King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Weymouth Bible, Moffatt Bible, Knox Bible, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, New American Standard Version, Good News For Modern Man, New Scofield Reference Bible, New International Version, New World Translation, New King James Bible. etc. etc.
2. Original Autographs (Masters)
3. Copies of the Masters
A Divine Warning
4. The Masorites
6. Church Fathers: Crysostom/Polycarp/Clement/Irenaes/Lucian/Patrick/Columba
7. Ancient Versions:- Peshitta / Armenian / Old Latin Vulgate / Waldensian / Gothic / Old Syriac
English Bibles:- Wycliffe / Tyndale / Coverdale / Matthew / Great / Geneva / Bishops'
The King James Version (See Section 10)
8. Textus Receptus ...The Majority Text
Editors:- Lucian / Erasmus / Stephanus / Elzevir Brothers
9. The Minority Text
Dean John William Burgon
Oldest and Best!
The Invention of Printing
10. The King James Version
Thee & Thou
Alleged Errors: Easter/Passover
Why the KJV should be Retained
11. Modern Versions & Translators
The Revised Version Committee
Brooke Foss Westcott
Fenton John Anthony Hort
Revised Standard Version Committee
12.Famine of the Word of God!
A Solemn Warning
Martyrs for the Word of God
The Basic Bible Study
Reference Books: Publishers/Authors, Useful Addresses
Two of the greatest deceptions ever to confront the
human race came to the fore in the 19th century: deceptions
so subtle and dangerous that between them they have destroyed
the faith of multiplied billions of souls in and out of the Christian
Church. The first was the unproved theory of evolution:
fascinating, plausible and seized upon by the godless mind which
chafes at the commandments of the Almighty God. The second was
the Revised Version of the Bible posing as the "Word
of God": a version as corrupt as it was potent, for it
spawned a host of unholy offspring.
The first deception has, over the years, turned hundreds
of millions away from the Christian church: for it taught that
the very first chapter of the Bible was not really the truth,
but legend. This pernicious theory is still taught, as fact, in
thousands of colleges and schools the world over. Our article
on Evolution exposes the theory for what
it really is - a fallacy!
The second deception, the Revised Bible is
equally dangerous, for it casts doubt on the real Word
of God and starves believers of the Bread of Life. Sad
to say it is also taught in thousands of churches, Bible schools
and religious colleges the world over. This article deals with
the second deception - Counterfeit Bibles! Read it with
special care, several times over, because if you have avoided
the first deception, you are most certainly the target of the
Millions of Christians believe, and rightly so, in the divine and verbal inspiration of the Bible: that the Holy Ghost motivated the minds of the prophets and apostles of old to pen every word of Scripture. Our faith in divine inspiration is based on Bible texts such as:
Millions also believe in the providential preservation of the Bible: that JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel has also preserved His Word down through the ages; and that His work of preservation is every bit as important as His initial work of inspiration. After all it would have been of limited value if the original inspired Scriptures were lost to posterity a few decades after being penned. Providential preservation, in other words, is as essential a work as that of divine inspiration. Our faith in providential preservation is based on Bible texts such as:
Concerning Providential Preservation the Westminster Confession of Faith (17th century) says this on page 23:
"The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
In the past most Christians accepted these facts,
but of late there are a growing number who have strong reservations
about divine preservation. They will allow
that the original autographs, which of course are no longer
available, were inspired. But they have strong reservations
about divine preservation. They believe that much of Scripture
is in need of update, because some of the oldest manuscripts were
not available to the 17th century translators of the
King James Version (KJV). That is why, they maintain, the
Revised Version of 1881 and its many descendants became
necessary; and how that each new English translation (well over
100 at the present count) is an improvement on the one that went
before. In other words, the Bible is also evolving and
each new version brings us one step nearer the original.
This is an extremely disturbing development: for when we examine modern translations, which are all based on the Revised Version, we find they do not simply use modern language, which, arguably, may have been in order; but they say things entirely different from the early English and foreign language versions of the Scriptures, which in past centuries God used to further His work. In this article you are about to learn many startling facts about the modern English translations of the Bible, that they:
These discoveries are disturbing to say the least and should cause true believers around the world to ask: Is all this true? Are these allegations justified? And if so, what spirit is behind the deception and confusion caused by the modern translations? Visit any Bible study group where believers are using a variety of modern "Bibles" and comments such as these are common:
The question is: Which English Bible is the real
Word of God? Anyone can see that they cannot all be the Word
of God if they are saying different things. After all, God
doesn't contradict Himself and is certainly not the author of
confusion. (1Corinthians 14:33) Scores of conflicting translations, all claiming to be His Word, cannot possibly be the work of the Spirit of Jehovah. Besides, would the Almighty
flood the English-speaking world with well over 100 conflicting
translations of the whole Bible and over 300 translations of the
New Testament? Of course not: the very idea is ludicrous if not
blasphemous. Something is terribly wrong somewhere and it's time
to find out.
