible can be approached from a ‘neutral’ standpoint is by pretending that God does not exist (Psalm 14:1) and that the Bible cannot be what it claims to be. In choosing to ignore the promises and providence of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, the apostate scholar has chosen to ignore the most significant fact concerning the book. The antics of these poor fellows would be quite amusing were it not for the seriousness of the issue. Here we have an apostate scholar, running around like a cockroach caught in a Chinese fire drill, trying to “recover” a text that was never lost in the first place. He proposes to solve the “mystery of the unmissing text’ by ignoring the most important clue of all (see the above paragraph). The real mystery is why he is engaged in this study in the first place since he doesn’t believe the book to begin with. This “Keystone Comedy” is capped off by the fact that, since neither he nor anyone else has seen the original manuscripts since eighteen centuries before, the poor scholar has no way of knowing when he has “recovered” the text or if he has successfully recovered it. The sad part about the whole mess is that he is being paid by Christians to perform this ‘service’!! The results of this application of the ‘neutral’ Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999), 53. 40 45

approach to textual criticism are predictable. For the apostate scholar they include: 1. A paycheck (Philippians 3:19). 2. The praise of his fellow apostates (John 12:23). 3. A continuing source of employment (He is careful to point out that his latest work is not quite perfect. If it were, he would be out of a job!) 4. The elevation of himself to a position of authority above that of the Scriptures he ‘corrects’ (Ezekiel 28:2). 5. The addition to himself of every plague written in the book and the subtraction of his name from the book of life (Revelation 22:18,19). For the Christian who accepts the dictates of these men, the results are equally predictable. They include: 1. Doubt as to the authenticity of portions of Scripture. 2. Doubt as to the authenticity of every promise, precept, and doctrine contained in the book. 3. Doubt as to the authenticity of Scripture as a whole. 4. Doubt as to God.”46 With this in mind let us begin our study of the texts behind the Old and New Testament of the English Bible.

46

Ward, op. cit., 14,15. 41

The Old Testament Text As we look at the texts of the Old and the New Testament I think that you will realize that the King James Version is superior in the texts used for both testaments. Let us look first of all at the superiority of the Old Testament text in the King James Version. It is translated from what we call the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament Text. These other versions that are translated today, such as the New American Standard of 1960, the New International Version of 1973, or even the New King James Version of 1979 (which is no more the New King James than I’m the New King Cole), have big question marks as far as the foundation of their Old Testament Text. There are many things that are changed when compared to the text of the King James translators who used the Old Testament Masoretic Hebrew Text. The word “Masoretic” comes from masor, a Hebrew word meaning “traditional.” The Masoretes handed this text down from generation to generation, guarded it and kept it well.47 Let us take a look at the Old Testament of the King James Bible and why it has a superior text. First the Jews accumulated it, and secondly, Jesus authenticated it. It is important that we understand that the Jews were designated by God to be the guardians of the Old Testament. Notice what it says in Romans 3:1,2, 47

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 20. 42

“1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”

The word “oracles” in verse two is referring to the “words” and “utterances” of God. D.A. Waite has this to say about the Masoretic text, “The reason that we place so much confidence in the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text is because those Jews guarded and kept it for us. This is also the reason why the King James translators used this text as the basis for their Bible rather than the Latin Vulgate (which is not Hebrew at all) or the Septuagint Greek (which we will comment on later), or Symmachus, or Theolotion (all these are Greek), or an ancient tribal tradition, or any other source which is not Masoretic Hebrew Text. None of these other things should ever have a say in how the text should read, nor should any of them be used to contradict the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text that underlies the King James Bible.”48 I feel that it is important that we now look at how the Jews fulfilled this Bible promise by their strict rules in copying the Hebrew Old Testament. This is from General Biblical Introduction by H.S. Miller written in 1960, pages 184-185. He lists eight rules the Jews used in copying of the Synagogue Rolls of the Old Testament Scriptures. 49

48

Ibid, 24 The truth of Psalm 68:11 is brought out through the faithfulness of these Scribes. “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” 49

43

These rules are mentioned in the Talmud: 1. Parchment must be used from the skin of clean animals; must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals. 2. Each column must have no less than 48 nor more than 60 lines. The entire copy must be first lined... 3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared according to a certain recipe. 4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce each word aloud before writing it. 5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for “God” and he must wash his whole body before writing the name “Jehovah” lest the Holy Name be contaminated. 6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words, and sections, the use of a pen, the color of parchment, etc. 7. The revision of a roll must be made within 30 days after the work was finished; otherwise, it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet; if three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned. 8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter was omitted, or if one letter touched another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once. These were the rules the Jews used. Miller also 44

added these words which we should bear in mind: “Some of these rules may appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old Testament was to its custodians, the Jews (Romans 3:2), and they give us strong encouragement to believe that WE HAVE THE REAL OLD TESTAMENT, THE SAME ONE WHICH OUR LORD HAD AND WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD” (H.S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, 184,185, written in 1960).

Mickey Winter sums up the duty of these Jewish Scribes this way: “During the New Testament dispensation, Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes were responsible for copying the Scriptures. They were very particular in the way they did so, exercising the greatest possible care. They counted not only the words, but every letter, noting how many times each particular letter occurred, and destroying at once the sheet on which a mistake was made, in their anxiety to avoid even the smallest error in the Scriptures. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon sheets made from the skin of a 'clean' animal. The writers also had to pronounce each word aloud before writing it, and no word was to be written from memory. They had to wipe their pen before writing the name of God in any form and had to wash their whole body before writing 'Jehovah.' The new copy was then carefully examined against the original and if only one incorrect letter was found, the entire copy was rejected. In 1611, the Masoretic Text was translated into the King James Bible.”50

What about the Hebrew text used by the King James Bible translators? Let us look at some background on it. Mickey Winter, The Bible: The King James Version on Trial (Russell Springs, KY: Godby’s Printing, n.d.), 10. 45 50

The Daniel Bomberg edition, 1516-1517, was called the First Rabbinic Bible. Then in 1524-25, Bomberg published a second edition edited by Abraham Ben Chayyim (or Ben Hayyim) iben Adonijah. This is called the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew text. Daniel Bomberg’s edition, on which the King James Bible is based, was the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This was called the Second Great Rabbinic Bible. This became the standard Masoretic text for the next 400 years. This is the text that underlies the King James Bible. For four hundred years that was the Old Testament Hebrew text. Nobody translated the Old Testament except by using this text.51 Not only did the Jews accumulate the Old Testament Hebrew Text, but Jesus also authenticated it. Time and time again during His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus spoke unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text (Matthew 22:42; John 20:44), thus indicating His confidence that the Old Testament had been accurately transmitted. He also stated this conviction in the strongest manner possible when He said, “...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18). Not only do we need to see the superiority of the Old Testament Hebrew Text of the King James Versions but we also need to look at the inferior Old Testament Texts of the New Versions. It is interesting that many of these versions themselves admit that they are inferior and are not perfect. Let us look at just a few of these versions and what they 51

Waite, op. cit., 27. 46

have to say. Notice in the Preface to the New American Standard Version what they admit on page viii, “Hebrew Text: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolph Kittel’s BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

D.A. Waite had this to say about the Hebrew text that these translators used, “The Hebrew Text that they use is Kittel’s BIBLIA HEBRAICA. That would be the 1937 edition. This edition has about fifteen to twenty suggested changes in the Hebrew text placed in the footnotes of every page. If you multiply this by the 1,424 pages in the Kittel Bible, it comes out to between 20,000 and 30,000 changes in the Old Testament. They could be major changes, they could be minor changes. Does that sound like a ‘preserved’ Bible to you?”52

Now let us look at what is said by the editors in the Preface to the New International Version of 1978 on pages viii-ix, “For the Old Testament, the standard Hebrew Text, the Masoretic text, as published in the latest editions of the BIBLIA HEBRICA was used throughout. The DEAD SEA SCROLLS contain material bearing an earlier age to the Hebrew Text. They were consulted as were the SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH and the ANCIENT SCRIBAL TRADITIONS relating to textual changes. Sometimes a VARIANT HEBREW READING IN THE MARGIN of the Masoretic Hebrew text was followed instead of the text itself. In rare cases, WORDS IN THE CONSONANTAL TEXTS WERE DIVIDED DIFFERENTLY from the way they appear in the 52

Ibid, 21. 47

Masoretic text...The translators also consulted the more important EARLY VERSIONS - the SEPTUAGINT, SYMMACHUS and THEODOTION, the VULGATE, the SYRIAC PESHITTA, the TARGUMS and for the Psalms, the JUXTA HEBRAICA of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed...Some words were read with a DIFFERENT SET OF VOWELS. These instances are usually NOT indicated by footnotes.”

If listening to the testimony of the editors of the New International Version would not be enough to scare you away from this book that calls itself a “Bible” than I don’t know what it would take to do so. Listen to the words of D.A. Waite as he comments on the Preface to the NIV, “The New International Version editors have very honestly and very boldly altered the foundations of our Old Testament text in the above fifteen DIFFERENT WAYS, whenever it suited their fancy! You don’t know at what point they used one document to contradict the Masoretic Hebrew text, at what point they used another document. It is like not being sure whether they used cement or sand for a foundation. They may have used a little cement, but all of a sudden there is much sand. You don’t know whether it will hold up as a building or whether it will fall flat. The foundation is different. It has been altered.”53

Now we need to look at the most dangerous one of all, that of the New King James Version. Indeed, is not the most dangerous lie that which is closest to the truth? Is not the most deadly poison that which appears to be clothed in purity? In fact, the NKJV has been signed and sealed by its author, Satan himself! He left his mark either on the front cover or spine of every New King James Version (See 53

Ibid, 22. 48

Appendix A). Would you drink one glass of water each day that “only” had one tablespoon of arsenic in it? It would be 95% water and only 5% arsenic. Of course you wouldn’t...so why should you read a Bible every day that is even “a little bit” corrupt. Be consistent!!!! Even as we think about this we realize that our acceptance or rejection of anything ought not to lay with instinctive reactionary or successive motives, but with careful and prayerful study of the facts in the light the Scriptures itself. This will be dealt with in more detail under our study of theology. Some people would try to believe that the people who translated the New King James Version were more fundamental in what they believed and that they would not dare change what God has said in the Old Testament Text. However, as you look at the Preface in the New King James Version on page vi it says: “...that the text used was the 1967/77 STUTTGART EDITION of BIBLIA HEBRAICA.”

It is important to note that this is not Kittel’s Biblical Hebraic but a new edition. The date, however, is not 1937, but 1967/77. It has similar arrangements as Kittel’s edition. D.A. Waite had this to say regarding this Old Testament Text: “The Hebrew Text (though not the same as the Hebrew text that underlies the King James Bible) is printed on the top of each page. The same thing holds true for this Hebrew text as for Kittel’s, that is, there are about fifteen to twenty suggested changes in the Hebrew text placed in the footnotes of each page. This amounts to about 20,000 to 49

30,000 suggested changes throughout the Old Testament.”54

In addition to this, the Preface goes on to say (p.vi): “...with frequent comparisons being made with the BOMBERG EDITION of 1525, the SEPTUAGINT version of the Old Testament and the LATIN VULGATE, in addition referring to a variety of ANCIENT VERSIONS of the Hebrew Scripture and manuscript evidence from the DEAD SEA SCROLLS.”

As you can see there are at least six admitted foundations consulted and possible used for the New King James Version as a Hebrew Text foundation. So you have in all three of these Bibles that Christians are using today, a Hebrew text and Old Testament foundation that are different from that of the King James Bible. So, if you have a different foundation, how can the building, the words, be the same? They can’t be the same. They are not the same. They are different. Many people are teaching today that only the “scholars” can know what is God’s Word and what isn’t. However, you do not have to be a scholar to figure out which English Bible is of God and which ones are of the devil. As an old preacher once said, “You don’t have to be a Greek scholar to know whether or not a translation is good. Just take a look at what it does for Jesus. If it magnifies Him, it is a good translation. If it plays Him down, it is of the devil!”55 54 55

Ibid, 23. Cummons, The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, 52. 50

The New Testament Text “It is just here that many Christians are fatally inconsistent. They say they believe in Christ’s promise to preserve the true New Testament text, but in practice they ignore this promise and treat the text of the New Testament exactly like that of an ordinary book concerning which no such promise has been made. Thus they are guilty of a basic unfaithfulness. In their efforts to be pleasing to naturalistic critics they themselves have lapsed into unbelief. They have undermined their own faith and deprived themselves of all ground for confidence in the infallibility of the Bible. For if the New Testament is just an ordinary book, then the trustworthiness of its text is, at best, only a probability, never a certainty.”56 The underlying Greek text of the King James Version is called the Textus Receptus or the “Received Text.” It is also referred to as the “Byzantine Text” and as the “Majority Text” because 95% of all manuscript evidence supports this text. Let me emphasize that: ninetyfive percent of all manuscript evidence comes from the same line of ascension that the King James Version comes from. The Textus Receptus is based on Beza’s 5th Edition of 1598. It is a text that hasn’t changed nor had a revision for 404 years. We realize as a result of this that “the textual foundations of the King James Bible are the best foundations of any English Bible that exists today.”57 56

57

Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine, 20,21. Waite, op. cit., 20. 51

As we look at the superiority of the King James Bible it is also fitting that we look at some of the milestones in the development of the King James Version text. As we look at this, we realize that the providence of God played a very important role in the preservation of the true New Testament text. Indications can be found in the ancient New Testament versions of this God-guided movement of believers away from readings that were false and misleading and toward those, which were true and trustworthy. We will see this as we move through the remainder of this section. The earliest of Bibles in this line that we need to look at is the Old Latin Vulgate; this is not to be confused with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that the modern versions are based on. As the Word began to saturate every province of the Roman Empire in the first two centuries, the need arose for a New Testament in Latin. Because of such, the Greek Vulgate was translated into Latin. The Bible produced was the Old Latin Vulgate. This second century Bible agrees with the King James Version. Another one of the early Bibles that we want to look at as we follow the milestones in the development of the King James Version text is the Syrian Peshitto. Some of the modern critics have tried to give this Bible a much later date to take away its witness as an ancient version. But as you look at the evidence, it becomes clear that this Bible proceeded from the second century. Bishop Ellicott in 1870 wrote: 52

“It is no stretch of imagination to suppose that portions of the Peshitta might have been in the hands of St. John.”58

It was translated from the Greek Vulgate in 157 A.D. and was called the “Queen of Versions,” because of its beauty and simplicity. There are one hundred and seventy-seven manuscripts still in existence, most in the British Museum. The version was translated because Syria was so close to Judea, and the rapid growth of Christianity spread to its borders from Judea, producing a demand for the Scriptures in the Syrian language. There were also other works that were milestones in the development of this text. These include: the Papyrus readings of the Receptus (150-400 A.D.), the Unical readings of the Receptus (500-1500), the Latin Bibles of the Waldenses (1100-1300), the Latin Bibles of the Albigenses (1380-1550), the Latin Bibles of the Lollards (1300-1500), Martin Luther’s Bible (1530) and the Receptus of 1516, 1534, 1550 and 1565. It is important to note that the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was edited and published by Erasmus. Let us look very briefly at Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at the age of 70. This was no small feat living in the days when the plagues, coupled with primeval medicine practices, worked together to limit the average age of a man’s life to approximately 35-40 years. Moorman, Missing In Modern Versions - Is the Full Story Being Told?, 46. 53 58

Both of the parents of Erasmus died of the same plague when Erasmus was only a boy. He and his brother went to live with their uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery to get rid of them. Thus Erasmus’ destiny was sealed before he had any say in the matter. Erasmus became known for his wit, charm, and an above average intellect even at a young age. He was the intellectual giant of Europe. He was always on the search, in every nook and corner of the world, visiting libraries, collecting, comparing, writing, and publishing. He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all times. He was later chosen to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of libraries. His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still unfettered. Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of the Roman Catholic Church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood, and the over indulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch the money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so called “heretics.” He is even 54

credited with saving a man from the Inquisition. One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled “Against the Barbarians” which was directed against the overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church.59 Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day. For people who accuse him of being a Catholic it is evident that he was the worst Catholic the Roman Church has ever seen. He not only refused a cardinal’s hat because he would not compromise his convictions but he also chose to die among his protestant friends.60 In 1550, Robert Stephens also printed the Majority Text and these became the basis for the King James Version New Testament. Now let us look at some of the English versions that lead up to the King James Version. The first English version that we need to look at in this line is that of Tyndale (1525). William Tyndale was so skilled in seven languages - Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and French - that whichever he spoke, you would suppose it his native tongue. William Tyndale was a Protestant Reformer. He was also a student of Erasmus, the man who printed the first Greek New Testament. It was the Greek New Testament of Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book (Shelbyville, TN: Bible and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989), 149,150. 60 Gary E. La More, Erasmus of Rotterdam (Toronto, ON: Historic Baptist Press, 1999), 1. 55 59

Erasmus that Tyndale translated into English. He did not use Wycliffe’s version since it had been translated from the Vulgate of Jerome. He was an accomplished scholar and was resolved to read the New Testament from the original language, which was Erasmus’ pure Greek text. “Tyndale also compared the work of Erasmus with the Latin of the Vulgate; however the influence of the Vulgate does not appear except in some phrasing and general shifting of language here and there. The German work of Luther was also used as a basis for the Tyndale translation.”61 He was exiled from England because of Catholic opposition to his translating the Bible into English. He went into Germany where the first New Testament was printed in 1525 at Cologne. Later, at least fifteen thousand copies were secretly imported into England. In 1535, he issued a third edition of the English New Testament, and this became a forerunner of the King James Version. In 1536, he was betrayed by a friend and persuaded to return to England where he was arrested and later martyred. He was first strangled and then burned at the stake. His last words were, “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.” That prayer was answered not long after his death. A petition backed by 1,000 ministers was sent to King James asking, among other things, for a complete translation of the Bible into the English language. 61

McClure, Translators Revived, 22. 56

Other English versions that are part of the pure line of manuscripts are the Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539) and the Geneva Bible (1560). The Geneva Bible was the first English Bible divided into verses, and it led the way to the revision of the whole Bible. The Bishop’s Bible (1568) also belongs to this line. This Bible was used as the foundation for the translation that later became known as the Authorized, King James Version. It is hoped that the reader will familiarize himself with the progression of these Bibles, for the very foundation of our present day King James Version is laid during this period of time, and it is of the utmost importance that we understand the use of the manuscripts from which the King James Version is taken. The King James Bible is in harmony with the Textus Receptus and each of these ancient versions mentioned. The translation of the Authorized, King James Version was completed at a very flourishing time as we shall see. “The English language had passed through many and great changes, and had at last reached the very height of its purity and strength.62 Jack Moorman says this about the English language of the early seventeenth century, “Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would be again, but the Hebrew and Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial 62

Ibid., 61. 57

achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of great minds, supported by physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship.”63