Since my conversion in 1952, when I was 21 years old, I have used a number of modern versions and translations of the Bible: the Revised Version, Moffatt Bible, Revised Standard Version, Amplified Bible, the Living Bible, the New English Bible, Knox Bible, Good News for Modern Man, Amplified Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard and the New International Version. During all that time I also used the King James Version (KJV), also called the Authorised Version. But never in all those 45 years did I suspect that anything was seriously amiss with the modern Bibles: or that they are all dangerously flawed! To be sure I knew that some paraphrased publications, such as the Living Bible, could not be relied upon when deciding doctrine: and that others had several uninspired books (the Apocrypha): but never in the past 45 years did I suspect that EVERY modern English Bible cannot truthfully be called the HOLY BIBLE, the WORD OF GOD! When and how did I find out? Let me tell you my story.
In February 1996 at the age of 65 years I suffered
a massive heart attack and was forced to spend weeks in bed.
I was unable to move around much, and even a short walk was an
ordeal. For months I was virtually house-bound. What did I do?
I did the very best thing I could; I gave myself over to prayer
and Bible study. There really was little else I could manage without
pain. With the help of several reference books and modern
versions of the Bible - I possess about 20 - I began an exhaustive
study of the History of the Bible: of how we got our Bible
in the first place. This article tells of my findings: of facts
so stunning that they shocked me more than any truth I have ever
learned; including that of the true weekly Sabbath and
Festivals of the God of Israel. I felt horrified to think
that as the founder of Stewarton Bible School (SBS),
with students in many countries, I had been deceived for so long
and had been guilty of giving sincere students faulty advice.
I determined - yea I prayed desperately - that if JEHOVAH ...
the LORD God of Hosts would allow me to recover after a triple
by-pass heart operation, I would join the growing band of believers
who honour the King James Version and tell the world.
This article is the result of my studies and I thank the Almighty
for allowing me to live and place it on the Internet. The
facts you are about to learn need to be studied prayerfully, several
times over. Particular attention should be given to Part Two
where many King James Bible texts are listed for comparison
with the modern versions you may currently be using. I will quote
extensively from the reference books on Bible History mentioned
in Part Three. Remember that emphasis (bold type) throughout
this article is mine.
If you are reading this article on the Internet,
you are reminded that SBS publications do not carry
a copyright clause. Feel free to download, print, photocopy
and pass this article to your friends, because, believe it or
not, the world is currently being starved of the real Word
of God, the HOLY BIBLE! A great spiritual famine is
overtaking mankind and, as I was, the Christian Church is blissfully
ignorant of its danger. This article will answer the question:
" Which English Bible is the real Word of God?"
2. THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS
As most believers know, the Bible is often referred
to as 'the Holy Scriptures.' It is made up of two parts,
the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament is a collection of 39 books which were originally penned mostly in the Hebrew language. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, written
originally in Greek; though some portions were probably written
in Hebrew or Aramaic, a north Semitic language. The original
autographs (masters) were the hand-written scrolls penned by the
inspired prophets and apostles. They were written on vellum
(the skins of clean animals, such as calf or antelope) or papyrus.
Vellum is more durable and costly than papyrus; but an entire
antelope skin would only furnish two or three pages of a manuscript.
Because of this fact the vast majority of manuscripts were written
on papyrus. Papyrus is a reed-like water plant with thick fibrous
stems from which a kind of paper was made in ancient times. The
average papyrus scroll was about ten inches in width and about
thirty feet in length. After years of constant use, being rolled
and unrolled, the original autographs (master scrolls)
especially those of papyrus, became worn and began to fall apart.
3. COPIES OF THE MASTERS
Before the original masters completely disintegrated they were carefully copied. The Almighty, who had initially inspired their production, then moved His faithful followers, first the Aaronic Priests and later the Masorites, to make copies of the originals. Thus began the work of providential preservation. After all, it would have been short-sighted of God to infallibly inspire the Scriptures only to have them discarded after a few decades. Jehovah must needs, as promised, preserve His Word in accurate copies for the following statements to be true.
A Divine Warning
The God of Israel anticipated Satan's intended attack on the Scriptures: and how the enemy of souls would seek to frustrate His work of preservation and cause unbelieving scribes to add to, delete and distort the sacred writings. That is why this solemn, yea frightening, warning appears at the end of the Bible. It not only addresses copyists and translators who intentionally corrupt Jehovah's Word, but also those who knowingly promote their corrupted publications.
|Rev. 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: 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.|
I repeat: to preserve His word, JEHOVAH
the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel must needs ensure
that accurate copies of the inspired masters be
made, else His promise that 'the Word of the Lord abideth
forever' was meaningless - if not false. Consequently
the Almighty caused faithful believers to copy His Word.
This is how He organised that work.