He goes on to say, “We are now come, however, to a very striking situation which is little observed and rarely mentioned by those who discuss the merits of the King James Bible. The English language in 1611 was in the very best condition to receive into its bosom the Old and New Testaments. The past forty years had been years of extraordinary growth in English literature. Prose writers and poets Spenser, Sidney, Hooker, Marlow, Shakespeare, to name only the grandest had combined to spread abroad a sense of literary style to raise the standard of literary taste. Under the influence, conscious or unconscious, of masters such as these, the revisers wrought out the fine material left to them by Tyndale and his successors into the splendid monument of Elizabethan prose which the Authorized Version is admitted to be. Each word of the language was broad, simple, and generic. That is to say, words were capable of containing in themselves not only their central thoughts, but also all the different shades of meaning, which were attached to that central thought.”64

The King James Bible is in harmony with the Textus Receptus (Old Greek Vulgate and Majority Text), and each of these ancient versions mentioned. As we now move into the texts behind the modern versions we will see even more that the King James Bible and the modern versions are very different the one from the other. With differences this great it is obvious that they all 63

64

Moorman, Forever Settled, 244. Ibid, 245. 58

cannot be the Word of God. We must stand for one or the other. Compromise upon this matter is impossible. John Burgon put it this way, “Indeed there exists but two rival schools of textual criticism. And these are irreconcilably opposed. In the end, one of them will give way: and, unconditional surrender will be its only resource. When one has been admitted to the right, there can be no place be found for the other. It will have to be dismissed from attention as a thing utterly, hopelessly in the wrong.”65

As we turn our focus to the modern versions we will find that these “Bibles” not only have corruptions in the Greek text but also have apostasy and cultist teaching within their pages. Clearly these “Bibles” are nothing more than the work of Satan trying to get the Word of God out of the hands of the people of God to replace it with a book that they feel comfortable calling a Bible even though every doctrine in it has been watered down. The fact that the modern texts and versions are founded upon apostasy is evident in a number of ways. It can be seen in the men who developed the textual theories in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It can be seen in the theories themselves. It can be seen in the theology of the majority of the Greek editors who have promoted these theories. It can be seen in the theological nature of the critical Greek text. It can also be seen in the theology of a great many of the men involved in these new translations. Furthermore, the Greek texts that underlie the John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998), 18. 59 65

modern versions are the same texts preferred and used by the Catholics and other cultists including the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That’s right, if you are using a modern version, it has been translated from the exact same texts as the New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness Bible). When Rome and other cultist groups accept any Bible the warning lights should come on in the mind of any true believer. David Cloud has this to say about the acceptance of modern versions, “Who has accepted the modern versions? The Roman Catholic Church has put its stamp of approval on most of them, including the RSV, NEB, TEV, and the NIV. But the Roman Catholic Church still rejects the King James Version. The Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the Westcott-Hort text, and rejoice in its weakened position on Christ. They also publish their own Watchtower version based on the Westcott-Hort text. The modern critical text has ridden upon a wave of last-days apostasy. The Textus Receptus and the King James Version flow from a stream of revival, whereas the critical text and its translations flow from a stream of end-time apostasy.”66

David Otis Fuller also comments about how the new “Bibles” are Catholic Bibles. He states, “A result of this revision is that when our time-honored Bibles are revised, the changes are generally in favor of Rome. We are told that Bible revision is a step forward; that new manuscripts have been made available and advance has been made in archaeology, philology, geography, and the apparatus of criticism. How does it come then that we have been revised back into the arms of Rome? If my conclusion is true, the so-called Bible revision has become one of the deadliest 66

Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 45 60

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.”67

“The history of the Alexandrian tradition is the story of the Roman Catholic Church and its pages are littered with the names of dozens of men who worshipped at the altar of scholarship (so-called) and who sought to join the body of Christ to the Harlot of Rome.”68 Let us move on now to look at the history of the texts behind the modern versions and some of the teachings that have influenced them. This line of manuscripts is known as Alexandrian manuscripts for they came out of Alexandria, Egypt. Before we get into these texts we need to look at some of the teachings which formed the thinking of this corrupt line of texts. First of all, there was a man by the name of Arius. Very early in life he began to teach that Jesus was not coeternal with the Father, therefore He was a created being. Arius would have objected to the phrase: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” We see this thinking coming out in the teachings of Westcott and Hort and in the Bibles that come from their Greek text. Contrary to what some believe and teach, the stream is not always purer the nearer you get to its source. You have probably heard this lie through the “oldest is best” theory which states that the older a text is the purer it will 67 68

Fuller, Which Bible?, 266,267. Ward, Famine in the Land, 44. 61

be. This isn’t necessarily true, the easiest way to determine which ones are pure and which ones are not is to look at their point of origin. The text that is the basis for the King James Bible came out if Antioch, Syria while the texts behind every other Bible came out of Alexandria, Egypt. Stop and think about it, which city do you think, based on the teachings of the Word of God, that God would choose to use to preserve His Word. The obvious answer is Antioch. God loves the city of Antioch. Believers were called Christians first at Antioch (Acts 11:26). When God wanted the first worldwide missionary endeavor to happen He went to the church of Antioch to get the missionaries for it (Acts 13). These are just a couple of the references to what God thinks of Antioch. Any person who is even a casual reader of the Bible knows that God does not think much of Egypt. Egypt is a picture of the world. God told His people to come out of Egypt and not to have anything to do with it again. Egypt was a vile city. Read God’s Word and note what He says about Egypt. While we are on the theory that “oldest and best” we might as well deal with this styrofoam wall that the modern critics hide behind. We will see that oldest and best does not always go hand in hand. Those who get into the study of the history of texts realize that Satan did all he could to destroy God’s Word right from the very beginning. That should not surprise us as he started that task in Genesis 3 and was continuing to try to pervert the Word of God even while it was being written. Indeed, some manuscripts were 62

corrupted the most within one hundred years of the finishing of the writing of the New Testament. One such person who was involved in this was a man by the name of Marcion. Jack Moorman has this to say about Marcion and the time in which he lived, “This rising flood, as we shall see, had multiplied in abundance of copies of the Scriptures with bewildering changes in verses within one hundred years after the death of John (100 A.D.) . As Irenaeus said concerning Marcion, the Gnostic: 'Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves have shortened.'”69

Epiphanius in his treatise the Panarion describes no less than eighty heretical parties, each of which planned to further its own ends by the misuse of the Scriptures.70 David Otis Fuller goes on to say, “Those who were corrupting Bible manuscripts said they were correcting them, and corrupted copies were so prevalent that agreement between them was hopeless. The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed. The African fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Erasmus or Stephanus thirteen centuries later when molding the Textus Receptus. Many of the important variations in the modern versions can be traced back to the influence of Eusebius and Origen.”71 69

Moorman, op. cit., 129. Fuller, op. cit., 2. 71 Ibid, 2,3. 70

63

Furthermore, we realize that the fact that they still exist is a point against them, not a point to their advantage. If these manuscripts were not corrupted they would have been read to pieces long ago. The King James Bible that I am using while writing this is falling apart because of use. This is what happens to any book that is used. These manuscripts are still around and in the shape that they are in because they were found to be corrupted and therefore were not fit to be read or copied and they were set aside. We can still see this evidenced today. I have known a good many people that have worn out King James Bibles through use but I have not heard of too many that have a modern version that is worn out from use. Notice what John Burgon says about these old manuscripts, “The fact of their being the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused them to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the original papyrus. The fact is such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honor, because if they enjoyed general approval, they probably would have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use for which they were intended.”72

David Otis Fuller says this about these manuscripts that are referred to as “oldest and best”, “Thus the fact that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so old is a point against them, not something in their favor. It shows that the church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have been John William Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text (Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society, 1998), 284. 64 72

worn out and disappeared through much reading.”73

We should define the “oldest and best.” By using this phrase they are referring primarily to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Both of these manuscripts are old, but there is overwhelming proof that they are the poorest and most unreliable. God has been faithful in preserving His Word for us as He has said. There were copies that did not suffer corruption. David Otis Fuller goes on to say, “Many ancient copies of the Scriptures have perished, but the Divine revelation has been preserved. In countless instances the old and well-worn copies were deliberately destroyed when new copies were made from them. In this way the ancient text has been perpetuated in less ancient copies. Some very ancient copies have escaped decay and corruption for the simple reason that they were not regarded as accurate enough for copying purposes or for common use.”74

The new versions will also lie to you about the age of the evidence they utilize. They are fond of using the phrases “the oldest manuscripts” and “the most ancient manuscripts” in their footnotes. All too often, the manuscripts that they refer to are not the “oldest” or the “most ancient”. They are, instead, the oldest manuscripts which could be found to agree with the reviser’s corrupt reading. One of the prominent features of the modern bibles is the abundance of footnotes found in them. Their purpose is, supposedly, to advise the reader of the existence of alternate readings. The effect, however, is to cast doubt on 73 74

Fuller, op. cit., 94. Ibid, 6. 65

the Word of God. These footnotes are not for the scholar or for the textual critic who is already aware of any alternate readings. They are for the “benefit” of the average Christian. The average Christian, however, has no idea what “ancient manuscripts” are being referred to or how corrupt these manuscripts may be. When the average Christian encounters such a footnote, his response is to assume that there is some question about what God actually said in that passage. He may rightly reason that if learned scholars are not sure what does or does not belong in the Bible then he can hardly be expected to trust it as the Word of God. The footnotes in the new versions are neither accurate nor trustworthy. They are, at best, misleading and, at worst, blasphemous. They are pitiful attempts to cloak corruption with an aura of scholarship. Putting a footnote at the bottom of the page is doing the same thing that Satan’s question to Eve did in Genesis 3:1, “Yeah hath God said?” It casts doubt on the Word of God. This is their effect, if not their purpose. They use footnotes subtly to change the Word of God. Notice what Alexander McClure says regarding this, “Marginal notes have a way of becoming entrenched in the main body of Scripture, all one has to do is to become familiar with marginal readings so that in due time, as the text undergoes change, there is no surprise or shock.” 75

Much more could be said on the “oldest and best” theory that will not be said because of space. The author 75

McClure, Translators Revived, 20. 66

feels that enough has been said to show the folly of such thinking. The Christian may rest assured, as we shall see, that the King James Version is supported by the most manuscript evidence, the oldest manuscript evidence, the most varied manuscript evidence, and the most trustworthy manuscript evidence. Before we move on to the men and texts behind these modern versions, we must briefly deal with one more thing: a word about the “originals.” In discussing the texts of the Bible, the revisionists will often use the phrase “according to the original Greek.” This leads one to believe that they have access to the original autograph manuscripts. They do not. Nobody today has the original writings themselves. Let me repeat this: the original manuscripts of the Bible no longer exist. They were written on perishable material and it is unlikely that they lasted more than a few years, let alone nineteen centuries! Actually, to believe that only the original writings were inspired is to say that no one at any point in history has had an entire Bible that they can call the Word of God. Think about it: the Bible was written over a period of about 1,600 years, do you really think that by the time that John finished writing Revelation that the original copy of Genesis was still around. People who believe that only the originals are inspired must think that God had promised to preserve the paper and ink that it was written with, when what God had chosen to preserve was His word. It’s the words and the purity of the words that God is concerned about, not the paper and ink with which the words were originally written. You can believe what you like about the ORIGINAL manuscripts because they don’t exist, and 67

never will. They never have with the complete canon. This is the bottom line of the whole issue at hand. Most people who hide behind this straw man do so because they believe that we do not have the Word of God today. Any person who believes this and is in the pulpit ought to get out of preaching and find a job doing something he does believe in. We will now examine the second line of ascension, the line that supports the modern versions. This line of ascension begins in Alexandria, Egypt, the land of bondage. From there it moves on to Rome, the City of Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore, and the Roman Catholic Pope. This corrupt line of ascension amounts for only FIVE PERCENT of manuscript evidence. This line of text is written on vellum in classical Greek. Remember, the New Testament was written on papyrus in Koine Greek. It is important to note the difference between classical Greek and Koine Greek for three reasons: 1. Since the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, a manuscript copy in Koine Greek is apt to be a closer reading. 2. There are 500 words in Koine Greek which are used in the New Testament, which cannot be translated into classical Greek. 3. The majority of early Christians accepted the manuscripts in Koine Greek in preference to manuscripts in classical Greek. We need to look briefly at three men in the first two centuries who were responsible for establishing the 68

Alexandrian tradition of the wisdom of men rather than the revelation of God. Every one of them worshipped Greek philosophy and put scholarship on a pedestal, preferring worldly knowledge to spiritual understanding.76 These men had teachings that contributed to heresy and to the final issuing of manuscripts of a corrupt New Testament. The refusal of modern critics to consider the spiritual aspects of the Bible is simply a continuation of a tradition that was started eighteen centuries ago. The first of these men that we must look at is Justin Martyr who was born 100 A.D. He came from a pagan background. Early in life he studied Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato, and of the Stoics. His theory reflected his pagan background and was a mixture of truth and error. Even as a “Christian” teacher he wore the robes of a pagan philosopher. Justin Martyr’s teachings were carried on and put in writing by one of his pupils, Tatian. After the death of Justin Martyr in Rome, Tatian returned to Palestine and embraced the Gnostic heresy. He then wrote a Harmony of the Gospels, which he called the Diatessaron, meaning four in one. The Diatessaron was such a corruption of the Gospel that, some years later, a bishop of Syria threw our 76

I Corinthians 1:19,20 - “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” See also I Corinthians 1:25,27 and I Corinthians 2:5 which cautions us against elevating human wisdom. 69

some two hundred copies of it because some church members were mistaking it for the true Gospel. The third person that we need to look at is Clement of Alexandria. Clement was a student of Tatian’s, and he became head of a school of Alexandria where he continued to teach false doctrine. To this school, he brought the paganism of Martyr and the Gnosticism of Tatian and mixed them with a liberal dose of his own love for Greek philosophy. Like his predecessors, he sought to mix Christianity with Greek and Oriental philosophies. Clement said he would not hand down Christian teachings unless he could hand them down with pagan philosophy. He collected all the writings of the heretical teachers, which he held in high regard, quoting from them as if they were the Word of God. All modern versions trace their ancestry back to the Alexandrian text from Alexandria, Egypt. Norman Ward had this to say about the land of Egypt and the Word of God, “Unlike the Majority tradition which is associated with the Godhonored, Bible believing church of Antioch, Syria, the Alexandrian tradition is associated with the North African city of Alexandria, Egypt. This fact, in and of itself should cause the Bible-believing Christian to approach this tradition with a certain amount of caution. The outstanding characteristic of Egypt throughout its history is its opposition to God. In the Bible, Egypt is a land of bondage and a place of false refuge. In Bible typology, Egypt is symbolic of the carnal world. It is a place to leave. God called the nation out of Egypt, He brought Joseph’s bones out of Egypt and He called His

70

precious Son out of Egypt.”77

Probably the greatest contribution Clement made to the depravity of Christianity was his most famous student, Origen. Origen lived about 185- 251 A.D. Origen was a brilliant man who succeeded Clement as head of the Alexandrian school which specialized in Greek studies when he was only eighteen years of age. He was the key architect of the ALEXANDRIAN approach and source of this family. His teachings were like that of Clement’s, the idea of mixing Christianity and Greek philosophy. Origen was a Gnostic. He did not believe in hell. He tampered with the deity of Christ. In short, Origen would have made an excellent Jehovah’s Witness. Thus, we should not be surprised that Origen’s ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY is the basis, not only for the New American Standard and New International Versions, but also the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY is a corrupt line of manuscripts originating with a man who held corrupt beliefs. Yet 99% of all modern Bible translations owe their existence to this family of manuscripts to some degree. He believed and taught that Christ was a created being, held to the pre-existence of the soul and is the father of the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures. He said, “The Scriptures are of little value to those who understand them as they are written.” He also taught that stars and planets had souls, and that the devil could be saved. Norman Ward had this to say about his beliefs, 77

Ward, Famine in the Land, 44. 71

“Origen was a Gnostic and an Ebonite (one who accepts the moral teachings of Christ but denies the doctrine of salvation) who rejected the will of God as it was revealed to the Apostle Paul. He could not tell you when, where, how or why he was saved. There is no record of his ever winning one soul to the Lord. He believed in baptismal regeneration, reincarnation, infant baptism and universal salvation (that is, that all men would be saved rather than all men could be saved). He did not believe in a physical resurrection, the second coming of Jesus or the high priesthood of Christ.”78

What was the attitude of Origen towards the Word of God? Norman Ward goes on to say this, “What was his attitude toward the text? By his own admission, he amended the text wherever and whenever he felt like it! Whatever he didn’t understand or disagreed with was eliminated. To make up for the loss, Origen inserted the books of the Apocrypha as part of the text.”79

Origen influenced many with his teachings. It is on the work of this man that the whole line of corrupt manuscript lies. Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate (not to be confused with the Old Latin Vulgate) was a follower. Eusebius, another follower, claims to have collected over eight hundred of Origen’s letters. He also used Origen’s six column Bible, the Hexapla, in his Biblical labors. The Hexapla had six columns, each with a different version of the Bible. It should be noted that the Septuagint is the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla. There is no evidence 78 79

Ibid, 45. Ibid. 72

whatsoever for a B.C. Septuagint80. Origen was the author of the Septuagint. Origen did not produce the Septuagint until about 220 A.D81. The first century Christians did not have a Septuagint to put their faith in. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were dug up in the latter half of the twentieth century, there was not one Bible manuscript that was written in Greek. The idea that Ptolemy Philadelphus II (reigned 285250 B.C.) would commission seventy-two Jewish scholars to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek is a fairy tale! What is more far fetched is that this would be done in Egypt with the idea that this would somehow help them study their Bibles! What is unbelievable is that these seventy-two scholars would be so adept in Greek and Hebrew that the entire translation took only a few days. Not even mighty King James could muster up men with such linguistic expertise!82 As we close our look at the life and teachings of Origen, let us sum up what has been said about him by looking at a quote by Jack Moorman, “When we speak the name of Origen, we speak of the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries. It was he who mightily influenced Jerome, the editor of the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate. Eusebius worshiped at the altar of Origen’s teachings. He claims to have collected eight hundred of Origen’s letters, to have used 80

81 82

Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 14. Ibid. Ibid, 15.

73

Origen’s six column Bible, the Hexapla, in his Biblical labors. Assisted by Panphilus, he restored and preserved Origen’s library. Origen’s corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have been so much of this so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen.”83

In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine of Rome converted to Christianity. The sincerity of his conversion and his motivation for converting has come under serious question. At any rate, he asked Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, to make him fifty copies of the Bible. Eusebius was Constantine’s chief religious adviser. Unfortunately, Eusebius was the wrong man to ask. He was an Arian (one who denies the deity of Christ) and he did not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Worst of all, he was an admirer of Origen and embraced the Gnostic ideas. As a result, the fifty copies of the Bible that he made up for Constantine were based on the corrupt works of Origen.84 Here we see a Bible being prepared by those who taught that Jesus was a created being for someone who was interested in unity rather than the purity of God’s Word. During the fifth century, Latin was the most common language of the Western world, and it was felt that a new translation of the Bible in Latin was needed. Damascus, Bishop of Rome, appointed Jerome to do it. Jerome was 83

84

Moorman, Forever Settled, 130. Ward, op. cit.,46. 74

an admirer of Origen and Eusebius, and studied their works at the library founded in Caesarea by Eusebius. His Bible was based on the work of Eusebius and Origen. Origenism flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome, the Father of Latin Christianity. “I love...the name of Origen,” says the most distinguished theologian of the Roman Catholic Church since 1850. “I will not listen to the notion that such a soul was lost.”85 For the next thousand years it was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible Jerome produced was officially declared the Bible of the Church of Rome at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Council of Trent met from 1545 until 1563. The Pope for the purpose of defeating all Protestant gains called it. They wanted to undermine the Protestant Bible, and to destroy Protestant doctrine. Some of the major points made in the fourth session affirmed in 1546 were: 1. Sacred tradition is on par with the Holy Scripture. 2. The Apocrypha was declared canonical. 3. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was pronounced “authentic.” 4. Justification by faith was condemned. The Rheims-Douay Bible was then translated with the idea that it would undermine the Protestant Bible. It was the first Catholic English Bible. The New Testament was published in 1582, and the Old Testament in 1610. “This counterfeit Bible was an English translation of the Alexandrian tradition based largely on Jerome’s Latin 85

Moorman, op. cit., 131. 75

Vulgate and it reflected the heretical ideas of Rome.”86 The footnotes in this version strongly attacked the Protestant “heresies” and defended all Roman Catholic doctrines. The translation failed in its objective to undermine the Protestant Bible. The Tyndale Bible and the King James were too popular. Since the Rheims-Douay failed in its purpose, those who sought to discredit the Textus Receptus undertook another goal. They vowed to become masters of the New Testament Greek and infiltrate all leading colleges and universities where they would mold their thinking into their Greek students. This shows you some of the men and the Bibles that are behind the Greek New Testament of 1881, which is what all the modern versions, are based on. Men who reject the Textus Receptus do these translations and who apparently think their authority is higher than God’s. In 1881, a two-volume edition of the New Testament in the original Greek was written. The authors were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Their edition was very popular with Catholics and Protestants alike. However, it was severely criticized by many conservative Christians, especially those who were defendants of the Textus Receptus. “Alarmingly, the average believer who uses an English translation other than the Authorized (King James) Version is completely unacquainted with the men who initiated it.”87 My goal is for you to not only become 86 87

Ward, op. cit., 47. Grady, Final Authority, 213. 76

familiar with the men behind the King James Bible, but with the men behind the modern versions as well. Let us look now at Westcott, Hort, and the influence that they had. Their translation of the Greek New Testament was based essentially on two Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered by the German scholar Tischendorf in a wastebasket at the St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. The Vaticanus was found in the Pope’s library in the Vatican in 1841. Westcott and Hort as well as other liberal scholars claim that the two manuscripts are two of the fifty that Constantine ordered Eusebius to make. If this is true, then the Westcott-Hort translation is based upon a manuscript that adopted both Arianism and ecumenism. Before we look at these two manuscripts in detail, let’s look at Westcott and Hort to see who they really are and what they believed. Some of the followers of Westcott and Hort have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and many people, even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion, accept the labors of these scholars without question. Jack Moorman puts it this way, “It is strange because the naturalistic critics themselves have shown each of the principles that Westcott and Hort taught to be defective, yet in a greater or lesser way they still embrace them. Under no circumstance will they return to the Received Text! We see the same thing regarding the theory of evolution. Science has disproved it at every point but would not dare return to Biblical Creationism. What 77

spirit does the reader see at work here?”88

It is interesting in all the reading available about these men you will not find anywhere where either one of them talks about a conversion experience. The reason why one cannot find a single conversion account of Westcott or Hort is because they did not believe in such “nonsense.” Writing to his wife, Westcott stated, “I do think we have no spiritual right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of spiritual life, conditionally from baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth.”89

In a letter to John Ellerton, Dr. Hort added: “We maintain baptismal regeneration as the most important of all doctrines...almost all Anglican statements are a mixture of the proportions of the true and the Romish view; second, the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.”90

And finally to his eldest son on his confirmation, Dr. Hort wrote: “While you were an infant you were claimed for God by being made in baptism an unconscious member of His church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles’ time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, 88

Moorman, op. cit., 263. Grady, op. cit., 229. 90 Ibid. 89

78

united to Him by strange visible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven... This is the privilege of the Christian, to know assuredly and clearly the facts which relate to all men.”91

Dr. D.A. Waite after studying 1,291 pages of the writings of these two men had this to say about them: Westcott and Hort held a very vague and erroneous position on inspiration, revelation and inerrancy. Westcott embraced the heresy of the universal ‘Fatherhood of God.’ Westcott denied that God had to be ‘propitiated.’ Westcott taught that men could be ‘Divine’ in some way. Westcott espoused ‘evolutions’ in various ways. Westcott has a heretical view of man’s sinfulness and depravity, believing in man’s perfectibility in various ways. Westcott and Hort failed to affirm the personality of the Devil, calling him a ‘power.’ Westcott and Hort denied that Heaven is a place, speaking of it as a ‘state.’ Westcott believed that the redemptive efficacy of Christ’s work was to be found ‘in His whole life’ rather than in His death. Westcott questioned the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. Westcott and Hort denied the deity of Christ. Westcott explained away some of the miracles of Christ. Westcott and Hort denied or gave a false meaning to the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ. Westcott and Hort had a false and heretical view of the vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.92

“Both rejected the atonement of the substitution of Christ for the sinner, or vicarious atonement; both denied the death of Christ counted for anything as an atoning 91 92

Ibid. Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 26,27. 79

factor. They emphasized the atonement through the Incarnation. This is Catholic doctrine. It helps them defend the Mass.”93 Hort was very fond of Darwin and his teaching on Evolution. In fact, Hort said, “The book that has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with... My feeling is that it is unanswerable, If so, it sums up a new period.”94 Westcott feels95 the same way regarding creation and evolution. He write to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did.” Let us sum up this section on the theology of Westcott and Hort by a quote from D.A. Waite, “Though it is impossible to examine the motives in a definitive manner, one thing is certain: if a man is a heretic in his views on theology, he is not particularly interested in handing a Bible-believing theological fundamentalist a Bible that backs up that fundamentalist theology. In fact, he is not even interested in promulgating a text which is closest the original autographs. He really doesn’t care about the exact wording, spelling, and phrasing of the Bible, because he denies that the Bible was verbally inspired and inerrant and infallible in the original writings. A man’s theology determines how he deals Fuller, Which Bible?, 1970), 281. Ibid, 278. 95 Ibid, 280. 80 93

94

with God’s Word.”96

If their theology is wrong, then does it not stand to reason that they're produced work will contain error. Not only were Westcott and Hort apostate in these areas of theology, but they also had a strong leaning towards the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott writes this from France to his fiancée in 1847: “After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill... Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with onekneeling place; and behind a screen a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)... Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.”97

Hort writes to Westcott on October 17, 1865: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and in their results.”98 Not only was their theology apostate, Westcott and Hort’s textual theory was apostate as well. In 1881, these two theological heretics (posing as Conservatives) from the Anglican Church published their Greek text that rejected the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places. This included 9,970 Greek words that were added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus. This involves on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New Testament, D.A. Waite, Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1998), 25. 97 Moorman, op. cit., 265. 98 Ibid. 81 96

or a total of 45.9 pages in all. As has been said earlier, Westcott and Hort were not Bible believers. As a matter of fact, they detested the King James Version and the Greek text upon which it was based. Their expressed purpose was to “RID THE CHURCH OF THAT VILE TEXT.” Westcott and Hort had no desire to simply revise the King James Version as the Southern Convocation had authorized, nor would they be satisfied with a fresh translation from the existing Greek text. What they insisted upon was a brand new translation based on a brand new Greek text. Where was this Greek text to come from? Why, it just so happened that Westcott and Hort had composed a Greek text that they felt was perfectly suitable for the job! This man-inspired text was the basic text used by the Revision Committee (after the committee was sworn to secrecy by Westcott and Hort), and it was published within days of the Revised Version. The new Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and especially their theories, have had unwholesome and devastating effects on New Testament textual criticism. EVERY BIBLE PUBLISHED TODAY, EXCEPT FOR THE KING JAMES VERSION, IS BASED ON THE WORK OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. The poison of Westcott and Hort has tainted every Bible but the King James Version. Let us see how this is the case. Some versions, such as the Revised Version and the 82

American Standard Version, are based directly on the Westcott and Hort text. Other versions are based on texts which are either revisions of the Westcott and Hort text, or ones which utilize the theories of Westcott and Hort, for example, Nestle’s text (the basic text for the New American Standard Version) and the Bible’s Society’s text (the basic text for the New International Version). What is pertinent to our study is the textual stream from which Westcott and Hort fished their manuscript evidence. All scholars and critics agree that the work of Westcott and Hort rests upon the Alexandrian tradition and that it stands in opposition to the Majority tradition. In other words, the Westcott and Hort text utilizes the same manuscript base as was used by Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and the Jesuits. To say it plainly, the Westcott and Hort text is a Roman Catholic text. Since every Bible published today (except the King James Version) rests on the text and the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, we cannot but conclude that THE MODERN VERSIONS ARE CATHOLIC BIBLES! This is obvious as we can see that the history of the modern versions is synonymous with the history of the Roman Catholic Church. What is the proof of this? The manuscript evidence supporting the modern versions are composed of Roman Catholic (Alexandrian tradition) manuscripts. For further proof, it is evident that the modern versions are Roman Catholic Bibles is the fact that they read as Roman Catholic Bibles. 83

In James 5:16, for example, the modern versions change “confess your faults” to “confess your sins.” You may now enter the confessional booth and whisper to the priest, “Forgive me, father, for I have sinned.” In Matthew 6:7 they change “use not vain repetitions” to “do not keep on babbling like pagans.” You can now say fifty “Hail Mary’s” with a clear conscience. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. To help them substantiate this, the modern versions change “her firstborn son” to “her son” (Matthew 1:25). The fact of the matter is that the modern versions will stand with the Roman Catholic Bibles and against the King James Bible at every opportunity. As proof of this, I offer the Catholic readings in the modern versions in Mark 6:11; Luke 2:33; John 17:12; I Corinthians 11:24; Romans 13:9; Galatians 3:1; Titus 2:13; I Peter 4:14; Colossians 1:14; I John 5:7; and Revelations 14:5. “She, ‘the harlot of Revelation 17,’ is identified as the Roman Catholic Church and was and perhaps still is the mainstay in watering down God’s holy Word.”99 Westcott and Hort were men who sought to destroy the God-honored, God-given Majority text Bible and replace it with a Christ denying perversion acceptable to the Roman Catholic Pope. When the Roman Catholic Church accepts any Bible that should immediately tell us that this Bible is not for any Bible believing Christian to use. Since the text and the textual theories of Westcott 99

Ward, Famine in the Land, Preface. 84

and Hort are the foundations of the modern versions, it is crucial that we have some understanding of them. If they are in error, then the modern versions are built on a foundation of sand. A theory, whether it is a textual theory or a scientific theory, is nothing more than a possible explanation of a set of facts. The theory itself is not a fact nor is it necessarily valid. It is, if you will, simply an “educated guess.” Note, however, that a theory is supposed to be built on facts. The facts are to support the theory and the theory is to explain the facts. Westcott and Hort's theory is not based on facts. A close examination of their theory reveals a total lack of hard evidence. It is conjecture based on supposition. Even the terms that they used in their theory (“transcriptional probability,” “intrinsic probability,” conjectural emendation,” etc.) reflect their dependence on guesswork rather than fact. The noted scholar John William Burgon aptly described their theory as “an excursion in cloud land.” Westcott and Hort’s textual theory can be viewed by Bible believing Christians as resting on two ungodly assumptions: 1. That, sometime around the fourth century A.D., Jesus Christ failed in His promise to preserve His words and the true text was lost. If we accept this assumption, that the true text was lost and needed to be “recovered” or “reconstructed,” then we are, in effect, calling Jesus a liar. 85

2. That Westcott and Hort could recover this text by applying a man-made theory to the Word of God. This second assumption was that they could approach the Bible in the same manner as any other book. They felt that Scripture could be judged by the same criteria as the works of Plato or Shakespeare. “It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to sink into virtual oblivion for fifteen hundred years only to have it brought to light again by two Cambridge professors who did not even believe it to be verbally inspired.”100 Notice also what John William Burgon said about this: “Above all, did he fancy, and do his followers imagine, that the Holy Ghost who inspired the New Testament could have let the true text of it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its life, and that a deep and wide and full investigation must issue in the proof that under His care the Word of God has been preserved all through the ages in due integrity? This admission alone when stripped of its disguise, is plainly fatal to Dr. Hort’s theory.”101

The problem was, they forgot about God. The inspired Word of God is not just another book and cannot be approached as any other book. It claims for itself supernatural inspiration, powers, authority, and preservation. It is a supernatural book and to apply manmade theory to it is to put man’s wisdom above God’s 100 101

Fuller, op. cit., 149. Burgon, The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels, 93. 86

Word. Notice what Terence Brown, past secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society in an address given in June 1971 had to say: “What is wrong with the text underlying the modern versions? This text has been constructed in accordance with a theory that gives too much weight and authority to a small and unrepresentative group of ancient documents headed by the Vatican copy known as Codex B and the Sinai copy known as Codex Sinaiticus or by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet - ‘Aleph.’ The theory was developed by Professors Westcott and Hort and is propounded in their Introduction to the Greek New Testament. At the age of 22 Hort had expressed his determination to overthrow ‘that vile Textus Receptus.’ The publication of the ‘Introduction’ and the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek New Testament marked the full extent of his effort in this direction. The theories of Westcott and Hort very largely shaped the text adopted by the 1881 Revisers and influenced practically every subsequent translation on both sides of the Atlantic. The problem was how to account for the dominance of the ‘Majority Text’ from the 4th century onwards. Codex B and Codex Aleph were both written in the 4th century, and if they present the text in its purest form, how was it that this remained unrecognized until the middle of the nineteenth century?... Their theory was that there must have been some kind of deliberate but misguided editorial revision of the Greek Text, probably in Syria, possibly in Antioch, perhaps during the latter part of the 4th century...According to this theory, this edited text was wrongly permitted to eclipse the ‘pure’ text exhibited by B and Aleph - until these documents were rehabilitated in the middle of the nineteenth century.... 87

MANY LIBERALS AND EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS ALIKE EMBRACED THE THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT AND IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD, THROUGH THE COLLEGES, SCHOOLS, AND PULPITS OF THE ENGLISHSPEAKING WORLD, THIS THEORY BECAME EMBEDDED IN THE MINDS OF MANY, AS IT WERE A PROVED AND DEMONSTRATED FACT... The weakness of Westcott and Hort’s theory of a 4th century Syrian revision which resulted in the substitution of the Majority Text for the B and Aleph text is that such a revision is unknown to history. The whole scheme rests upon a supposition for which there is no historical evidence, and consists largely in making dogmatic assertions based upon uncertainties.”102

Let us look briefly at the things that made up the Westcott and Hort theory. The first part of it is known as the Syrian Recension. We have already discussed the fact that Westcott and Hort’s textual theory had one primary objective: “TO RID THE CHURCH OF THAT VILE TEXT.” The “vile text” in question was, of course, the King James Version and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus. But Westcott and Hort had a problem. The Textus Receptus was the Greek text and had been since the Reformation. Prior to that, it had been the text of the Greek Church and of the early churches. They themselves admitted that it was the dominant text and that it enjoyed the support of the vast majority of manuscript evidence. In order to dethrone the Textus Receptus, they had to find some way to explain away its dominance and 102

Cloud, op. cit., 31. 88

then create a text to replace it with. The answer to this problem was to rewrite history. They proposed a theory that some time between 250 A.D. and 350 A.D.; the churches became alarmed over the differences exhibited in the Greek texts. A meeting of the leaders of the churches was held at Antioch to discuss the problem. As a result of this meeting, they issued an “official” revision of the Bible. This revision was itself revised about 350 A.D. and it became the standard Bible for churches. In this matter, Westcott and Hort could show a reason for the dominance of the Textus Receptus and also account for its support by the majority of manuscript evidence. If it was the “official” text, then it obviously would be the most used text and therefore more copies would survive of it than of any other text. Was this what really happened? No! There is no evidence whatsoever that any such meeting ever took place, or that such church leaders ever issued an "official" Greek text. Secular history records no such event. Christian history records no such event. The writings of the church fathers that would have attended such a meeting record no such event. That is because IT NEVER HAPPENED! It is a figment of the imagination of Westcott and Hort. This total lack of evidence for what they termed a “Syrian Recension” did not bother Westcott and Hort in the least. A theory, however, must have some kind of support. 89

Since they could not support their theory of a Syrian Recension with facts, they supported it with another theory. According to our two “scholars,” the internal evidence of the readings of the existing manuscripts supports the theory of the Syrian Recension. In order to understand how this works, we must understand what they called the “conflate theory” and the “genealogical method.” The genealogical method is quite similar to the “family tree” concept. It purports to show how the text of the Bible developed through the interrelation of various text types. If a text has its source two or more text types, then evidence of its ancestry could be determined by the presence in it of reading peculiar to those types. Westcott and Hort divided all existing manuscripts into four families of text types. They called these the “Neutral,” “Western,” “Alexandrian,” and “Syrian” types. The Neutral type was, by implication, the pure text. The Western and Alexandrian types were variations of the neutral type and quite close to it. The Syrian type was the text that supposedly was the product of their imaginary “Syrian Recension.” It corresponds to the Textus Receptus upon which the King James Version is based. According to their theory, the Syrian text was a “conflation” or combination of the other text types. If they could prove that the Syrian text contained readings that were combinations or conflations of readings peculiar to 90

the other text types, then they could show that the Syrian text was a later and less pure text. Westcott and Hort’s “genealogical method” is not valid. Genealogical evidence is nonexistent. Moreover, many noted scholars have demonstrated that the genealogical method, as such, has no application to New Testament textual criticism. Westcott and Hort’s concept of four textual families is pure fiction. They do not prove that such a division existed, and only assert that they did. Likewise, their “Neutral” text is “pure” only because they have proclaimed it to be so. It is not possible to establish the “purity” of a text if the existence of that text has never been established! What is the proof of Westcott and Hort’s theory? According to their theory, these two noted critics would be vindicated if the Syrian text contained readings that were conflations of the other text types. After spending better than thirty years searching through the eight thousand verses of the New Testament, they came up with eight readings (some of which are single words) that SEEM to be conflations. These supposed conflations occur in Mark 6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49; Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18, and 24:53. The “proof” they offer is as fragile as their theories. In the first place, it can be shown that the other text types conflate the Syrian. The Western, for example, conflates the Syrian and the Neutral in John 5:37 and Acts 10:48. Secondly, papyrus fragments have recently been discovered 91

which contain “Syrian” readings. These fragments date from a time when such readings would have been impossible under Westcott and Hort’s theory. Thirdly, readings peculiar to the Syrian text can be found in the writings of the church fathers prior to the time of the imaginary “Syrian Recension.” Let us look now at the two manuscripts on which the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort are based. These are known as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. It is obvious that Westcott and Hort followed these two texts which agree with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Alexander McClure has this to say about these texts: “There can be no question about the fact that Westcott and Hort serenely followed the texts of Aleph and Codex B, which agree with the Vulgate. Most of the Latin texts (which are pre-Vulgate) have been tampered with and made to conform to the Vulgate. The Church of Rome has, for centuries, had scribes whose main business was to make existing texts conform to a pre-conceived idea.”103