4. THE MASORITES
The Masorites were Jewish scholars who, like
their predecessors the Aaronic Priests, had the sacred
task of copying the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. In his book
Story of Our English Bible, W Scott wrote, over
a hundred years ago, concerning the reliability of the copies
made by these faithful priests and scribes.
|Scott wrote:|| "It is well known that among the Jews it
was the profession of the Masorites, or doctors of tradition,
to transcribe the scriptures. We know to what extent these indefatigable
scholars carried their respect for the letter; and when we read
the rules under which their labours were carried on, we understand
the use that the providence of God (who had 'confided his oracles
to the Jews') made of their superstition. They reckoned the number
of verses, words, and letters in each book. They tell us, for
instance, that the letter A occurs forty-two thousand three hundred
and seventy-seven times in the Bible; the letter B thirty-eight
thousand two hundred and eighteen times; and so on to the end.
They were scrupulous of changing the position even of a letter,
though evidently misplaced, but limited themselves to noting in
the margin, supposing some mystery was involved. They tell us
which is the middle letter of the Pentateuch, as well as of each
of the books of which it is composed.
They never allowed
themselves to correct their manuscript; and if any mistake escaped
them, they rejected the papyrus or the skin which they had blemished,
and recommenced upon a fresh one; for they were equally interdicted
from even correcting one of their own errors, and from retaining
for their sacred volume a single parchment or skin in which an
error had been made...
In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray confirms this fact about the faithfulness displayed by these ancient scribes in copying the Scriptures.
|He writes:||"In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing "Jehovah " lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected . Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a 'clean' animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the written word to be written from memory." ( Ref: D1)|
It is a sad fact that the Gentiles who copied the
New Testament Scriptures were not as diligent as the ancient Aaronic
scribes and Masorites. Therefore it is in the New Testament texts
where most errors are found.
A 'manuscript' is a hand-written document, not one that is typed or printed. The word 'manuscript' is often abbreviated as MS or ms (singular) and MSS or mss (plural). Currently there are between 5250 and 5309 extant (existing) manuscripts of the Scriptures or parts of it. Manuscripts fall into two categories:
Manuscripts produced by the early Christians fall into three categories:
As regards the format of ancient manuscripts, they are often described as:
6. THE CHURCH FATHERS
Before the art of printing was known (before AD 1450) the church fathers of the early Christian era wrote - by hand - their letters, sermon notes, commentaries and books. Their manuscripts contain many quotations from the original autographs or the earliest copies. Some fathers had actually seen the New Testament autographs or very early copies; and had personally hand-copied large portions of Scripture. The writings of these early elders help verify the original text and form a valuable source of information as to what the first apostles wrote. Scripture tells us that Satan began his attack on the New Testament Scriptures very early, even before the first apostles died. Listen to Paul's testimony concerning this matter about corrupting of the Word of God; and of some who even wrote letters as though they were composed by the apostle himself.
|2 Cor.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.
|| That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand.
During the latter part of his life the apostle John strongly defended the Word of God. Being an eye-witness of many events involving the ministry of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), John was well qualified to refute written or spoken error and to put the record straight. The enemies of truth had this reliable eye-witness banished to the island of Patmos.
|Revelation 1:9||I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.|
There were many church fathers who hand-copied the whole or portions of Scripture. Let me mention a few who greatly influenced the church, particularly in Europe.
In his book Story of Our English Bible
|W Scott wrote:||"Crysostom, the most eloquent of the fathers, spoke of them (the Scriptures) as The Divine Books, Polycarp,who lived at a still earlier date, having been personally instructed by the Apostle John, spoke of the Bible as The Sacred Scriptures, as also the Oracles of the Lord. Clement of Rome, whom Paul styles his 'fellow-labourer' (Phil.1V.3), termed the Scriptures The True Sayings of the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus, of the second century, makes about 1200 citations or references from the New Testament; Tertullian, also of the second century refers to or quotes from the New Testament about 2500 times; Clement of Alexandria, another of the second century Fathers, cites from or refers to the New Testament 800 times; and Polycarp, already referred to, in a brief epistle addressed to the Philippians, quotes from the New Testament about 50 times." (Ref: A6)|
Lucian of Antioch
Lucian (AD 250-312) was born in Antioch in Syria where the early believers in Jesus were first called Christians. (Acts 11) In his book Truth Triumphant Benjamin George Wilkinson Ph.D writes this about Lucian:
|Quote:||"Lucian founded a college at Antioch
which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance
between Rome and Alexandria. How bitter the situation became and
how it finally split West and East will be clarified by the following
First, the original founders of the ecclesiastical college at Alexandria strove to exalt tradition. Justin Martyr, as early as 150, had stood for this.
Second, Clement,most famous of the Alexandrian college faculty and a teacher of Origen, boasted that he would not teach Christianity unless it was mixed with pagan philosophy.