As has been said, the whole purpose of the Westcott and Hort theory was to dethrone the “villainous” Textus Receptus and then create a new text to replace it. There was one particular Greek manuscript that Westcott and Hort loved with a passion equal to their hatred of the Textus Receptus. This Greek manuscript was the Codex Vaticanus. It was, they declared, the purest known example of a Neutral text and therefore the closest to the apostolic 103

McClure, Translators Revived, 11. 92

writings themselves. Westcott and Hort had invented the concept of a neutral text and then declared the Codex Vaticanus to be the purest known example of that text. How can it be the “purest” example of a text whose very existence has never been proven?!? The Vaticanus was discovered in the Pope’s library in Rome in 1481, where it had lain forgotten and unused for no one knows how long. While its history is shrouded in mystery, it shows evidence of serious tampering. Many of its readings were known to the editors of the Received Text and were rejected by those wise men. In fact, no nonCatholic scholar has ever had free access to the Vaticanus. It was incomplete, omitting the pastoral epistles, Philemon, Revelation, and part of Hebrews. It is in nearly perfect condition. Perhaps this is because for 1,000 years nobody thought enough of it to pick it up and use it! Roman Catholic popes refused to allow Bible scholars to study it until the nineteenth century. In 1867, Tischendorf was given permission by Cardinal Antonelli to study the text. He had nearly finished transcribing three Gospels when it was discovered that he was doing so. The text was then taken away for several months. In all, Tischendorf had manuscripts before him a total of fortytwo hours and only three hours at a time. All but a few hours were spent on the Gospels. However, he was quoted as saying, “I succeeded in preparing the whole New Testament for a new reliable edition, so as to obtain every desired result.” In forty-two hours, every desired result! 93

The Vaticanus shows extreme scribal carelessness. It contains numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. We must remember that the early scribes were so particular in copying God’s Word that even if one letter was added or subtracted, the whole copy was thrown away. Yet here we see a copy full of errors and are told that it is more accurate than the King James Text, the Textus Receptus, Impossible! This copy would have been thrown out and probably was, and yet someone picked it up and stuck it in a library. It is important to note that the Vaticanus was known by the King James Version translators but was not used by them. However, it became the very foundation of Westcott and Hort’s new Greek text. A handful of other manuscripts were used in support, most notably the Codex Sinaiticus. This manuscript shows the marks of ten different correctors down through the centuries. David Cloud tells us about the Codex Sinaiticus and how it was discovered: “The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in an apostate monastery (St. Catherine’s) at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1859. Even the benighted monks of that wretched monastery found zero value in this manuscript and had consigned to burn it. Tischendorf, following his unscriptural theory that the pure Word of God needed to be recovered, stumbled upon it in his misguided zeal. The complete Sinai manuscript contained portions of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, the complete New Testament, as well as the spurious Epistle of Barnabas, and a fragment of the spurious 94

Shepherd of Hermas. Tischendorf was so enamored with the Sinai manuscript that he altered the eighth edition of his Greek text in 3,369 instances, largely in compliance with Sinaitic. Dr. James Qurollo observes, 'I don’t know which of them had the truer evaluation of its worth - Tischendorf, who wanted to buy it, or the monks, who wanted to burn it.'”104

Is it any wonder that such trash wound up in a trash can? That is where it should have been! Are we to believe that the Word God promised to preserve ended up in a wastebasket to be burned? Are we to believe that a German scholar happened at the right time to pluck it out of the fire? Those who insist that the Westcott-Hort text is more accurate than the King James (Textus Receptus) must believe it. However, I reject it and will stand by the Textus Receptus. It is also appropriate to give a description of the monastery that housed the Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. R.L. Hymers is quoted as having this to say about his visit to this monastery: “I became convinced of the superiority of the Textus Receptus during a tour of the Sinai Peninsula in the summer of 1987. My wife and I were part of an expedition that climbed Mount Sinai. After descending, we toured St.Catherine’s Monastery, which is located at the foot of the mountain. I was struck by the clear and even satanic characteristics of this monastery. The skulls of monks from across the centuries are heaped in a large room. This heap of skulls is seven or eight feet high. The skeleton of one of the monks is chained to a door adjacent to this mound of skulls, left there as an ageless guard. Within the sanctuary of the monastery itself, ostrich eggs hang form 104

Cloud, op. cit., 22,23. 95

the ceiling, lamps dimly illuminate the gloomy atmosphere, and strange drawings and unscriptural paintings decorate the entire edifice. We were guided through the eerie church to the place where the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept by those monks across the centuries, until it was discovered by Tischendorf, taken to Germany, and ultimately sold to Great Britain. As I stood in front of the case where the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept prior to it being taken by Tischendorf, I had the distinct impression that nothing in the way of spiritual light could come from this place. This impression caused me to reexamine the facts concerning the Westcott and Hort text, and to come to the conclusion that their use of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus scrolls as a basis for the new Greek text was spurious. I have come to the conclusion that the Westcott and Hort text is a mutilation, and that the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, which are the basis of the King James Version, are far superior. Therefore, I strongly defend the King James Version as the most reliable translation of the Scriptures in the English language.”105

John William Burgon had this to say about the Codex Sinaiticus: “I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise of preservation has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact had to be picked by a German critic out of a waste paper basket in the convent in St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodeled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owned their survival to their neglect; while hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.”106 105 106

Ibid, 24. Burgon, op. cit., 12. 96

Those who accept these manuscripts believe them to be two of the fifty that Constantine had prepared by Eusebius shortly after Constantine became emperor of Rome in 312 A.D. Both codices are written on vellum in classical Greek. Both of these Bibles belong to the corrupt line of the ascension. Let us refresh our minds on the theology and purpose behind those fifty copies. Eusebius was a disciple of Origen and embraced his ideas. This included Gnosticism, the denial of the deity of Christ, pre-existence of the soul, the allegorical method of interpretation, etc. These fifty copies were made from the fifth column of Origen’s Bible, the Hexapla. So what are the other than King James Bibles, which include all modern versions, using for a text? They are using a text that relies upon two manuscripts. One was found in a wastebasket in a monastery, the other was found in the Vatican library, and both contained a number of scribal errors. If they are in fact two of the fifty copies Eusebius prepared for Constantine, as they would have us believe, then they are full of Arianism and ecumenism. This “pure” and authoritative codex throws out the beginning of the Word of God (Genesis 1:1-46:28), the middle of the Word of God (Psalms 106-138) and the end of the Word of God (the entire book of Revelation). David Cloud has this to say about these manuscripts, “The pure Word of God, my friends, has not been preserved in an obscure Egyptian monastery or on the dusty shelf of the Pope’s library, but in the Bibles and manuscripts which 97

have been valued and used by the common believers through the centuries.”107 Obviously the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus must differ from the Textus Receptus, but to what extent? In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus omits 2,877 words, adds 536, substitutes 935, transposes 2,098 and modifies 1,132. Sinaiticus omits 3,455, adds 839, substitutes 1,114, transposes 2,299 and modifies 1,265. If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are “pure” texts, then we should reasonably expect them to agree with each other. The fact is that they do not! They differ from each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone without considering minor errors such as spelling. Now one or the other has to be wrong 3,000 times. Despite the fact that the Codex Vaticanus is demonstrably corrupt, despite the fact that 95% of all manuscript evidence stands in opposition to it, despite the fact that it adds to, takes from and changes the Word of God, despite the fact that it is a Roman Catholic manuscript, despite the fact that it was ignored by God and man for over 1,000 years, the Codex Vaticanus became, by the simple declaration of Westcott and Hort, the purest, most authoritative manuscript in existence. Modern versions are perversions of the Word of God because they are based upon a Greek text that is false to the truth and improper in every way. Their foundation is faulty. The forerunners of the NEW VERSIONS are nothing more than 107

Cloud, op cit., 23. 98

the tools of Satan. When one sees the number of differences between the Textus Receptus and Westcott and Hort’s Greek text it is easy to see why there are so many changes in our modern versions. It is also obvious that two things this different cannot be the same. We can see this comparison in the following chart. The New Testament Greek Textual Battleground Textus Receptus Westcott-Hort Changes in the T.R. Has 140,521 Greek words. Changes made 5,604 places in the New Testament. Has 647 pages in Greek text. Changes include 9,970 Greek words. Has 217 Greek words per page. Changes 15.4 Greek words per page. Has 100% of the Greek words. Changes 7% of the Greek words. Has all 647 pages unchanged. Changes total 45.9 pages in Greek text. “From the above chart, you can see the real Greek Textual Battleground between the Westcott and Hort Greek Text and the Textus Receptus text of the New Testament. You can see that the additions, subtractions, or changes include almost 10,000 Greek words. To get a picture of just how many words are involved 99

(if they were together in one place) consider what 10,000 English words would amount to. It would be the equivalent of either (1) the entire book of Romans (9,447 words); or (2) the entire book of I Corinthians (9,489 words); or (3) the books of II Corinthians and Galatians (9,190 words); or (4) the books of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and I Thessalonians (9,096 words); or (5) the books of James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, and Jude (10,088 words); or (6) the books of Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, II Timothy, Philemon, II Peter, II John, III John, and Jude (9,819 words). This represents the total number Received Text Greek words that have been either added to God’s words, subtracted from God’s words, or changed from God’s words by the Westcott and Hort Greek text. I think you will agree with me that there is much at stake in this BATTLE for our Bible! Isn’t it time to CONTEND for the BOOK?!”108 How many words of God have to be taken out of your Bible before it is no longer 100% God’s words? Just one? That would be good enough for me. But when you have over 5,000 changes involving almost 10,000 words, you have serious trouble. David Otis Fuller had this to say about the Bible: "The Bible should more probably be compared to a living organism. Touch a part and you spoil it all. To cut a vital artery in a man might be touching a very small point, but death could come as truly as if he 108

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, xii. 100

were blown to pieces. We cannot admit for a moment that the Received Text which, by the admission of its enemies themselves, has led the true people of God for centuries, can be whipped into fragments and set aside for a manuscript found in an out-of-the-way monastery, and for another of the same family which has lain, for man knows not how long, upon a shelf in the library of the Pope’s palace.”109

David Cloud had said, “There are exceptions, but those who criticize King James Bible defenders commonly strain at gnats and swallow camels; they focus on the exceptions and ignore the rules; they discover grains of error among mountains of truth. They had a strong inclination to ‘cling to all sorts of small details, which they use as arguments against the clear and decisive evidence.”110 It has been truly said, “When a man tamely consents to place his conscience in the keeping of his fellow, and to bow down his understanding to the opinions of men, he is meek, modest, and liberal, but let him reverently bow to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and he will be looked upon as self-confident, dogmatic, and narrow minded.”111 Let me sum up this section on Westcott and Hort by saying this. Their theory was depraved and their evidence corrupt. Beyond this, we find that their scholarship was dishonest. After elevating the Codex Vaticanus to a Fuller, Which Bible?, 301. Cloud, op. cit., 13 111 God’s Miracle Book: The King James Bible (Halifax, NS: The People’s Gospel Hour, n.d.), 4. 101 109

110

position of preeminence, one would expect that the new Greek text of Westcott and Hort would slavishly follow it. For the most part, it does. However, when it suited their own purposes, Westcott and Hort would abandon it. The reason that the heretics took out some things in the Bible but not all of them is because they want the Bible to agree with them. Jack Hyles said, “Think what could have happened if all the hours that have been spent changing the Bible had been spent preaching the Bible and spreading its message.”112 Contrary to what some people may say, these changes in the text also brought with them serious doctrinal changes as well. We will look at this matter in detail later. Let me say here though that I have always found it interesting that the same ones who use the argument that changes don’t matter because the doctrine is found elsewhere in the same translation, rail against the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses which alters words that affect doctrine. Yet those same altered doctrines can be found elsewhere in the apostate cult’s translation of the Bible. It would seem that a double standard is in full force when they promote the N.I.V. or the N.A.S.V., but reject the New World Translation, all of which were also translated from the SAME FAMILY of socalled BETTER MANUSCRIPTS. The next time that you confront a Jehovah’s Witness about doctrine missing in their Bible beware, unless you use the King James Version, it may not be found there in YOUR Bible either. 112

Grady, Final Authority, iii. 102

We have seen that the Textus Receptus is superior because the churches accepted it. It is traditional in that the people who knew what they were talking about have handed it down. We can also see that it is superior in that the evidence attests it. We find this evidence by way of manuscripts, ancient versions, and church fathers. It has been accepted ever since it was written down.113 It is also important to note the Revision Committee of 1881 and their relation to the new Greek text of Westcott and Hort. David Otis Fuller has this to say about them: “In view of the facts it seems clear that, not until after the Committee had disbanded, and their work had come under scrutiny of able scholars and faithful men, were they themselves aware that they had seemingly given their official sanction of the “New Greek Text” of Westcott and Hort. The Westcott and Hort text had not yet been published, and hence had never been subjected to scrutiny and criticism; nor had the principles upon which it was constructed been investigated. Only after it was too late were the facts realized, even by the Revisers themselves. The mischief has thus been traced back to those two scholars, and to a text that had not yet seen the light of day and been subjected to the scrutiny of other scholars. And we know that not until the R.V. of the New Testament had been published was it known that the Westcott and Hort text had been quietly imposed upon the Revisers, and that it was confirmed to two old Codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.”114

It is important for us to note that the text used today in most colleges, universities, and seminaries is the 113

Waite, op. cit., 40. David Otis Fuller, True or False (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973), 91. 103 114

Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament, 26th Edition. It has gone through 26 editions thus far. Nestle began his critical Greek edition in 1898, following the basic edition of Westcott and Hort and three others of his day. The 26th edition came out in 1979. From 1898 to 1979 is eighty-one years. If you divide eighty-one by twenty-six, you see that they came out, on the average, with one new, updated, changed, different edition of the Greek New Testament every 3.1 years. What does that tell you as to the certainty theses editors have in God’s preservation of His New Testament words? It tells you these men don’t really know what the Greek New Testament is. This Nestle/Aland Greek text is named for Eberhard Nestle, a German, and Kurt Aland, also a German. It was made up by a committee consisting of Kurt Aland (who is an unbeliever), Matthew Black (an unbeliever), Carlo M. Martini (a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church), Bruce Metzger (who is from Princeton, a man who demonstrated his apostasy as editor of the Reader’s Digest Bible), and Alan Wigren (from Chicago, an apostate also). All these were editors of the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament Text. This Greek New Testament text, or one like it, is the basic text that underlies the modern versions.115

115

Waite, op. cit., 38,39. 104

The Translators Are Superior There is no doubt about the fact that the translation of the Bible into any language is an event of the highest importance to the people by which that language is spoken. It is the bringing of the words of Almighty God into the language that they speak. No book ever published in the English language has had a greater influence on civilization that the Authorized, King James Version. It is important to note that all things were at a peak in the seventeenth century for the printing of the Word of God in English. There has never been a committee of translators whose scholastic ability has exceeded that of the translators of the King James Version. Not only was education at a peak but language was as well. Notice what Alexander McClure says regarding this: “As for the capability of those men, we may say again, that, by the good providence of God, their work was done at a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues, and of rabbinical lore, had then been carried to a greater extent in England than before or since.”116

“Work on the King James Version began in 1604. In that year, a group of Puritans under the leadership of Dr. John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, suggested to King James I that a new translation of the Bible be undertaken. This suggestion appealed to James, who was himself a student of theology and the 116

McClure, Translators Revived, 63. 105

Scriptures, and he immediately began the necessary arrangements for carrying it out.”117 Alexander McClure tells us the story behind the beginning of the King James Version. “The conference at Hampton Court took place in January of 1604 and by the summer of that same year there were 54 men assigned to the task of beginning the revision which came to be known as the King James Version of the Bible. These men were instructed to use the Bishop’s Bible as a basis, but to also consult Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whit-church and the Geneva Bible. If the reader had noted the progress down to this point, it will be remembered that Tyndale’s influence is to be found in every one of the works to be consulted. Add to that the influence of Thomas Beza, and you will find Erasmus of Rotterdam hiding behind virtually every page. We must remember that Miles Coverdale is represented here also, but it was the absolute genius of William Tyndale that breathed life into our English Bible.”118

Alexander McClure goes on to tell us how the king went about appointing people for the translation process. He says: “The King was for appointing fifty-four learned men to this great and good work; but the number actually employed upon it, in the first instance, was forty-seven. Order was also taken, that the bishops, in their several dioceses, should find what men of learning there were, who might be able to assist; and the bishops were to write to them, earnestly charging them, at the king’s desire, to send in their suggestions and critical observations, that so, as his Majesty remarks, ‘our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all 117

118

Hills, The King James Version Defended, 215. Ibid, 30. 106

learned men within this our kingdom.’”119

Before we go any further into the character of the translators of the King James Version, it is important that we look at King James. Many people try to put down the King James Bible by putting down the character of King James. Some will say that he was not much of a person, while others will even go so far as to say that King James was a homosexual. First of all, before we deal with these accusations, we should carefully note what D.A. Waite has to say about this: “King James had nothing to do with the translation itself other than making the rules. There is no reason whatsoever to try and defend King James. A lot of men take great delight in pointing out alleged defects in King James. He wasn’t a perfect man in many ways. But he had nothing to do with the translating. He was not one of the fortyseven who did the work. He just commissioned it because he agreed that is ought to be done. Dr. John Reynolds had asked King James to permit the King James Bible to be undertaken, to have men to do it, and to provide for the funds to take care of it. James had an interest in the translation, having a knowledge of many languages himself. He just happened to be the king at the time the translation was made. It’s a foolish argument people use, trying to drag in something that isn’t relevant.”120

As you can see to charge King James with such things just to seek to discredit the King James Version is really of no value to their argument. In spite of that, it is 119 120

Ibid, 66. Waite, op. cit., 85,86. 107

fitting to mention that no such charges were made against him while he was living. Notice how Stephen Coston brings this out: “In all the time that King James lived and reigned in Scotland there was never a charge made concerning immorality or lack of character. Nor was there any lack in the king’s own prowess, he was fluent in Greek, Latin, and French and even wrote a tract condemning the use of tobacco called a ‘Counterblast to Tobacco.’”121

If all this is true than how did all these false stories about King James get started. Rather than telling the story, I will give you a direct quote from Samuel Gipp: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen. Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire. At a time when only the churches in England possessed the Bibles in English, King James’ desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history’s most learned men together to accomplish a great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English. James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Stephen A. Coston, King James Unjustly Accused (St. Peterburg, FL: KonigsWort Inc., 1996), xxix. 108 121

Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled ‘Counterblast to Tobacco’, which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England. Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James being dead was in no condition to defend himself. The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew this wasn’t true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God’s book to a more ‘modern’ translation. It seems though, that Weldon’s false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had. It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of parliament in 1605. In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, reestablishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot’s victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged. (Is it any wonder that when they 109

failed at this that they came up with modern versions.) It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.”122

Not only do we see that King James was a man of character, but so were the men that he called upon to do the translation of this Bible. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled with those mighty men. “The men who translated the King James Bible were superior in every way to any men who lived before or who live today.”123 Not only were they very educated men, but they were men who were godly men and had a very reverential attitude towards the Word of God. Notice what Norman Ward says about the attitude of these men: “The attitude that these men brought with them to their work stands in stark contrast to the attitudes displayed by the modern critics. They worshiped neither scholarships nor themselves but rather Christ. Miles Smith, in the Translator’s Preface to the Reader noted, ‘There are many chosen that were greater in other men’s eyes than they were in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.’ They were not merely Bible scholars but also Bible believers to whom the Scriptures were ‘God’s sacred truth.’ With the bloody Reformation still fresh in the mind’s eye, the translators of the Authorized Version were fully cognizant of the inestimable value of the Word of God.”124

Alexander McClure says, “There are two things we should look at when examining any version: the nature of Gipp, The Answer Book, 9,10. Waite, op. cit., 17. 124 Ward, Famine in the Land, 41. 122 123

110

the translation, and the character of the men who participated in the actual work of translation. There are numbers of books which have ‘BIBLE’ printed on the cover, but what is inside may often be as far from the truth as the east is from the west.”125 The King James translators used the Received Text as the text for their work. The Received Text consists of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. It is important to note that not only did God inspire the Scriptures but that he also superintended the translation of those Scriptures into other languages so that they might have the Word of God. Notice what Jack Moorman says: “In approaching this and other versions, we begin on the premise that God was actively superintending the translation of His Word into the other languages. Inspiration deals with the Hebrew and Greek. But in that eventually so few could speak those languages, God’s promise of preservation has no practical meaning unless He superintends the translation process.”126

Before we go any further, it is important for us to see the spiritual qualifications and insight of the King James translators. In order to do this, let me quote from THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER, this is the introductory remarks in the original 1611 King James Bible. Let me quote them on four things in this introduction. First of all, the King James Bible translators believed people needed to read the Bible. Here is what they said on The Need for 125 126

McClure, Translators Revived, v. Moorman, Forever Settled, 135. 111

Reading the Scriptures: “But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without the Word of God? What Word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search (John 5:39; Isaiah 8:20). They are commended that searched and studied them (Acts 17:11 and 8:28-29). They are reproved that are unskillful in them, or slow to believe them (Matthew 22:29; Luke 24:25). They can make us wise unto salvation (II Timothy 3:15). If we are ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will being us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, enflame us. Tolle, lege, tolle, lege. Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures...” (p.10)

They were also clear on what the Scriptures are and what they can do. They had insight as to what the Bible is. They wrote: “Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armour, but also a whole armoury of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves, and put the enemy to flight. It is not a herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of manna or a cruise of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal’s meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a panary of wholesome food against fenowed (mouldy) traditions; a physician’s shop (Saint Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a pandect of profitable laws against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? 112

The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the penmen, such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God’s Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God’s word, God’s testimony, God’s oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and the reward of the study thereof, fellowship in the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that shall not fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scriptures, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.” (pp.11-12)

The King James Bible translators also saw The Need for Proper Translation of the Scriptures. They wrote: “Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come to the water; even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well by which means the flocks of Laban were watered (Genesis 29:10). Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with: (John 4:12) or as the person mentioned in Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to answer, I cannot, for it is sealed.” (pp. 12-13).

The King James translators also saw The Urgency of Reading and Heeding the Scriptures. They closed their notes to “TO THE READER” by writing: “It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to do further than we can ask or think. He 113

removeth the scales from our eyes, the vail from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not (Genesis 16:15 and Jeremiah 1:13); do not cast earth into them, with the Philistines, neither prefer broken pits before them, with the wicked Jews. Others have labored, and you may enter into their labors. O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation. Be not like swine to tread upon precious things, neither yet like dogs to tear and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts (Matthew 8:34); neither yet like Esau sell your birthright for a mess of pottage (Hebrews 12:16). If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light; if food, if clothing, be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves... It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31); but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word upon us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscious in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.”

Certainly it must be agreed that these men who translated the King James Bible has spiritual insight and depths. They were far from cold intellectuals without a heart for the Word of the Lord and the Lord of the Word.”127 Let us now look at the groupings and locations of the King James translators. There were a total of three companies. They met in the cities of Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster. The translators began their work in 1604, 127

Waite, op. cit., 63-66. 114

and finished it in 1611, a total of seven years. They had an Old Testament and a New Testament company at Westminster. In Oxford they had a company for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament. In Cambridge they had a company for the Old Testament and one for the Apocrypha. Though they translated the Apocrypha in the original King James Bible, the translators did NOT believe that it was inspired. They translated these books only as history between the Old and New Testament. We will look at this in greater detail later. There were up to fifty-seven men altogether that worked in six companies or groups. Not all men were present at all times during the translation. On an average, there were about seven or eight men per group. Some of the men died before the translation was finished. Due to the space that we have, we will look at just four of the Old Testament translators and two of the New Testament translators. These men will give you an idea of the character and the knowledge of the men who were chosen as translators. The first Old Testament translator to be considered is Lancelot Andrews. He was the president or director of the Westminster group that translated twelve books all together, Genesis - II Kings. He was called the “star of preachers.” He ever bore the character of a right godly man and a tremendous student. He acquired most of the modern languages of Europe 115

at the University of Cambridge. He gave himself chiefly to Oriental tongues and to divinity.128 Someone has said, “Such was his skill on all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of Babel, he might have served as interpreter-general.” In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant in FIFTEEN LANGUAGES.129 As you can see, he was a respected and superior translator. I don’t know of any of these modern translators of the American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Version, etc., who are conversant with as many as fifteen languages. “Mr. Andrews spent many hours each day in private and family devotions. Lancelot Andrews’ manual for his private devotions, prepared by himself, is wholly in the Greek language. You can see this man was accomplished. Many Christians today don’t even have private daily devotions. Of those who do, how many do you know who have made up private devotional manuals, how many do you know who have written them wholly in the Greek language? This most certainly indicates a linguistic superiority.”130 The second Old Testament translator that I would like us to look at is William Bedwell. He was also in Company One, the Westminster group translating the books 128

McClure, op. cit., 78. Ibid, 87. 130 Ibid, 86. 129

116

of Genesis through II Kings from the Hebrew to English. Some of the notable things about him are he was justly reputed to be an eminent Oriental scholar. Also, his fame for Arabic learning was so great that scholars sought him for assistance. To him belongs, as McClure stated, “the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe.” He also left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. For many years he was engaged in compiling an Arabic lexicon in three volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laud’s manuscripts still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. In Antwerp, in 1612, he published in quarto an edition of the Epistles of John with a Latin version. Now, I don’t know anything much about Arabic, but to have an edition of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John with Latin and Arabic would take a tremendously capable scholar. McClure wrote: “Some modern scholars have fancied we have an advantage in our times over the translators of the King James days of 1611 by reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be at present to what are called the ‘COGNATE’ and ‘Shemitic’ languages, especially the Arabic, by which much light is thought to be reflected on Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell and his others among his fellow laborers, were THOROUGHLY CONVERSANT in this part of the broad field of sacred criticism.”131 131

Ibid, 101,102 117

D.A. Waite had this to say regarding the Cognate and Shemitic languages and the capabilities of Mr. Bedwell: “This William Bedwell, with his Arabic, Persian, and other Oriental languages, was greatly superior to our modern translators. Many modern ‘translators’ come up to a word, and in a footnote somewhere, or in an index at the bottom of the page, they’ll say the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain, so they have some other rendition of it. Well, the meaning of it is uncertain, perhaps, to these men living in 1960, when the New American Standard Version came out, in 1969, when the New International Version came out or in 1979, when the New King James Version came out; but these men who translated the King James Version knew their cognate languages well. They understood these references and there was no question in their minds what these words meant. It is a strange thing; yet, people doubt and question the authenticity, superiority, and the knowledge of the King James translators. Cognate languages are simply the sister languages related to the Hebrew like Arabic, Persian, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, and so on. They are related like brother and sister. A word may be clear, or maybe the word is what they call a hapaxlegomenon. Hapax means ‘once’ and legomenon means ‘spoken or written.’ This particular word was used only once in all the New Testament Greek or Old Testament Hebrew. So it is difficult to tell sometimes what these hapaxlegomenon mean. They go to other sources to try and understand the meaning. The translators of the King James, who knew Arabic, Persian, Aramaic, Coptic, and the various cognate languages, could go to these languages and understand very clearly. But the men living today, because they don’t know these cognate languages as well, just throw up their hands and say that the meaning of the Hebrew is not certain.”132

The next Old Testament translator that we will look at is Miles Smith. He was in Company Three, the Oxford 132

Waite, op. cit., 6. 118

Group. That group translated a total of seventeen books, from Isaiah through Malachi. Here is some background on Dr. Smith. He was one of the twelve translators selected to revise the work after it was referred to them for the final examination. He was also employed to write that most learned and eloquent preface to the King James Bible. He went through the Greek and Latin Fathers, making his annotations on them all. There were 100 church fathers that wrote extensively from 100 to 300 A.D. There were 200 more who wrote from 300 to 600 A.D. He read through all of them in Greek and Latin and made his own comments on each of them. He was well acquainted with the rabbinical glosses and comments, they are marginal comments in the Hebrew language. He was also so expert in the Chaldee (which is related to the Hebrew), the Syriac and the Arabic, that they were almost as familiar as his native tongue. Hebrew, he had at his finger’s ends. He was an extremely proficient man, and certainly superior in his qualifications to translate our King James Bible.133 John Reynolds was in Company Three, the Oxford Group. “Those who knew him held him to be the most learned man in England, pious, courteous, modest, kind, and wholly honest, with a vast memory that made him ‘a living library, a third university.’”134 “Determined to explore the whole fields, and make himself master of the subject, he 133 134

McClure, op. cit., 141-143. Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, 22. 119

devoted to the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin Fathers, and all the ancient records of the church.”135 It was by his means that the good work of translating the King James Version was undertaken. “At the entreaty of Dr. Rainolds, the king consented that there should be a new and more accurate translation, prepared under the royal sanction. The next year, Dr. Rainolds was put on the list of translators, on account of his well known skill in Greek and Hebrew.”136 McClure had this to say about the character of John Rainolds, “And as to virtue, integrity, piety, and sanctity of life, he was so eminent and conspicuous, that to name Rainolds was to command virtue of itself... He alone was a well-furnished library, full of faculties, all studies, and all learning. The memory and reading of that man was near to a miracle.”137 Now let us look at two of the New Testament translators and how they were superior. Sir Henry Savile was in Company Four, the Oxford Group. They had the task of translating the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Here is some of the background on Henry Savile. He became famous for his Greek and mathematical learning very early in life. He became tutor in Greek and 135

McClure, op. cit., 122. Ibid, 131. 137 Ibid, 133. 136

120

mathematics to Queen Elizabeth. He also translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published some of his notes. Tacitus was a Latin historian, and Savile translated his work into English. Henry Savile published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections of the Elements of Euclid. Euclid was concerned with geometry and wrote in Greek. Savile translated that, and other learned works into English and Latin. He certainly had to have tremendous skill in order to do so. Some of the works in Greek are most difficult. He is chiefly known for being the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. John Chrysostom had many pages that he wrote to the people to whom he ministered, and Savile was the first to completely edit his work. His edition of 1,000 copies was made in 1613, and makes eight immense folios. A folio is the size of a large dictionary or encyclopedia. That was a monumental work. I don’t know of any of the translators of the modern versions who come anywhere near the superiority and skill of this man. He was one of the most profound, exact, and critical scholars of his age and meet and ripe to take part in the preparation of the incomparable version.138 John Bois was in Company Six, the Cambridge 138

Waite, op. cit, 70,71. 121

group, which translated all the books of the Apocrypha. Please note that we do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture nor did any of the King James translators. It is not inspired. They simply translated it as history between the Old and New Testaments. Here is some background on John Bois. His father carefully taught him. At the age of five he had read the Bible - in Hebrew. By the time he was six years old he not only wrote Hebrew legibly but in a fair and elegant character. He soon distinguished himself by his great skill in Greek, writing letters in that language to the Master and Senior fellows of his college. If you know anything about the Greek language, you know that you don’t usually write letters in Greek. It’s difficult enough to translate from the Greek into the English without composing letters, or talking in New Testament, or Koine Greek. This man was a skilled man, not only in the Hebrew but also in the Greek.139 He was equally distinguished for his skill in Greek and Hebrew. In the chambers of Dr. Downe, the chief university lecturer in Greek language, Bois read with him twelve Greek authors in prose - the hardest that could be found both for dialect and phrase. It was a common practice for this young man to read and study in the University Library at 4:00 AM and stay without intermission until 8:00 PM, a total of eighteen hours straight.140 139 140

McClure, op. cit., 200. Ibid, 201. 122

John Bois’ library contained one of the most complete and costly collections of Greek literature that had ever been made. So, he was not only highly skilled as to his ability, but also had an extensive library to go with it.141 As far as the translation goes, he was one of the twelve translators who were sent, two from each company, to make final revision at Stationer’s Hall in London. This lasted nine months. If there were a problem in Hebrew or Greek, he had the answers. He also took notes of all the proceedings of this committee. He was the secretary. His notes are some of the only evidences that we have today telling how they went about things.142 He left at his death as many leaves of manuscript as he had days in his life. He left over 30,000 pages of writing. He was a voluminous writer, scholar, reader, and worker. He was so familiar with the Greek Testament that he could, at any time, turn to any word that it contained.143 The list could go on and on of the character and ability of the men who translated the King James Bible. All of them were masters when it came to language and other areas as well. These men were very capable of performing the task that was before them. We need never be ashamed of the men who gave us the King James Bible. They knew English, Greek, Hebrew, and the cognate sister languages. They applied their skills and did the job in a superior 141

Ibid, 203. Ibid, 204. 143 Ibid, 206 142

123

fashion. Let us close off this section with what McClure said in regards to the superiority of the King James Bible translators and their product compared to the inferiority of those who try to compete with the King James Bible translators. Keep in mind that McClure gave this final assessment to them after carefully researching the character and superior abilities of these translators: “As to the capability of those men, we may say again, that, by the good Providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues, and of Rabbinical lore, had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since... It is evidently expected that the reader of these pages will yield to the conviction, that all the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled with these mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any denomination, or out of all, a body of translators, on whom the whole Christian community would bestow such confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious company, or who would prove themselves deserving of such confidence.”144

McClure also has some interesting comments on those who might attempt to compete with the work of the King James translators. He wrote: “And what has not been done by the most able and the most qualified 144

Ibid, 63,64. 124

divines, is not likely to be done by oscure pedagogues, broken down parsons, and sectaries of a single idea, and that a wrong one - who, from different quarters, are talking big and loud of their ‘amended,’ ‘improved,’ and ‘only correct’ and reliable re-translations, and getting up ‘American and Foreign Bible Unions’ to print their sophomorical performances. How do such adventurers appear along side of the venerable men whose lives have been briefly sketched out in these foregoing pages! The newly risen versionists, with all their ambitious and pretentious vaunts are not worthy to ‘carry satchels’ after those masters of ancient learning. Imagine our greenish contemporaries shut up with an Andrews, a Reynolds, a Ward, a Bois, comparing notes on the meaning of the original Scriptures! ...Let tinkers stock to their baser-metals; and heaven forefend that they should clout the golden vessels of the sanctuary with their clumsy patches...”145

Samuel Gipp has this to say about today’s scholars and education: “It would be foolish and contradictory to believe that today’s scholars could ever equal or surpass those of the Authorized Version. Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that our education has gotten better? Only a worshipper of education could pretend to believe such a fairytale. Education has degenerated along with the entire world system and could never produce a scholar equal to those of nearly four hundred years ago.”146

McClure says this on the superiority of the product of the King James translators: ‘The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James 145 146

Ibid, 233,234. Gipp, The Answer Book, 63. 125

the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and every point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision, Paganinus himself is hardly more literal; and it was well marked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, that it may serve as a Lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a translation.”147

Many of the men who translated the King James Version never lived long enough after it was published to see the great impact that this Bible would have. Alexander McClure tells us of this: “The translators little foresaw the vast results and immeasurable influence of what they had thus done, not only for time but for eternity. Venerated men! Their very names are now hardly known to more than a few persons; yet, in the providence of God, the fruit of their labors have spread distant climes; have laid broad and deep the foundations of mighty empires; have afforded to multitudes strength to endure adversity, and grace to resist the temptations of prosperity; and only the revelations of the judgment day can disclose how many millions and millions, through the instrumentality of their labors, have been made wise unto salvation.”148

There is no doubt that the best fruits of Christianity have come from the seeds that the King James Version has scattered. In connection with this it is interesting to note that there has never been a revival associated with any modern version. Churches in North America are being 147 148

McClure, op. cit., 238,239. Ibid, 72,73. 126

flooded with contradictory and conflicting bibles that are producing dry and withered fruit in the lives of the people who use them. This generation is a testament to the fruit of the modern versions149.