Third, Victor 1, bishop of Rome, entered a compact with Clement, about 190, to carry on research around the Mediterranean basin to secure support to help make Sunday the prominent day of worship in the church. Sunday was already a day exalted among the heathen, being a day on which they worshipped the sun; yet Rome and Alexandria well knew that most churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
Fourth, when Victor 1, in lordly tones, pronounced excommunication on all the churches of the East who would not with him make Easter always come on Sunday, Alexandria supported this exhibition of spiritual tyranny by the bishop of Rome. Lucian opposed Alexandria's policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background." (Ref: J1)
Patrick in Ireland
Patrick belonged to the Celtic race. Tradition has it that he was born about AD 360 in the kingdom of Strathclyde in Scotland. Wilkinson writes of Patrick:
|Quote:|| "Patrick preached the Bible. He appealed
to it as the sole authority for founding the Irish Church. He
gave credit to no other worldly authority; he recited no creed.
Several official creeds of the church of Rome had by that time
been ratified and commanded, but Patrick mentions none. In his
Confession he makes a brief statement of his beliefs, but he does
not refer to any church council or creed as authority. The training
centres he founded, which later grew into colleges and large universities,
were all Bible schools. Famous students of these schools -
Columba, who brought Scotland to Christ, Adrian, who
won pagan England to the gospel, and Columbanus
with his successors, who brought Christianity
to Germany, France, Switzerland and Italy - took the Bible as
their only authority, and founded renowned Bible training centres
for the Christian believers. One authority, describing the hand-written
Bibles produced at these schools, says, 'In delicacy of handling
and minute but faultless execution, the whole range of palaeography
offers nothing comparable to these early Irish manuscripts
Patrick, like his example, Jesus, put the words of Scripture above
the teachings of men. He differs from the papacy, which puts church
tradition above the Bible. In his writings he nowhere appeals
to the church of Rome for the authorization of his mission. Whenever
he speaks in defence of his mission, he refers to God alone, and
declares that he received his call direct from heaven
Patrick believed that Christianity should be founded with the home and the family as its strength. Too often the Christian organisations of that age were centred in celibacy. This was not true in the Irish church and its Celtic daughters in Great Britain, Scotland and on the continent. The Celtic Church, as organized and developed under Patrick, permitted its clergy to marry." (Ref:J3)
Columba in Scotland
|Quote:||"Columba, an Irishman, was born
in Donegal in 521, and both his parents were of royal stock. He
founded a memorable college on the small island of Iona which was a lighthouse of truth in Europe for centuries. That the Celtic, not the Latin, race populated the British Isles was a determining factor, for
the Christian churches in which Patrick had been reared received
their doctrine, not from Rome, but from their brethren of the
same faith in Asia Minor. Here was the link which connected the
faith of Patrick and Columba with primitive Christianity. The
farthest lands touching the Atlantic saw the rise of a vigorous
apostolic Christianity not connected with the Church of Rome,
but independent of it
Columba possessed a superior education. He was familiar with Latin and Greek, secular and ecclesiastical history, the principals of jurisprudence, the law of nations, the science of medicine, and the law of the mind. He was the greatest Irishman of the Celtic race in mental powers; and he founded in Iona the most learned school in the British Islands, and probably in Western Europe for a long period " (Ref:J4)
Comparatively few Christians know that Columba
kept the seventh day of the week (Saturday) as the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment. Wilkinson writes about this little
|Quote:|| "The last hours of Columba are recorded as
follows: Having continued his labours in Scotland thirty
four years, he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday,
the ninth of June, said to his disciple Diermit: 'This day
is called the Sabbath, that is the day of rest, and such will
it truly be to me: for it will put an end to my labours.'"
We in Scotland are greatly indebted to Columba,
who founded many churches in this country. He is credited with
having hand-copied the New Testament 300 times! His writings
show that he used the Itala version of the Bible. In Stewarton
there is a church called St Columba's Church.
7. ANCIENT VERSIONS
Bear in mind that a version is a translation
made directly from the original Hebrew or Greek: i.e. from Hebrew
or Greek into Syriac, Latin or English: whereas a translation
of a version into yet another language is simply called a translation.
Bible versions were made in several languages within a few years
of the New Testament's creation. This was a rarity in the ancient
world for any book.
Josh McDowell writes on pages 16-17 of his book Answers to Tough Questions.
|Quote:||"...Translation of a document into another language was rare in the ancient world, so this is an added plus for the New Testament. The number of copies of the versions is in excess of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the New Testament text. Even if we did not possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions, the text of the New Testament could still be reproduced within 250 years from its composition. How? By the writing of the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote biblical text, thus giving us another witness to the text of the New Testament.|
John Burgon has catalogued
more than 86,000 citations of the New Testament in the
writings of the early church fathers who lived before A.D.325.
Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability
of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in
the ancient world." (Ref: M1)
In his book Final Authority William P Grady quotes John Burgon on pages 33-34 concerning the reliability of a version over any single manuscript.
|Quote:|| "I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient
Version outweighs any single Codex, ancient or modern, which can
be named: the reason being, that it is scarcely credible that
a Version - the Peshitto ,
for example, an Egyptian or the Gothic - can have been executed
from a single exemplar (copy).
A second reason for the value of ancient versions is in their ability to exhibit a text which antedates the oldest Greek manuscripts. Readings which are challenged in the Authorized Version for their non-existence in the 'two most ancient authorities' (Codex Sinaiticus or A; and Codex Vaticanus, or B, fourth century) are frequently discovered in the Syrian and Latin translations of the second century."
In the course of time many versions (translations from the original language) of Scripture were made. Let us now consider a few.
The Peshitta Version (AD 150)
The Peshitta was the first Syrian translation from the original languages. Even to this day there are around 350 copies of the Peshitta (or Peshitto) version in existence. In his book Which Bible? David O Fuller writes this of the Peshitto:
|Quote:||"It was at Antioch, capital of Syria, that the believers were first called Christians. And as time rolled on, the Syrian-speaking Christians could be numbered by the thousands. It is generally admitted that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syrian about 150 AD. This version is known as the Peshitto (the correct or simple). This Bible even today generally follows the Received Text. One authority tells us this - 'The Peshitto in our days is found in use amongst the Nestorians, who have always kept it, by the Monophysites on the plains of Syria, the Christians of St.Thomas in Malabar, and by the Maronites on the mountain terraces of Lebanon.' " (Ref: F8)|
The Old Latin Vulgate (AD157)
The word 'vulgate' is Latin for vulgar or common. The Old Latin Vulgate is a version. It was used by early believers in Europe when Latin was in popular use. It was sometimes referred to as the Itala version.
The Old Latin Vulgate must not be confused
with Jerome's Vulgate, which was produced over 220 years later
in AD 380. Jerome's Vulgate (also written in Latin for the Roman
Church) was rejected by the early Christians for almost a millennium.
The Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other groups
throughout Europe used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected
Jerome's Vulgate. In his book An Understandable History of
the Bible Rev. Samuel Gipp Th.D confirms this fact. He writes:
|Quote:||"The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term 'Vulgate' as a name. Vulgate comes from 'vulgar' which is the Latin word for 'common' It was so esteemed for its faithfulness to the deity of Christ and its accurate reproductions of the originals, that these early Christians let Jerome's Roman Catholic translation 'sit on the shelf.' Jerome's translation was not used by the true Biblical Christians for almost a millennium after it was translated from corrupted manuscripts by Jerome in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death of Latin as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D." (Ref:B2)|
David Fuller confirms this fact: "It is clearly
evident that the Latin Bible of early British Christianity was
not the Latin Bible (Vulgate) of the Papacy." (Ref:F9)
The Italic Bible (AD157)
"Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version. The renowned scholar Beza states that the Italic Church dates from 120 AD. Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity." (Ref:D2)
The Waldensian (AD 120
"The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed a Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution Here for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith In a most wonderful manner it (the Word of Truth) was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness." (Ref:F7)
The Gallic Bible (Southern
The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350)
The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400)
The Armenian Bible (AD 400) There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.
The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450)
The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535)
The Czech Bible (AD 1602)
The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606)
The Greek Orthodox Bible: Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church.
All the above mentioned Bibles and the vast majority
(about 99%) of the 5200 extant New Testament MSS are in
agreement with the text now known as Textus Receptus; the Text
which underlies the Authorised King James Bible.
John Wycliffe's Translation (1380-82).
This was the first manuscript (hand-written) Bible in the English
language. Strictly speaking, it was not a version, but
a translation into English from the Old Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe,
often described as the 'Morning Star of the Reformation,'
was an able Latin scholar. Alas! so hated was he for making
Scripture available to the common man that some 44 years after
his death his bones were dug up and burned, and his ashes cast
into the river Swift.
William Tyndale's New Testament (1526)
was the first printed Testament in the English language. Unlike
Wycliffe's translation, Tyndale's New Testament was translated
directly from the Greek, from the Majority Text, now
known as Textus Receptus. More about this Text later. Tyndale's
work, in other words, was a 'version.' The first printings
of Tyndale's version were burned at St Paul's Cross (London).
At that time it was a grievous offence, punishable by fine, imprisonment
or death to even possess a copy of Tyndale's New Testament. It
was said of William Tyndale that he was:
"A man so skilled in the seven languages,
Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and French, that
which ever he spake, you would suppose it his native tongue."