149

Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 16. 127

The Technique Is Superior It is important to know that the King James Bible was translated differently from the other versions that are being sold today, such as the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the New English Version, the New King James Version, and the other modern versions. D.A. Waite says, “It is different from other versions. They haven’t used the same techniques.”150 There are two ways that the technique used for the translation of the King James Version is superior to that of the modern versions. They are the superior team technique and the superior translation technique. As we look at the superior team technique it is important to realize that all the books were assigned to each translator to translate on his own. Each one had to translate every book that their group was responsible for the translation of. That is not being done today by the modern version translators. They have a few men who are skilled in some books and a few men who are skilled in others. Many others on the committee are bystanders as far as any actual translation or paraphrasing is concerned. They don’t do anything except, perhaps, check other versions, or smooth out some of the English style. There is a relatively small group of people on these translating committees who actually do the “translating.” There are only a few who are the “brains” of the committee. That was not the case when the King James Bible was translated. Every man on the six companies, some fifty-seven of them in all, had to be so 150

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 17. 128

skilled in the Hebrew books or the Greek books that were assigned to him that he had to translate all of them by himself. They had to know the languages because they had to come in with the translation of those books from the Hebrew or Greek in their own handwriting. This is one of the rules they followed, as we will see in a little bit. Let us look now at the three groups and the two sections that made up each group. Company One, the Westminster Group, Old Testament section had to translate the twelve books from Genesis through II Kings. If you know anything about translating from Hebrew into English you know that it could be months before a person would even be close to completing Genesis. As a matter of fact, it would take some people years, unless they knew Hebrew as well as they knew English. Each man in the group had to personally translate Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, and II Kings - every book. They could not have done this in the time that they had unless they had known the Hebrew language very well. They had to write it out, bring it in, and then defend what they had written. The people that were in this group were: Lancelot Andrews (chairman), William Bedwell, Francis Burleigh, Richard Clarke, Jeffrey King, John Layfield, John Oberall, Hadrain Saravia, Robert Tigue and Richard Thompson. Every one of these men would have to translate these twelve books of the Old Testament on their own. The Westminster Company two, in the New Testament section, had Romans through Jude - twenty-one 129

books. Each one of them had to translate each book on his own. The members of this team were: William Barlow (chairman), William Dakins, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, Michael Rabbett; Thomas Sanderson and John Spenser. In addition, Thomas Bilson was the editor for this company. The Oxford Group, Old Testament section had to translate seventeen books from the Old Testament, from Isaiah through to the end of Malachi. There were eight men on this committee and each one of them had to translate all the books by himself. The men on this committee were: John Harding (chairman), Richard Brett, Daniel Featley, Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, John Reynolds (he was the man that initiated the King James Bible), Miles Smith and William Thorne. In the Oxford Group, New Testament section, they had to translate six books: the four Gospels, Acts and Revelation. The translators were: George Abbot (chairman), John Aglionby, John Harmer, Leonard Hutton, John Perin, Thomas Ravis, Henry Savile and Giles Thomson. The Cambridge Group, Old Testament section had to translate ten books, from I Chronicles to Ecclesiastes. All eight men had to bring their own translation. The translators were: Edward Lively (chairman), Roger Andrews, Andrew Bing, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Thomas Harrison, John Richardson and Robert Spalding. 130

The Apocrypha section from the Cambridge group translated the entire Apocrypha. The translators were: John Duport (chairman), John Bois, William Braithwaite, Andrew Downes, Jeremy Radcliffe, Samuel Ward and Robert Ward. These forty-eight names are listed in the British museum. To these should be added (49) William Thorne, (50) Richard Edes, (51) George Ryves, (52) William Eyre, (53) James Montague, (54) Arthur Lake, (55) Nicholas Love, (56) Ralph Ravens, and (57) Thomas Sparke whose names appear listed as having worked on the King James Bible. This makes fifty-seven translators in all.151 It is important that we take time here to see how these translators viewed the Apocrypha. Early editions of the King James Bible (as well as many Reformation Bibles) contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. Alexander McClure says, “...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture.”152 Bruce Cummons has this to say about the Apocrypha: “Granted, again, we knew this, that in the first edition of the King James Version of 1611, the Apocrypha was included, but not as part of the text, or of the Word of God. In fact, the translators of the KJV 151 152

Ibid, 83-85. McClure, op. cit., 185. 131

explained that the books of the Apocrypha were writings or statements of doubtful authorship, authenticity, or authority, and were known to be spurious, non-canonical books. These were the books outside the Hebrew Bible, and were fictitious and false. They were not printed to be accepted as part of our text, or of the Bible.”153

In the days when the King James Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading on its historical value, though it was not accepted by anyone outside of the Catholic Church as Scripture. This is why the King James translators placed it between the Old and New Testament, for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not mix it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. Samuel Gipp had this to say about the Apocrypha and the King James translators: “That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows: 1. None of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the historians and poets of the Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. 3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scripture by the Jewish church, and therefore were not sanctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the Christian church. 5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three different deaths in as many places. 6. It includes doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for Taken from the booklet God’s Miracle Book: the King James Bible published by People’s Gospel Hour, Halifax, NS, n.d., 11. 132 153

the dead and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.”154

Dick Cimino goes on to say, “It is from the Apocryphal books that the Roman Catholic Church get some of her outlandish, soul-damning, unscriptural, unspiritual doctrines, such as: justification for suicide, purgatory, salvation by donations, cruelty to slaves, and reincarnation. These things are contrary to the Word of God and are found ONLY in these apocryphal books.155 The word “apocrypha” means “hidden,” that is, not suitable for viewing, these books contain teachings that are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Although the Roman Catholic Church has put its seal of approval on these books, Protestants and Baptists have never viewed them as being inspired of God. In the first four centuries A.D., every cataloguing after Christ excluded them. Josephus, the historian, not only ignored them and excluded them from his catalogue, but also took the time to explain that these books had tried to infiltrate the canon but were erroneous. There are no quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament. Jesus Christ set the canon of Old Testament Scripture in Matthew 23:25 and excludes the Apocrypha. You can see very plainly from this that the translators of the King James Version did not view the Apocrypha as inspired, but included it for its historical value only. 154 155

Gipp, op. cit., 99,100. Cimino, The Book, 33. 133

The six companies of translators had before them at all times fifteen rules that were to govern their work. Here is a brief overview of those rules. The first rule instructed them to make the “Bishop’s Bible,” so called, the basis of the work, altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required. In the end, however, the new version agreed much more with the Geneva than with any other. The second rule requires the mode then used of spelling the proper names should be retained as far as might be. The third rule requires “the old ecclesiastical words to be kept,” such as “church” instead of “assembly” or “congregation.” The fourth rule prescribes, that where a word has different meanings, that is to be preferred who has the general sanction of the most Fathers, regard being had to “the property of the place, and the analogy of faith.” The fifth rule directs that the divisions into chapters be altered as little as possible. The sixth rule prohibits all notes and comments, thus obliging the translators to make the version intelligible without those dangerous helps. The seventh rule provides for marginal references to parallel or explanatory passages. The eighth rule says that each man in each company shall separately examine the same chapter or chapters, and put the translation into the best shape he can. The whole company must then come together, and compare what they have done, and agree on what shall stand. Thus in each 134

company, according to the number of the members, there would be from seven to ten carefully labored revisions, the whole to be compared, and digested into one copy of the portion of the Bible assigned to that particular company. Here is the exact wording of rule eight: “Every particular man of every company is to undertake the same chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinketh good, all to meet together to confer when they have done, and agree for their parts what they shall stand.”156

D.A. Waite says, “So, if I take Company one that has to translate from Genesis through II Kings and an average of seven men on that committee, each had to translate every book, every chapter, every verse himself. That was seven different times the portions were looked over. Then they had to meet together and go over it once more - that is the eighth time.”157 The ninth rule says that as soon as any company shall, in this matter, complete any one of the sacred books, it is to be sent to each of the other companies, to be critically reviewed by them all. Gustavus Paine gives us the exact wording of this rule: “As any one company has dispatched any book in this manner they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this point.”158 Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, 71. Waite, op. cit., 86. 158 Paine, op. cit., 71. 135 156

157

D.A. Waite goes on to say, “So when the men looked at it, and then altogether, making eight times, then the first company send it to Companies 2,3,4,5,6. This makes five more times. They interchanged their work. Here you have the material gone over thirteen times; and then at the end they have a final joint meeting of two men from each of the six companies; twelve men. This makes fourteen times the Bible from Genesis to Revelation was translated, analyzed, and corrected. This is a team technique that is unequaled by any modern translators.”159 The tenth rule says, that if any company, upon reviewing a book so sent to them, find any thing doubtful or unsatisfactory, they are to note the places, and their reasons for their objections, and send it back to the company from which it came. If that company should not concur in the suggestions made, the matter was to be finally settled at a general meeting of the chief companies at the end of the work. Thus every part of the Bible would be fully considered, first, separately, by each member of the company to which it was originally assigned; secondly, by the whole company in concert; thirdly, by the other five companies severally; and fourthly, by the general committee of revision. At the end, the final company, including John Bois, that expert who read the Hebrew Bible all the way through when he was five would take care of any problems. Following this pattern, each part of the translation would be carefully scrutinized at least fourteen times. Here is the exact wording of rule ten as given to us by Gustavus Paine: 159

Waite, op. cit., 86. 136

“If any person upon review of the book so sent doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word thereof with the place and withal send the reasons; to which if they consent not the difference be compounded at the general meeting which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the end of the work.”160

The eleventh rule provides that in case of any difficulty or obscurity, letters shall be issued by authority of any learned men in the land, calling for his judgment thereon. This made use of any other “learned men” who were not on the translating committees. This was an excellent team technique. The twelfth rule requires every bishop to notify the clergy of his diocese as to the work in hand, and to “move and charge as many as, being skilled in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send his peculiar observations” to some one of the companies. The thirteenth rule appoints the directors of the different companies. The fourteenth rule names five other translations to be used, “when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible.” These are Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. The object of this regulation was to avoid, as far as possible, the suspicious stamp of novelty. To the careful observance of these rules, which, with the exception of the first five, are highly judicious, is to be ascribed much of the excellence of the completed translation. To these rules, which have been delivered to the 160

Paine, op. cit., 71. 137

translators, there appears to have been added another, providing that, besides the directors of these six companies, “three or four of the most ancient and grave divines in either of the Universities, not employed in translating,,” be designated by Vice-chancellors and Heads of Colleges, “to be overseers of the Translation, as well as Hebrew and Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule.”161 The translators were a team and they worked as a team, after they had first of all worked individually. They were superior translators. They had to be in order to do this translation. We ought to praise God for them and the technique they used which was different from and superior to that used by the translators of the modern versions. Let us look at the words of David Otis Fuller as he sums up what we have just looked at and compares it with the Revisers of 1881: “Thus, when one company had come together, and had agreed on what should stand, after having compared their work, as soon as they had completed one of the sacred books, they sent it to each of the other companies to be critically reviewed. If a later company, upon reviewing the book, found anything, doubtful or unsatisfactory, they noted such places, with their reasons, and sent it back to the company whence it came. If there should be any disagreement, the matter was finally arranged at a general meeting of the chief persons of all companies at the end of the work. It can be seen by this method that each part of the work was carefully gone over at least fourteen times. It was further understood that if there was any special difficulty or obscurity, all the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment. And finally each bishop kept the clergy of 161

McClure, Translators Revived, 67-70. 138

the diocese notified concerning the progress of the work, so that if any one felt constrained to send any particular observations, he was notified to do so. How astonishingly different is this from the method employed by the Revisers of 1881! The Old Testament committee met together and sat as one body secretly for ten years. The New Testament committee did the same. The arrangement left the committee at the mercy of a determined triumvirate to lead the weak and to dominate the rest. All reports indicate that an iron rule of silence was imposed upon these Revisers during the whole time. The public was kept in suspense, all the long, weary ten years, and only after elaborate plans had been made to throw the Revised Version all at once upon the market to effect a tremendous sale, did the world know what had gone on.”162

As we think about the superior translation technique used we learn that it is superior because the King James translators adopted the verbal equivalence and the formal equivalence technique. Verbal equivalence means that the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English. They also use formal equivalence. We have verbs in English. We have nouns, adjectives, prepositions, participles, and so on. If the structure in the Hebrew language was such that it could be brought into the English in the same way, with the same forms, this is what they did. If it was a verb in the original language, it was brought over as a verb instead of changing it to a noun. They avoided what we call dynamic equivalence. D.A. Waite summed this up in his book by saying this: “We believe, and the King James translators believed, that what God 162

Fuller, Which Bible?, 257,258. 139

wants is for His people to have His Words and to “desire the sincere milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby.” WE NEED GOD’S WORDS. In our Bibles, we don’t need man’s words in place of God’s Word for the translation. Commentaries, preachers, and teachers are helpful, but primarily, we need the pure, sincere milk of the Word of God so we will grow up in Christ. Peter also says, “Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The method of growth is by the use of the Word of God so it is very important for us to know what God’s Words are, to grab on to them, to believe them, to let them sink into us, to practice them, to live by them so we can be mature, grown up, able to witness to do God’s Will. Now the problem with all these other versions (including the NIV, NASV, NKJV, and the rest) is that they have purposefully selected a non-verbal equivalence type of translation, a nonformal equivalence type of translation, and a non-literal equivalence type of translation. Instead, to a greater or lesser extent, they have purposefully adopted a dynamic equivalence type of translation. “Dynamic” implies “change” or “movement.” These various versions take a sort of idiomatic rendering from Hebrew or Greek to English. It is idiomatic in that they didn’t take a word-forword method (even when it made good sense), trying to make the words in the Hebrew or Greek equal to the words in English. Instead, they added to what was there, changed what was there and/or subtracted from what was there. If it was a question they might make it a statement, left out words, and so on. They didn’t care, Paraphrase is another word for it.”163

John William Burgon said, “The text of the Holy Scripture does not vary with the weathercock according to the changing winds of individual or general opinion or caprice.”164 This Satanic interference is at the root of all the 163 164

Waite, op. cit., 89,90. Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 67. 140

corruption in the modern versions. Satan has always sought ways in which he may diminish the authority of the Bible in the mind and heart of the believer. Satan is still as much involved in attacking God’s Word as he was back in the Garden of Eden. We can see this through the diabolical principle of dynamic equivalence used in the translation of the modern versions. It is diabolical because Satan is at the root of it. God is very clear about the way He wants His Words to be believed by us. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Let us take a few moments to see how Satan began dynamic equivalence in the Garden of Eden. This is not a new concept; it is as old as the Garden of Eden. In Genesis three, Satan used the dynamic equivalence method of understanding and translating the Word of God. That is, he made a loose paraphrase of what God’s Words were to Adam and Eve. Notice first of all, the diabolical principle of subtraction. Let us compare what God said with what Satan said: notice how Satan subtracts from the Word of God: Genesis 3:1 - “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

Satan, through the serpent, asked: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Now if you take that as it is, it would mean, “Isn’t it true that God 141

said you could eat of every tree of the garden?” He subtracted something from the Word of God because that wasn’t what God had said at all. In Genesis 2:16,17 you will find what God said to Adam: Genesis 2:16,17 - “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Notice how Satan subtracted from the Word of God. Dynamic equivalence is diabolical because it follows the Devils’ method of subtracting from the words of God.165 It is also important that we note the diabolical principle of change. In Genesis 3:4, Satan clearly denies what God has very clearly said. It is a direct denial of God’s Words. Notice what Satan says in Genesis 3:4: Genesis 3:4 - “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:”

Notice what God had said in Genesis 2:17: Genesis 2:17 - “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Would you not agree with me that this is a change to the Word of God? Now, Satan is changing the Word of God. He is denying what God has very clearly said. He is calling God a liar. This is dynamic equivalence. It is diabolical because it not only subtracts from, but 165

Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 91. 142

changes the Word of God.166 We should note also the diabolical principle of addition. Note how Satan adds to the Word of God in Genesis 3:5 when he is talking to Eve. Genesis 3:5 - “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Did God say anything about their eyes being opened? He didn’t say a word about that in Genesis 2:17. He just said, “...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Notice also in Genesis 3:2,3: Genesis 3:2,3 - “And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Adam could have built a tree house in the tree. He could have eaten a picnic under it. He could have leaned up against it and had a nap. God did not say anything about them touching it. In these verses we find that Eve added to the Word of God (“neither shall ye touch it”), she changed the Word of God (“lest ye die”); God said, “Thou shalt surely die,” She also misinterpreted the Word of God when she said 166

Ibid, 92. 143

that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the midst of the garden. The Bible tells us that it was the tree of life that was in the midst of the garden (Genesis 2:9) and God never gave them any instructions that they could not eat from the tree of life before they fell. Eve is a good example of dynamic equivalence and the dangers of it. These three things: subtracting, changing, and adding to the Word of God, are the essence and heart of dynamic equivalency in its approach to translation. It’s not translation, but changing the Word of God. It is pure paraphrase.167 Essentially, with dynamic equivalency any textual base will do. “If you take a dynamic equivalence approach to translation as a technique instead of verbal equivalence or formal equivalence - that is, the forms and words being rendered from Hebrew or Greek into English as closely as possible - if you take the position that it really doesn’t matter what the words are, what difference does it make what text you use? What difference does the Hebrew or Greek text make? You can change it anytime you wish. If you can add to it anytime you wish, subtract from it anytime you wish, and change it any time you wish, who cares about what text you start with, whether it’s the proper one or not? Who cares about the quality of the translators and their ability and credentials to translate properly from Hebrew or Greek to English? You don’t need any degrees or education to add, subtract, or change the Word of God as the devil did in the Garden of Eden. If Satan could do it, 167

Ibid, 93. 144

anybody could do it. So who cares about the proper text? Who cares about the proper translators if they use this dynamic equivalence technique of translation? They can change it at will.168 This is exactly what has happened in the modern versions. In the New King James Version there are over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalence (additions, subtractions, and changes to the Word of God). In the New American Standard Version there are over 4,000 examples of dynamic equivalence. There are over 6,653 examples of dynamic equivalence in the New International Version. It is high time that we recognize the danger of these modern versions. Since dynamic equivalence is so common in the modern versions, it would be fitting for us to ask the question, “What does God think about dynamic equivalence?” Does the Bible have anything to say about this? Let us look very briefly at some Bible passages against dynamic equivalence. Here are a few verses that forbid “adding to” the Words of God. In these verses God has given us a warning: Don’t TOUCH that Bible! Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command you, observe to 168

Ibid, 98. 145

do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Proverbs 30:6 - Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Here are some verses that forbid any “taking away” from the words of God: Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Jeremiah 26:2 - Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word: Revelation 22:19 - 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.