He it was who said to the ignorant clerics of his
day that he would 'cause the boy who driveth the plough
to know more of the Scriptures than them.'
|Quote:||"Before Tyndale's day the English versions of the Bible had been translations of a translation, being derived from the Vulgate or older Latin versions. Tyndale, for the first time, went back to the original Hebrew and Greek. And not only did he go back to the original languages seeking for the truth, but he embodied that truth when found in so noble a translation that it has ever since been deemed wise by scholars and revisers to make but a few changes in it; consequently every succeeding version is in reality little more than a revision of Tyndale's. It has been truly said that 'the peculiar genius which breathes through the English Bible, the mingled tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the grandeur - unequalled, unapproached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars - all are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one man, and that man is William Tyndale." (Ref: E5)|
But alas! Tyndale was to suffer the wrath of blind ecclesiastical authority. He was burned at the stake!
|Quote:||"The martyr was first confined in the castle of Filford, about 20 miles from Antwerp. He was taken from prison on Friday, October 6 th 1536, fastened to the stake, strangled, and his body burned to ashes. The fervent prayer of the martyr Tyndale, when bound to the stake, 'Lord, open the King of England's eyes,' was about to be answered shortly." ( Ref:A3)|
David Fuller writes of Tyndale:
|Quote:|| "In the Reformation period the Church of
Rome sought to maintain its dominant position by burning not only
the copies of the bible, but also those who recognized the supreme
authority of God's word. Tyndale was burned at the
stake at Vilvorde outside Brussels in Belgium on August 6, (October
according to some historians) 1536. His great offence was that
he had translated the scriptures into English and was making copies
available against the wishes of the Roman catholic hierarchy."
Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535). This was the first complete Bible in the English language. Coverdale was not the scholar Tyndale was, for his translation relied heavily on Tyndale and Luther's German Bible. It was printed just one year before his friend Tyndale was martyred.
Matthew's Bible (1500-1555). This was the first Bible issued with the king's license. It was mostly taken from Tyndale's and Coverdale's work which had gone before. It was printed in Hamburg by the king's printer John Rogers and was dedicated to Henry VIII by Rogers under the name Thomas Matthew, hence its name.
The Great Bible (1539). This Bible was printed in large folio (15x9 inches) hence its name. It was printed in Paris and was mostly a revision of Tyndale's and Matthew's work which went before.
The Geneva Version (1560). During the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary many Protestant believers from Britain fled to the Continent. The Scot John Knox was one. The Geneva Bible is a true 'version' having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout.
|Quote:|| "A number of these intellectual pilgrims
rendezvoused in Geneva (known as the Holy City of the Alps) to
form the first committee to attempt a translation of the Bible.
Such men as Theodore Beza, John
Knox, William Whittingham and Miles Coverdale laboured six
years to produce the celebrated Geneva Bible in 1560. Although
this Bible was the first to feature numbered verses and italics,
its main achievement was the Hebrew to English rendering of Ezra
through Malachi, thus representing the first English Bible
translated entirely out of the original languages." (Ref:
"The Geneva Bible was the first complete translation into English from the originals throughout. It was addressed to 'the brethren of England, Scotland, and Ireland,' There were two Bibles at this time in general use in England. The Geneva Bible was the more popular of the two, and was generally read in the household and in private study of the Word by the people. The Cranmer or Bishops' Bible was the one, however, which obtained most favour amongst the clergy and was read in the churches." (Ref: A4)
The Bishops' Bible (1568).
"Archbishop Parker was the master mind in the preparation
of this new edition of the Holy Scriptures, assisted by about
15 scholarly men. He distributed the 'Cranmer Bible' into
parts, assigning portions to various learned bishops, the whole
being subject to his own personal supervision. The large number
of the revisers being from the Episcopal bench gave the name and
character to this bible. It was printed in large size, and beautifully
executed. It was adorned with numerous cuts; its notes were brief,
and, like the 'Geneva Bible,' was divided into verses.
It was used in the Churches for about 40 years. Various revised
additions of the Bishops' Bible were published. Soon after
the appearance of the Authorised Version of 1611, the
Bishops' Bible - the last edition of which was published about
five years before its noble successor - fell into general disuse
The King James Version (1611) This is the Real
Word of God for our generation. The Almighty
has used it to further His work for coming on 400 years. See Section
10 for further details of this Bible.
8. TEXTUS RECEPTUS THE MAJORITY TEXT
Before we consider the King James Version
(KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let
us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament
translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional
Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine
Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the
vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These
extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors
such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus,
Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known
as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text
in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all
was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest
scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers
of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to
translate the Scriptures directly from Greek into the languages
of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation
Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they
Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant:
|Quote:||"The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)|
In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:
Fuller writes :
|Quote:|| "First of all, the Textus Receptus
was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted
as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There
were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably,
far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received
Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its
translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the
Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church
in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland
and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)
Why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text? The answer is because:
Reverend Gipp comments further:
|Quote:||"The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)|
Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book:
|Quote:||"Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)|
In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus:
|Quote:||"Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref:D3)|
In his book Final Authority, William P Grady
provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus,
the Received Text:
|Quote:|| "For instance, over 5,000 Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from
small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire
Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century;
the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison,
there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War
composed between 58-50BC
"Once again, the outstanding
features of the Received Text is its high percentage of
agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This
agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words,
90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another
so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text
If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be." (Ref: E1)
9. THE MINORITY TEXTS
There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?
The answer is:
Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow
in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+
Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.
Yet, startling as it may sound, every modern English
Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament
text in preference to Textus Receptus! Isn't that an amazing
revelation? What brought about this almost incredible switch
from the reliable Textus Receptus, beloved by the early
Christian church and the Protestant Reformers, to the corrupt
minority text favoured by the Roman Catholic Church? It is
important that you find out soon: because the modern "Bible"
you may be faithfully studying every day is really nothing more
than a counterfeit posing as the Word of God! If it is
any consolation to you, do remember that I was equally in the
dark and totally devastated by my findings.
Modern translations abound with misleading footnotes, which do little else but cast doubt on the King James Version. Examples are:
In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today. And that is why for the past 386 years it has had - and continues to have - the blessing of the Almighty God upon it: something no modern version or translation can come anywhere near. Most, after a decade or two, disappear from the book shops, only to re-appear some years later with a few alterations under a new name.
How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?
I most certainly didn't know. But I do believe that it is vitally important that every believer know that Satan is behind it: not any particular Church, its leaders or its members - but the great enemy of souls! He is behind every deception ever aimed at the human race: and millions, in and out of the church, believe his lies. I for one had been living in blissful ignorance of the danger for many years: till a massive heart attack laid me flat on my back and I was moved - yea inwardly compelled - to make a deep study of the History of God's Word and how He has providentially preserved it till today.
Now let us turn our attention to the Minority Text's two most prominent manuscripts on which most modern translations of the Bible heavily rely. They are called Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH ) and Codex Vaticanus (B). The word 'codex,' incidentally, means that the manuscript is in book form, with pages, as opposed to being a scroll. But first a little about the man whom God raised up over 150 years ago to expose the errors of the Minority Texts. His name is John Burgon.
|Quote:||"John William Burgon
was born August
21, 1813. He matriculated at Oxford in 1841, taking several high
honours there, and his B.A. 1845. He took his M.A. there in 1848
thing about Burgon, however, which lifts him out of the
nineteenth century English setting and endears him to the hearts
of earnest Christians of other lands and other ages is his steadfast
defence of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. He strove
with all his power to arrest the modernistic currents which during
his lifetime had begun to flow within the Church of England, continuing
his efforts with unabated zeal up to the very day of his death.
With this purpose in mind he laboured mightily in the field of
New Testament textual criticism.
In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine's Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture
Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.
Had B (Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Sinaiticus) been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. Thus the fact that B and ALEPH are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour. It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.
For an orthodox Christian Burgon's view is the only reasonable one. If we believe that God gave the Church guidance in regard to the New Testament books, then surely it is logical to believe that God gave the church similar guidance in regard to the text which these books contained
Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers." (Ref:F11)
CODEX SINAITICUS (ALEPH)
This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus:
|Quote:||"The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was
found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near
Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all
of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes'
and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament. The
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining
the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every
available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus...
'On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
THAT'S NOT ALL!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century. Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called "Which Version " in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus 'From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.' " (Ref:C1)
In his excellent book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of
|Codex Sinaiticus:||"One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus
and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet,
Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very
beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains
147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four
columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books
such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas'
and even the Didache.
The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)
CODEX VATICANUS (B)
The second major manuscript of the Minority Text is known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine: hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.
Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on
|page 72:|| "This codex omits many portions of Scripture
vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus
omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138;
Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation;
and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke! It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.
Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."
Rev. Gipp continues on page 73:
|Quote:|| "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these
two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed
up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The
impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question
of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican)
leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times.
It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page
If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)
|continues:||"So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)|
The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus on page 624 under the article Versions.
|Quote:||" It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)|
Barry Burton comments further:
|Quote:|| "For one thing
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone
Facts about the Vaticanus.
"It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose."
"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)
Dean Burgon comments on Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph)and Vaticanus (B).
|Quote:||"Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible; for they simply contradict one another. Codd.B and Aleph are either amongst the purist of manuscripts,- or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,- or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,- or furthest from them." "There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view." (Ref: P3)|
Oldest and Best
Bible students are often told that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older and better than other manuscripts: the implication being that they must, therefore, be more accurate. But this conclusion is wrong. We have already seen how Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupt beyond measure. To be sure they are 'better' in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. They are older, but older than what? They are older than other Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: the Peshitta, Italic, Waldensian and the Old Latin Vulgate: versions which agree with the Majority text. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than A and B. Yes A and B are older than other Greek mss, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying 'You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world,' or, 'the most beautiful women have the best characters.'
In his masterful book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph):
|Quote:||"Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)|
In short these two codices are old simply because:
Can any true believer imagine JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel, hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or prompting the deeply religious monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket? The very idea is ridiculous.
A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200 years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the 'oldest is best' argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.
Which Bible you select for study each day is going
to have an enormous effect on your spiritual growth and well being.
Bear this vital fact in mind.
The Invention of Printing
The invention of the printing press in the 15th century was a giant step forward in the circulation of the Bible. The printing press reduced the time taken to produce a Bible from about nine or ten months to a few hours: and once proof reading had been done, every copy was as good as the master. Printing also greatly reduced the price of a Bible.