Here are a few verses that forbid any “changing” of the words of God by turning to the “right hand” or to the “left hand.” Deuteronomy 5:32,33 - Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right 146

hand or to the left. 33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 - And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel. Deuteronomy 28:13,14 - And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: 14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them. Joshua 1:7, 8 - Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. II Kings 22:2 - And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left. 147

Words are what God wants to get into our heads and our hearts - not just ideas, concepts, or thoughts as the dynamic equivalence people say. Their technique is to forget about the words, just bringing the thought, the concept, or the idea over into English. God places a great importance on His words as the following verses teach. Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 8:3 - And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Romans 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

These are just a few of the verses among many that God uses to show us the value that He places on His Words. There are many other verses in the Word of God in regards to this that the reader is advised to look up and study. This was also covered earlier under the inspiration and preservation section of this study. 148

The Theology Is Superior As we look at the theology of the modern versions, we are going to focus mainly on the New International Version and the New King James Version, as these are the two most commonly used versions today. Many of the other versions have already passed into nonexistence or are going in that direction. This tells me automatically that these versions were not the Word of God for God tells us that His Word will not pass away.169 It is a fact that in the 1881 Revision, and every Revision since that time, there have been serious intrusions into a number of places where fundamental doctrines are challenged. The sad truth of it is, “Many have gone over to the new Bibles without realizing that an awfully lot more is involved than the question of Modern English. The entire fabric has been affected! The underlying text is substantially different. The philosophy and methodology of the translators is in marked contrast to that of the Authorized Version. The English of the new versions is assumed at first to be ‘easier,’ but whether it is actually more readable, authoritative, and conducive to meditation, study, and memorization is quite another matter.”170 The very translations these men claim will clear up any unclearness are causing more damage than they realize. 169

Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. See also Psalm 12:6,7; Isaiah 40:8 and I Peter 1:23-25. 170 Moorman, Missing in Modern Versions - Is the Full Story Being Told?, 1 149

For every verse or word “clarified” in these new translations, two new problems are created. I am more convinced than ever before that God gave us the King James Bible - and that it would be far better for us to expand our vocabulary in order to understand its terminology than to attempt to continually re-write the Bible to suit those who will not be able to understand it anyway apart from the new birth or for Christians who are too lazy to study. It is true that some English words have changed their meaning and others are no longer in common usage. But it is amazing to find that in these days of progress when children are supposed to be more intelligent than their parents that they are having a problem when it comes to understanding the King James Bible - the very same Bible our grandparents used as a reading primer. “A fresh experience with the Lord of the Emmaus Road will open the Scriptures to the weary disciple better than any new translation. You will be able to say with the Psalmist; ‘Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.’ (Psalm 119:8). Then we can say one to another, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:32). He cannot talk with us by the way unless we have ‘esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food’ (Job 23:12), and ‘searched the Scriptures’ (Acts 17:11), and our ‘delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night’ (Psalm 1:2). Then we will be able to say with David, ‘I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy law 150

hath been my meditation’ (Psalm 119:99).”171 Is the King James Version really harder to understand? It is not according to studies that people have done. In fact, “the King James Version is the easiest to read of all the translations available. According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator the King James Bible is rated for reading at a 5.8 grade level. The New International Versions is at an 8.4 grade level. The New American Standard Version is at a 6.1 grade level. Today’s English Version is at a 7.2 grade level and the New King James at a 6.9 grade level.”172 Mentally handicapped children from the Shepherd’s Home in their Christmas program memorized all their Bible verses from the King James Bible. Why can’t the rest of us understand it that go to elementary school, high school, graduate school and/or seminary. I Corinthians 2:14 states, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The truth of the matter is “there are only 618 words in the King James Bible out of 791,328 that have changed their meaning since 1611.”173 Finally, our selection of a Bible should not be decided upon by how easy it is to read and understand, or by how much “scholarship” was involved in its development, or whether or not it is recommended by popular religious leaders. The primary 171

Cimino, op. cit., 140. Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Shelbyville, TN: Bible and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1993), 196. 173 Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 1. 151 172

question should be, “Is this the Word of God?” There is no doubt that the authority of the Scriptures has been eroded in the hearts and minds of people. “Whosoever attempts to shake the confidence of the common people in the common version (King James Version), puts their faith in imminent peril of shipwreck.”174 Not only is the King James Version easier to read but it is also purer in its teachings of theology as we shall see in this section. Not only are the new versions weak in theology but they also belittle the person and work of Christ. Notice what Dick Cimino says in relation to this: “Whenever these translators and revisers have a choice of two words: one that will glorify the Person and Work of Christ, and the other one low-rating Him, by some strange quirk, they ALWAYS choose the ‘low-rating’ word. Yet in the prefaces they glow with all sweetness and light. Butter would not melt in their mouths. You would think they were ready to fly off to glory. Then it is that we realize that ‘with their tongues they have used deceit’ (Romans 3:13).”175

“Some people may say that they can find the fundamentals in other bibles. Therefore, how can they be bad? What we need to realize is that any fundamental found in any version is found purer and more frequently in the King James Bible thus making the King James the best of the field. Many people who claim that they can find the fundamentals in other versions forget that the very 174

175

McClure, Translators Revived, 249. Cimino, op. cit., 125. 152

fundamentals which they claim to be able to find were originally taught them from a King James Bible. Following are just a few of the doctrines that can be found in other versions, but found in a weaker state than in the King James Bible. 1. The deity of Christ is watered down in Acts 3:13,26, 4:27,30 in the New King James Version and the New American Standard Version where Jesus is called God’s ‘servant’ instead of God’s ‘Son.’ 2. The doctrine of hell is watered down in Luke 16:23 in the New King James Version and the New American Standard Version where they translate it ‘hades’ instead of ‘hell.’ 3. The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch is eliminated in the New International Version and the New American Standard Version where Acts 8:37 is removed from the text. 4. The ascension of Jesus Christ is left out of Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version. 5. The virgin birth of Christ is denied in the New International Version and the New American Standard Version in Luke 2:33 where Joseph is called Jesus’ father. 6. The doctrine of the trinity is either removed or questioned in I John 5:7 where the New American Standard Version and the New International Version remove the verse and then split verse 6 and manufacture a false verse seven and in the New King James Version where a note case doubt on its authenticity.”176 176

Gipp, The Answer Book, 93,94. 153

“Many Christians try to evade the issue of whether or not there really is a perfect Bible by piously hiding behind the statement, ‘I don’t make an issue of Bible translations.’ It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you are consistent in your stand...or lack of it. In other words, if the issue if a perfect Bible is a ‘non-issue’ with you, then to be consistent, neither should ANY of the following: 1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ - Isaiah 7:14. 2. The deity of Jesus Christ - I John 5:5. 3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ - Romans 5:8. 4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ - I Corinthians 15:4. 5. Salvation by grace alone without works Ephesians 2:8,9. 6. The pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ - I Thessalonians 4. 7. The existence of a literal heaven - John 3:13. 8. The existence of a literal hell - Mark 9:42-44. 9. The acceptance of creation over the theory of evolution - Genesis 1:1. This is by no means a comprehensive list of convictions held by those who call themselves ‘fundamentalists.’ Yet every one is taken from the Bible. How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the Bible, but see ‘no issue’ concerning the perfection of the Book on which they base their very issue? If the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure it is correct in 154

those passages on which we base our convictions? Some may say, ‘I accept the Bible where it is accurately translated.’ Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in the world! Furthermore, WHO is the judge just where the Bible is ‘accurately translated?’ No, it is impossible to make ‘any issue’ over even one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an ‘issue’ over the Bible itself.”177 “Would it make any difference if you knew that the New Testament in your modern version did not have First and Second Peter? Yet if the total number of missing words were added up, this is how much shorter the modern versions are than the King James Version. Is it a cause for concern if the names of Christ are missing 176 times (in the New Testament alone), or if the word ‘hell’ is not found in the Old Testament, or if key doctrinal passages have been diminished?”178 We will see that this is exactly what has happened as we look at the following pages. “The following whole verses have been omitted from the New International Version text: Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24 and I John 5:7. There are 147 other verses that have considerable portions of them removed in the NIV. They are as follows: Matthew 5:44; 6:13; 15:6,8; 19:9; 20:7,16,22,23; 25:13; 177 178

Ibid, 141,142 Moorman, op. cit.,1. 155

27:35; 28:9; Mark 1:42; 6:11,33; 7:8; 8:26; 9:38,45,49; 10:21,24; 11:8,10,23; 12:23,29,30,33; 13:14; 14:19,27,68,70; Luke 1:28; 4:4,8,18; 5:38; 7:31; 8:43,45,48,54; 9:54,55,56; 11:2,4,11,44,54; 17:9; 18:24; 19:45; 20:23,30; 22:64,68; 23:23,28; 24:1,42; John 1:27; 3:13,15; 5:3,16; 6:11,22;47; 8:9,10, 59; 10:26; 11:41; 12:1; 16:16; 17:12; 19:16; Acts 2:30; 7:37; 9:5,6; 10:6,21,32; 13:42; 15:18,24; 18:21; 20:15; 21:8,22,25; 23:9; 24:6,8,26; 26:30; 28:16; Romans 8:1; 9:28; 10:15; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6,21; 15:24; I Corinthians 6:20; 10:28; 11:24; Galatians 3:1; Ephesians 3:14; 5:30; Philippians 3:16; Colossians 1:2,14; 3:6; I Thessalonians 1:1; I Timothy 3:3; 6:5,7; Hebrews 2:7; 3:6; 7:21; 8:12; 10:30; 11:11,13; 12:20; I Peter 4:14; I John 4:3; 5:13; Revelation 1:8,11; 5:14; 11:1,17; 14:5; 15:2; 21:24. Having limited this survey to the New Testament alone, the cited passages constitute a total omission of 1,284 words. The imagery of the Zondervan ad would consign these words of the Living God to unquenchable fire. The day is surely coming when the NIV Committee, Zondervan’s cooperating bookstores and their customers will give an accounting for their actions in light of Revelation 22:19, 179And 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.” There are also many other things that are either wrong or missing in the NIV. For example, any child who 179

Grady, Final Authority, 288. 156

has attended Sunday School knows who killed Goliath, the giant of Gath180. The NIV committee did not know the answer to this however. In II Samuel 21:19 it say that Jaareororegim, the Bethlehemite killed Goliath. Also, did you know that there is no longer a “mercy seat” in the NIV” It seems that they all have an allergy problem with such truths as heaven, deity, the virgin birth, hell, as well as other things. Here are some other things that appear in the King James Bible but are absent from the NIV: Words in KJB Times in NIV advocate 0 chaste/chasten 0 concupiscence 0 sodomite/sodomites 0 carnal/carnally 0 impute/imputed/imputeth 0 fornicator(s)/ fornication(s) 0 abide/abideth/abiding 0181 180

181

Times in theKJV 1 3 3 3 14 13 40 114

Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 17. Waite, op. cit., 129. 157

It is interesting to note how the NIV translators viewed sodomy. See Deuteronomy 23:17; I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7 and I Corinthians 6:9. I wonder if this attitude would have anything to do with the fact that they had homosexuals and sodomites on their translating committee.182 This is a reference to Dr. Marten Woudstra (Chairman of the NIV Old Testament committee) and Virginia Mollenkott (a stylist and consultant for the NIV). They call homosexuals and sodomites shrine prostitutes instead. Can somebody please tell me what a shrine prostitute is? There are no shrine prostitutes that I know of in Canada, but our country is full of sodomites. Now let us look at some of the other doctrines that are affected in the modern versions. Please note that this is not a complete listing of verses, but rather a listing that shows that every doctrine has been affected in the modern versions. Some of my notes will be talking about the removal of the text through the footnote. Putting a footnote at the bottom of the page or in the margin is doing the same thing that Satan did in Genesis 3:1 - casting doubt on the Word of God183. Theology Proper (The Doctrine of the Godhead) I John 5:7,8 - “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 182 183

Schönhaar, op. cit., 119. Ibid, 9. 158

“The italicized portion is eliminated in the following English versions: New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version.”184 Ecclesiology (The Doctrine of the Church) Revelation 2:15 - “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.” The italicized portion is eliminated from the following English versions: New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. “The fact that Jesus Christ ‘HATES’ this practice is theologically important. The Nicolaitans were ‘conquerors of the people’ and held a form of church government such as the Roman Catholic system where the clergy makes the decisions leaving the congregation little or no authority.”185 Angelology (The Doctrine of Angels) Luke 22:43 - “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” The italicized portion is eliminated from the New King James Version footnotes. This verse shows the strengthening, heavenly angel assisting the Lord Jesus. Satanology (The Doctrine of Satan) 184 185

Waite, op. cit., 138. Ibid. 159

Luke 4:8 - “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” “This italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnote, and the New Berkley Version. This passage clearly shows the power of Christ to order and command Satan to obey Him.”186 Bibliology (The Doctrine of the Bible) 1. The Denial of Mark 16:9-20. If you look at Mark 16:15, which is the Great Commission, in the New American Standard Version it comes in a section that has brackets around it and says: “Some of the oldest manuscripts omit verses 9 through 20.” Casting doubt, they take out the Great Commission in Mark 16:15. This is a doctrinal deviation and change. What do they do in the New International Version? Again it comes in a section which has been separated from the first eight verses by a black line. As far as the New Testament translators are concerned, Mark 16 ends at verse 8. Then they print verses nine though twenty and there is a footnote: “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” In other words, Mark 16:15 doesn’t even exist as far 186

Ibid, 139. 160

as the “most reliable” manuscripts are concerned. The question then is: Are these verses the Word of God or not? If they are not the Word of God, then why did God permit them to stand in the Bible for nineteen centuries? On the other hand, if they are the Word of God, then who is trying to eliminate them and why? The “oldest manuscripts” that are referred to in these notes is Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The fact that every uncial manuscript (except Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) contains this passage as do over 600 cursive manuscripts. To say that “most” manuscripts omit this is a blatant lie! Both of these manuscripts pulled off a neat trick in this spot. Here are the words of Dick Cimino as he tells us about it: “The Vatican copy stops short at the end of verse eight. BUT THE COPYIST LEFT A BLANK SPACE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMADATE THE MISSING VERSES. It seems that the copyist knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. In the Sinai copy the double page containing the end of Mark and beginning of Luke was REMOVED AT AN EARLY DATE and replaced with the four sides rewritten to EXCLUDE MARK 16:9-20! By slightly increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke 1. He filled in the remainder of the last line with an ornamental flourish to make sure that no addition could be made without being immediately evident. Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinai copy, alleged that these pages were written by THE COPYIST OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT! Here it is right from the horse’s mouth!”187 187

Cimino, The Book, 134,135. 161

2. The Denial of John 7:53-8:11. “The New International Version, the New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version either bracket these verses or set them apart in some way from the text. Their footnotes question or doubt outright their authenticity. There are many doctrines mentioned in these verses, all of which are doubted in this place.”188 3. The Denial of the Historicity and Prophetic Role of Daniel. Mark 13:14 - “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. The removal of these words denies that Daniel was the author of the book of Daniel. It also denies that Daniel was a ‘prophet,’ lending credence to the heresy of the modernists, liberals, and apostates who claim Daniel is merely post-written history rather than pre-written prophecy.”189 4. The Denial of the Value of Bible Words. Luke 4:4 - “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is 188 189

Waite, op. cit., 141. Ibid. 162

written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” “This italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. The Lord Jesus Christ is exalting ‘EVERY WORD OF GOD’ to the Devil. The omission of these words changes the whole teaching of the verse.”190 Eschatology (The Doctrine of Last Things or Prophecy) 1. The Denial of the Return of Christ Matthew 25:13 - “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. With these words gone, the clear reference to the return of Christ is gone from the verse. This is a serious omission!”191 2. The Denial of the Resurrection of People. Mark 12:23 - “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version and the New American Standard Version. These words clarify the sort of ‘resurrection’ that 190 191

Ibid, 142. Ibid, 145. 163

is referred to. It is one where people will ‘rise’ in a literal and bodily sense.”192 3. The Denial of Degrees in Future Punishment. Mark 6:11 - “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. These words have always been used by sound Bible teachers to indicate that there will be ‘degrees’ of punishment in hell, based on the light received by the unbelievers in their lifetime.”193 4. The Denial of the Recipients of Future Judgment. Colossians 3:6 - “For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version and the New American Standard Version. This verse indicates clearly the exact recipients of God’s wrath and judgment. It also indicates that God considers some to be ‘children of disobedience.’”194 5. The Denial that the Earth Will Be Burned Up. 192

Ibid, 146. Ibid. 194 Ibid, 147. 193

164

II Peter 3:10 - “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” The italicized portion is altered in the New International Version and the New King James Version footnotes. Instead of the words ‘burned up,’ the words ‘laid bare’ are used. There is a big difference between ‘burned up’ and ‘laid bare.’195 6. The Denial that Christ Will Be Judge. Romans 14:10 - “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” “The italicized portion is altered in the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. Instead of the words ‘judgment seat of Christ,’ the words ‘judgment seat of God’ or ‘God’s judgment’ are used. Since the context concerns ‘brethren,’ it must be the ‘judgment seat of Christ.’ ‘God’s judgment’ refers to the judgment of ‘the great white throne’ which is for unsaved people.”196 The Denial of Hell 1. The Denial of the Reality of Perishing in Hell. 195 196

loc. cit. Ibid, 148. 165

John 3:15 - “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. By the removal of ‘should not perish,’ the very reality of hell has been taken away from the verse.”197 2. The Denial of Literal Fire in Hell. Mark 9:44,46 - “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. Both these verses are omitted in their entirety. Both these verses teach clearly that hell is a place of unquenchable, literal fire.198 Some simply translate sheol as “death’ or “grave.” The Jehovah’s Witness “Bible” does this and so does the New International Version. The New King James Version translates “grave” as “hades” I Corinthians 15:55, thus making the grave and hell the same thing. This is exactly what many of the cults teach. In fact, the same rendering is found in the New World Translation (the Jehovah’s Witness bible). Hell is completely taken out of the Old Testament in the NIV. In the New Testament hell is found 22 times in the King James Version and 13 times in the 197 198

loc. cit. loc. cit. 166

NIV. Modern versions may be trying to water down hell, but it is still as hot as it ever was. 3. The Denial of the Everlasting Nature of Hell. Mark 3:29 - “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:” “The italicized word is altered in the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, and the New Berkley Version. They have ‘sin’ instead of ‘damnation.’ As you can see, the two terms are quite different.”199 II Peter 2:17 - “These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.” “The italicized portion is eliminated in the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. To eliminate the words ‘for ever’ is to eliminate also the eternality of eternal judgment in hell.”200 The Denial of a Literal Heaven Luke 11:2 - “And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” 199 200

Ibid, 149. loc. cit. 167

“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. To take away the word ‘heaven’ in two separate places in this verse certainly reveals a theological perversion of the above texts and versions.”201 Hebrews 10:34 - “For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. To take away the words ‘in heaven’ takes away the reality of the place.202 Revelation 16:17 - “And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.” “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New Berkley Version. By removing the words, ‘of heaven,’ you take away the location of the temple.”203 Soteriology (The Doctrine of Salvation) 1. The Denial that Salvation Is By Faith Rather Than 201

loc. cit. Ibid, 150. 203 Ibid, 151. 202

168

By Growth. I Peter 2:2 - “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:” “The italicized portion is changed in the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. They change the words ‘grow thereby’ to something like ‘grow into salvation.’ This clearly teaches salvation by growth which is false.”204 2. The Denial of Christ’s Substitutionary, Vicarious Atonement. I Corinthians 5:7 - “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:” “The italicized portion is changed in the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. They leave off ‘for us’ which teaches Christ’s substitutionary, vicarious atonement. 3. The Denial of Redemption by the Blood. Colossians 1:14 - “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” “The italicized portion is eliminated in the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. The omission 204

Ibid, 152. 169

of ‘through his blood’ removes the source of God’s redemption and gives aid and comfort to the host of liberals, modernists, and apostates who have despised that blood down through the centuries.”205 4. The Denial of Salvation and Redemption Only in Christ. John 6:47 - “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” “The italicized portion is eliminated in the New International Version, New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version footnotes. This is perhaps, one of the CLEAREST theological errors in these three versions. To make salvation only a matter of ‘believing’ rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse, ‘believing on me,’ is truly ‘ANOTHER GOSPEL!” If you were trying to lead someone to Christ with one of these three versions, using this verse, they could ‘believe’ in anything and still have ‘everlasting life’ -whether in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, in Rudolph the rednosed reindeer, or in any of the false world religions. This is SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION!”206 Romans 1:16 - “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” “This italicized portion is eliminated from the New International Version, New American Standard Version, 205 206

Ibid, 154. Ibid, 155,156. 170

New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley Version. It is not merely the ‘gospel’ that Paul was unashamed of, but it was the ‘gospel of Christ.” There were (and are) many false ‘gospels.’”207 Christology (The Doctrine of Christ) 1. The Denial That “God” Was Manifest in the Flesh. I Timothy 3:16 - “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” In the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION they say, “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,” Where is the word “God”? Who is “He?” To whom are they referring? They have taken the Greek word “theos” (God and changed it to “hos” which is a relative pronoun which means “HE WHO” or “THE ONE WHO.”) The miracle of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ is: GOD was manifested in the flesh. “He appeared in a body” doesn’t say anything about the incarnation. Every one of us has appeared in a body. We’re not “GOD” appearing in a body, manifest in a body. Theologically there is error in the New International Version. What does it say in the New American Standard Version? Again, this is a textual change, but also a deadly theological change. 207

Ibid, 156. 171

“Great is the mystery of godliness: HE who was revealed in the flesh...” Not “GOD” - God is gone from the New American Standard Version and the New International Version here. With the omission of the word “God” the passage become almost meaningless. Of some 254 manuscripts that contain I Timothy 3:16, 252 read “God was manifest in the flesh.” The weight of the evidence (252 to 2) supports the reading of the KJV. Micah 5:2 in the NIV states that Jesus Christ has an origin which is a lie. The blood is removed from the NIV in Acts 17:26 and Colossians 1:14. The deity of Christ is weakened in Mark 1:1; John 6:69; Acts 8:37; 20:28; Romans 9:5; I Corinthians 15:47; I Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 1:8.208 2. The Denial of the Bodily Ascension of Christ. Luke 24:51 - “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” Now the New American Standard Version has: “And it came to pass while he was blessing them he parted from them.” Is that what your Bible has? The phrase “carried up into heaven” is missing. As far as the New American Standard Version is concerned, the ascension is gone here. Christ has not ascended into heaven. They may have other verses that teach that He has, but not this one. 208

Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 55-57. 172

3. The Denial of the Virgin Birth of Christ. Luke 2:33 - “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.” The New American Standard Version says, “and His FATHER and mother.” Joseph is indicated as being Jesus’ “FATHER.” The virgin birth is denied by this rendering of the New American Standard Version. Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ “FATHER”; the Holy Spirit was His father. In the New International Version it reads, “the child’s FATHER and mother.” “JOSEPH” is in the Greek text, “JOSEPH” is correct. The NIV and all modern versions contain extremely few texts that declare that Jesus is God, mainly because they corrupt the texts that do. When the rulers attacked Jesus’ virgin birth (John 8:41), Jesus said, “Ye are of your father the devil (John 8:44). 4. The Modern Versions Make Jesus a Sinner. “Some of the modern versions take out “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22, which if true, makes Jesus Christ, the sinless, spotless, Lamb of God, guilty of SIN, for He was angry on two occasions (Mark 3:5; John 2:15-17). In the first instance, Jesus was angry with the hardness of the hearts of the Pharisees. In the second instance, he was angry with those who turned God’s house of prayer into a den of thieves. Now, if you leave out “without a cause” 173

Jesus is a sinner and therefore cannot be the Savior.”209 “Alas, this is what most proponents of the modern versions do. They lightly dismiss the charge that the critical text is theologically corrupt. They lightly dismiss the vast differences between the critical text and the Received Text. The omission and questioning of four dozen entire verses means little or nothing to modern version proponents. The omission of thousands of words appears to mean almost nothing.”210 There are other verses that could be looked at, but I believe that this is sufficient to prove that the modern versions are Christ-denying perversions of the Word of God. One would have to have his head in the sand to miss the extent of satanic interference. The Sword of the Spirit has been placed on the shelf and replaced by the butter knife of the flesh, which has been used to spread the peanut butter and jelly gospel on the lives of needy people211. Is it any wonder that people are not seeing their need of Christ! The Trinitarian Bible Society publication The Bible a Sure Foundation concludes with this observation: “The spate of modern versions with their numerous omissions and startling innovations breeds confusion, doubt, misunderstanding and division, and a great uncertainty as to which of all the modern versions, if any, sets forth the

Cimino, The Book, 72. Cloud, op. cit., 51. 211 Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 122. 174 209

210

Word of God.”212 I am convinced that the mind-boggling multiplicity of modern version and the ever changing, never-to-besettled Greek text has been a key factor in the rampant apostasy that has swept through the churches in the last 100 years. We should keep in mind that the only church in Revelation that the Lord Jesus did not command to repent was the church that had kept His Word (Revelation 3:8). It seems highly unlikely to me that a man of God would purposely alter the Word of God.

212

Cloud, op. cit., 59. 175

Conclusion These versions remind me of the Athenians, “(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)” (Acts 17:21). I assume that if you are a saved, born again child of God, you will not get excited about anything said about those who do not hold a very high opinion of the Word of God, who consider it a book like any other book. As we begin to conclude our study, Dick Cimino sums it up very well, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter... (Ecclesiastes 12:13). It has been said, “ANY translation or version of the Scriptures that WEAKENS the wording that Jesus is THE SON OF GOD, that GOD IS HIS FATHER, and that JESUS IS GOD - and not merely the SON OF MAN; ANY - and I don’t care WHICH translation it is that MINIMIZES or PUTS A DOUBT as to WHO JESUS IS - the VERY SON OF GOD - is a translation produced by UNBELIEVERS and BIBLE DENIERS in the DEITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST and they will “DIE IN THEIR SINS” (John 8:24), for God’s estimation of HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON is as high as the throne of God for ‘God hath HIGHLY EXALTED HIM, and given Him a NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME’ (Philippians 2:9-11). When Elisha told Namaan to go and dip seven times in the Jordan River, instead of dramatically performing some hair raising incantations, he was sizzling under the collar (see II Kings 5:1-18). He stormed away saying, ‘I thought...’(verse 11). Who cares what Namaan thought? GOD SAID IT! I like the statement I read awhile ago, ‘Do not tell me what God’s Word means; tell me what it says.’ Who cares what Namaan thought? What did God, through Elisha, say? Who cares what the Bible critiques (I mean critics) think about the miracles, the blood atonement, Jesus ascending to heaven, His 176

deity, His virgin birth, and other precious teachings of the Word of God. Tell me, what does the Bible say?”213

He also says this, “With all due respect (Romans 13:6-9) to the NATURAL TALENTS OF Ellicott, Trench, Lange, Driver, Lightfoot, Alford, Tischendorf, Greisback, Lachmann, Tregelles, Barnes, and a host of others - a pack of Amillennial, Post-millennial Bible denying ‘guessers’ - one must be compelled to say that the King James Version, stands like snowcapped Mt. Everest above their Bible Tower of Babel, erected by piling up notes, criticisms, suggestions, interpolations, emendations, approvals, transpositions, exegesis and expositions, The King James Version is the Book of books. All the new versions have an ANTI-CHRISTIAN and PROCATHOLIC prejudice against the Greek text of the Reformation. The motive of the Revisers - bar none - is NOT for ‘greater accuracy,’ ‘clearer language,’ or a ‘better rendering.’ It is to REPLACE the Greek Received Text of the early New Testament Church with the Vatican text of the 4th Century, North African Church.”214

Let us end this part of the conclusion with an excellent quote from Edward F. Hills, “In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them whether it pleases God or not. ‘We want a Bible version in our own idiom’ they clamor. ‘We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way that we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated than ourselves, with a limited vocabulary, and a taste for modern slang.' And having thus registered their preference, they go their several 213 214

Cimino, op. cit., 149,150. Ibid, 122,123. 177

ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others compromise by using the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. Most of them, however, go all out for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible. And they do not stop there. More and more in ‘evangelical’ circles the trend is to do without the Scriptures altogether and to rely on gospel music, Christian films, tapes, counseling and psychology to do the work that only the Bible can do. But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and the Bible version which you use is not a matter for you to decide according to your whims and prejudices. It has already been decided for you by the workings of God’s special providence. If you ignore this providence and choose to adopt one of these modern versions, you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. This naturalistic textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament in the same way in which we study the texts of secular books which have not been preserved by God’s special providence. In other words, naturalistic textual criticism regards the special, providential preservation of the Scriptures as of no importance for the study of the New Testament text. But if we conclude this, then it follows that the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is likewise unimportant. For why is it important that God would infallibly inspire the Scriptures, if it is not important that He should preserve them by His special providence? And this leads to the conclusion that the Gospel is not important. For why is the Gospel important, if it is not important that the Bible which contains the Gospel should be infallibly inspired and providentially preserved? Are you not willfully blind, then, dear brother, if you refuse to admit that the use of modern versions leads to modernism? How then do we find the Bible version that pleases God? By reversing the naturalistic reasoning, by beginning with Christ and the Gospel and proceeding according to the logic of faith. Since the 178

Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel is infallibly inspired. And since the Bible is infallibly inspired, it has been preserved down through the ages by God’s special providence, not secretly in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves, but publicly in the usage of the God’s churches, the Old Testament through the Old Testament priesthood and the New Testament through the New Testament priesthood, namely the universal priesthood of believers. Moreover, the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing, for why would God preserve the sacred text at one time and not at another time? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, and this text is therefore a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely inspired original text. And so is the King James Version and all faithful versions of the Textus Receptus. Hence today and for the foreseeable future the King James Version is the Bible in English that truly pleases God. Taking our stand, therefore, on this true Bible text, we make God and His revelation of Himself in holy Scripture the starting point of all our thinking and all our actions. In the realm of Biblical textual criticism, Biblical introduction, apologetics, theology, philosophy, science, and politics we proclaim our Christian faith to all the world not as a probability but as a certainty. It is only in this way that we can do our duty to God and to our country. It is only in this way that we can demonstrate our loyalty to Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”215

Scripture has given to us a test by which we can judge the various versions. We are told by the Lord Jesus Christ that “BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM” (Matthew 7:20). With this in mind let us look at the fruit of the modern versions in comparison with the fruit of the King James Version. Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1967), 226-228. 179 215

The Textus Receptus (the Greek text which underlies the King James Version) was the text of the early churches. By it, the Good News of Jesus Christ was spread. It is the text of generations of Bible-believing Christians; many of them were persecuted and martyred in its defense. While God was conquering the world with the Textus Receptus, the Codex Vaticanus was rotting away on a shelf. Westcott and Hort would have us believe that the Word of God was preserved in only two manuscripts, one of which was hidden away, unused by God or man, and the other of which was picked out of a trash can! Which text did God use? Which text did God honor? For almost four centuries, the King James Version has been recognized as the God-honored, life changing, Christ-exalting, time-tested, fruit bearing Word of the Lord God Almighty. Many people have read, memorized, used and believed this book more than any other book in the world. It is responsible for great revivals, great missionary work and the salvation of untold millions. What is the fruit of the modern versions? How is it that with dozens of them on the market (and each one claiming to be a better Bible) that they cannot produce a fraction of the fruit of the God-honored King James Version? Does God honor them? Would God permit His Word to go bankrupt (A.S.V.)? Does God need a Madison Square “hype” job to promote His Word (see the ad campaigns for the N.I.V., N.A.S.V., etc.)? 180

The Revised Version (1881) was replaced by the American Standard Version (1901), which was replaced by the Revised Standard Version (1952), which was replaced by the New International Version (1973). Each of these versions was supposedly more “readable” and more “accurate” than the King James Version. Yet, as a whole they have been toppling over like dominoes while the “archaic,” “inaccurate” King James Version continues to stand. It has borne God the fruit of generations of soulwinning believers. Norman Ward had this to say about the fruit of these versions, “The average life of these versions is less than a generation. That is, within one generation the church has rejected them. During the same period, the old A.V. 1611 has continued to outsell every other Bible on the market. The body of Christ might be tempted to investigate a modern version, but the consistent witness of history is that the church will reject that version within one generation. The only Bible which has been in continuous use in the Protestant church is the A.V. 1611.”216 I will add that it has been the only Bible used by

Baptists as well. What is the fruit of the modern versions? Their “fruit” is a generation of Christians who are told the Word of God does not exist today. Their “fruit” is ministers who have been stripped of their authority to preach the Word. Their “fruit” is watered down doctrine, relaxed morals, confusion and doubt. “BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.” The modern versions are the evil fruit of a corrupt 216

Ward, Famine in the Land, 50. 181

tree. Their fruits are the ungodly theories and perverted text of two unsaved men who did not believe the Bible to begin with, who denied the work of the Holy Spirit and who held the truth in unrighteousness. They have denied the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the miracles and the deity of Christ among other things. Their seed is apostasy, confusion and doubt, which they got from their father, the Devil (see Genesis 3). “It should be of deep concern to all of us that more Biblical illiteracy exists even among the people of God than we wish to admit.”217 God’s desire for us is found in I Corinthians 2:12, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” “A great number of people are casting aside the King James Bible for the new ‘easy reading’ bibles. If the new versions are successful in their attempt to become as popular as the King James Version, we can expect certain things. We will find a weaning of the doctrine of separation as the promoters are trying to sell a Bible that will please everybody. We will see little memorization of God’s Word since the versions do not agree word for word. We can expect a casual attitude taken by shallow Christians toward certain texts. After all, if the “learned” men can take out what they want, how do we know what’s left is of any James F. Holmes, From the Mind of God To the Minds of Men (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1987), 83. 182 217

truth.”218 The promotion and use of so many different Bible versions has caused untold confusion. Why don’t more pastors and Christian leaders see this? Congregational reading in unison is virtually impossible, Bible memorization is most difficult. Concordances are obsolete. And just think of the uncertainty that results when some verses of the Bible are changed, some are in with brackets around them, and some are missing completely. And many verses, whether in text or in the footnotes, have their validity challenged. “Under inspiration James emphasizes that it is sin if one knows the truth and fails to practice that truth in his life (James 4:17). Happy is the person who is practicing in his life what he has learned from the Word of God (John 13:17).”219 On the flip side of things, will not God hold us responsible for light and knowledge concerning His Word? Can we escape His condemnation, if we choose to exalt any version containing proved corruptions? As a wise man has said, “No man is more blind than he who will not see.” Hopefully when you sing “Standing on the Promises,” those promises will be in your Bible. Hopefully when you say that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, was both fully man and fully God and shed His blood for your sins, your Bible will back you up. Hopefully, when you raise your Bible aloft and proclaim it to be the “Word of 218

219

Winter, The Bible: The King James Version on Trial, 53. Holmes, op. cit., 84,85. 183

God,” it will be. Alexander McClure said in 1858, “If someone doesn’t bring a halt to this tampering with Biblical texts, then future generations will be completely cut off from an authoritative Bible, hence no salvation.”220 That was before the days of Westcott and Hort, if McClure were alive today what would he say about the mess that we are in with Bible versions. The Psalmist wrote: “Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psalm 138:2). It is a sad day when humanity lightly esteems what God has magnified - the Bible. As a result of what we have looked at, what should we do? What should our response be to these truths? Listen to what Jack Moorman has to say in regard to this: “Take out the old “sword of the Spirit” that makes hippies blush when it appears on a street corner, that makes college professors nervous when it is brought into the classroom, that disturbed Westcott and Hort so badly they devoted a lifetime to getting rid of it; get back that battered old Book that was corrupted by Origen, hated by Eusebius, despised by Constantine, ignored by Augustine, that was ridiculed by the R.S.V. and the A.S.V. committees; that razor sharp blade which pierced Mel Trottier, Adoniram Judson, Dwight L. Moody, and B.H. Carroll to the soul and made Christians out of them, which pierced Charles Darwin, Huxley, Hobbes, Hume and Bernard Shaw to the soul and infuriated them, that Word which was preached to the heathen in every corner of the earth, that Word which has been used by the Spirit of God for nineteen centuries to make fools out of scientists, educators and philosophers, to overthrow Popes and kingdoms, to inspire men to die at the stake and in the arena; that infallible, everlasting BOOK which angels desire to look into, and before which devils tremble when they see their future, and if you 220

McClure, Translators Revived, 20. 184

don’t know it by now, what BOOK that it is we are talking about, you never will.”221

Let me encourage those who stand for the King James Bible with a powerful quote from David Cloud, “In the 14th chapter of I Samuel the nation of Israel was under King Saul. The Philistines had overrun the land of Palestine and they had destroyed the forges that the Israelites needed to make weapons. It was a very similar period to what we are experiencing today. Our publishing companies are no longer publishing the sharp two-edged sword. During that period of time, it was only Saul and his son Jonathan that had swords. Even so, Jonathan and his armor bearer determined to go up to the garrison of the Philistines, and the armor bearer said, ‘...it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few’ (v.6). I want to encourage you who stand today for the King James Bible that God is not restrained to save by few or by many. He has given you and I a sword, a sharp, two-edged Sword. God will still confirm His truth through us. I want to encourage you that if God be for us, who can be against us?”222

For those who have been deceived by the modern versions I encourage you to use the Bible which God has blessed. God has chosen to preserve His Word for us in the English language in the King James Bible. Furthermore, it only makes sense that He expects us to use and honor that Bible. Let us close with a quote from Edward Hills that we looked at earlier: “...the Bible version which you use...has already been decided for you by the workings of God’s special providence. If you ignore 221 222

Moorman, Forever Settled, 251,252. Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 7. 185

this providence and choose to adopt one of the modern versions, you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. The naturalistic textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament text in the same way in which we study the texts of secular books which have not been preserved by God’s special providence.”223

“Remember - this is a heart matter, not a head matter. Your final acceptance will rely on whether you can find it in yourself to humble yourself and accept God’s Book as perfect. It will be a high-pressure decision, but will depend on which you choose to be more loyal to. Your Saviour and God, or your friends and school.”224

223 224

Hills, op. cit., 226,227. Gipp, The Answer Book, 161. 186

Appendix A * Appendix A can be found at http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

187

Bibliography Burgon, John W. The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text. Collingswood, NJ: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998. __________. The Revision Revised. Forth Worth, TX: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1883. __________. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. Collingswood, NJ: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998. __________. Unholy Hands on the Bible. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990. Burton, Barry. Let’s Weigh the Evidence. Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1993. Cimino, Dick. The Book. Harlingen, TX: Wonderful Word Publishers, 1975. Cloud, David. For the Love of the Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1995. __________. The Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library. 188

Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 2000. __________. The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity. Second Edition. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1993. Coston, Stephen A. King James Unjustly Accused. St. Peterburg, FL: KonigsWort Incorporated, 1996. Cummons, Bruce D. The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God. Massillon, OH: n.p., n.d. Fuller, David O. Counterfeit or Genuine. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975. __________. True or False? Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973. __________. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970. Gipp, Samuel C. The Answer Book. Shelbyville, TN: Bible and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989. 189

Grady, William P. Final Authority. Schererville, IN: Grady Publications, 1993. Hills, Edward F. Believing Bible Study. Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1967. __________. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1956. Holmes, James F. From the Mind of God to the Minds of Men. Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1987. La More, Gary E. Erasmus of Rotterdam. Toronto, ON: Historic Baptist Press, 1999. McClure, Alexander. Translators Revived. Mobile, AL: R E Publications, 1858. Melton, James L. Fighting Back. Sharon, TN: Bible Baptist Church, 1997. Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled. Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999. __________. Missing in Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story 190

Being Told? Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1989. Paine, Gustavus S. The Men Behind the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977. Riplinger, Gail A. The Language of the King James Bible. Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1998. __________. New Age Bible Versions. Shelbyville, TN: Bible and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1993. Sargent, Robert. Is the New King James Bible the Word of God. Halifax, NS: The People’s Gospel Hour, n.d. __________. Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence. Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications, 1989. Schönhaar, Hugo W.K. The King James Only Controversy – Answered. n.p., n.d. Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1992. 191

__________. Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort. Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1998. Ward, Norman. Famine in the Land. Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible? Society, Inc., n.d. __________. Perfected or Perverted. Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible? Society, Inc., n.d. Winter, Mickey. The Bible: The King James Version on Trial. Russell Springs, KY: Godby’s Printing, n.d. Yarnell, Ralph. A Fresh Look at the King James Bible. Marietta, OH; n.p., 1983. God’s Miracle Book: the King James Bible. Halifax, NS: The People’s Gospel Hour, n.d.

192