"While Martin Luther called the art of printing
'the last and best gift of providence' the Catholic Rowland
Phillips, in a sermon preached at St.Paul's Cross, London in the
year 1535, frightfully remarked:
If printing, rightly used, could do so much to spread Truth, who can imagine the potential for the spread of Truth on the Internet?
10. THE KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
Now that we have learned something about the majority and minority texts, let us turn our attention to the history of the King James Version (KJV) which is based on Textus Receptus. The King James Version was translated directly from the original languages: though it owes its style and biblical language to versions which went before. I now invite you to imitate the believers of Berea mentioned in the book of Acts.
|Acts 17:11||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.|
Many maintain that the KJV uses archaic language. Is this objection justified? Pause awhile and consider this well known fact: every department of human learning uses language peculiar to that particular discipline: language which novices could easily refer to as being archaic. Biology, botany, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, music, medicine, law etc., all use strange sounding words, phrases and expressions which a novice will find difficult to understand. The study of the Word of God is similar in this respect. It also uses words and expressions which a new believer will find hard to comprehend. Words like sin, repentance, baptism, atonement, sanctification, justification, resurrection etc. These words often baffle a new believer: but he/she must learn them in order to progress spiritually; because they are explicit Biblical terms which uniquely express vital spiritual concepts and processes. They are not archaic words and we dare not get rid of them or simplify them to such a degree that the Word of God becomes a paraphrase, a commentary. Can you imagine a novice biology, science or law student objecting to the strange sounding words or old-fashioned expressions in his text books?
In his book The King James Version Defended Edward F Hills says this concerning the language of the KJV:
|Quote:||"Not only modernists but also many conservatives are now saying that the King James Version ought to be abandoned because it is not contemporary. The Apostles, they insist, used contemporary language in their preaching and writing, and we too must have a Bible in the language of today. But more and more it is being recognized that the language of the New Testament was biblical rather than contemporary. It was the Greek of the Septuagint, which in its turn was modelled after the Old Testament Hebrew. Any biblical translator, therefore, who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a version which God will bless, must take care to use language which is above the level of daily speech, language which is not only intelligible but also biblical and venerable. Hence in language as well as in text the King James Version is still by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible." (Ref:G1)|
Thee and Thou
We also hear a lot about the words 'ye,' 'thee' and 'thou' in the King James Version: and that these should all be replaced by the word 'you'. Everyone knows that the word 'you' is a uni-plural word like 'sheep' or 'fish.' It may refer to one or many depending on the context. Believe it or not the word 'you' is used many times in the KJV - but not exclusively. Why not? The answer is because of the vital difference between 'you' (plural) and 'thee' (singular) and there are times when it is necessary to make the difference. The word 'thee' refers to a single person, church, town or nation: whereas the word 'you' is the second person plural: it refers to many persons. To understand what I mean we will need to look at a few examples.
Just before the Saviour's crucifixion he warned his disciples - particularly Peter - of Satan's intended plan to test them all. These are the Master's words:
|Luke 22:31-32||And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.|
In this passage the Saviour used the word 'you' to mean all the disciples. But when he used the words 'thee' and 'thou' he meant Simon Peter alone. By replacing the 'thee' and 'thou' in this passage with 'you,' the Saviour's explicit warning to Simon Peter is considerably weakened. As for his warning to all the other disciples, that Satan wanted to sift them all, that warning is completely lost. Here are two more examples where the plural word 'you' and the singular words 'thee' or 'thou' are used.
Other examples where 'you' is plural and 'thou'
or 'thee' is singular are found in Deut. 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6;
Matthew 5:39-44; 6:4-7; 11:23-24; 18:9-10; 23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38;
Luke 5:4-5; 6:30-31; 9:41; 16:25-26; John 1:50-51; James 2:16.
These texts, and there are many more, prove that the word 'you'
was well known by the translators of the King James Version.
If you consult a concordance you will discover that it was used
hundreds of times in that version: but not exclusively
as in modern translations. In short, when the Saviour addresses
a particular individual, church or town he uses the words 'thee'
or 'thou' simply because these words are more explicit
and personal than the uni-plural word 'you.' The
Bible, remember, is the Word of God: explicit in every
sentence - yea in every word!
ALLEGED KJV ERRORS: Easter/Passover
Many claim that the King James Version has serious 'errors' in it. The most quoted 'error' concerns the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:1-4. The original word, these believers maintain, should have been translated as Passover - not Easter! Let us now examine the passage concerned and see if that argument holds water.
|Acts 12:1-4||Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.|
To properly understand the sequence of events described above I will briefly explain some facts about the sacred calendar.
The events recorded in Acts 12:3-4 occurred during the days of unleavened bread. In other words, the Passover in that particular year had passed: it was history: it had gone. Why, then, would Herod wait for an event which had already passed? Surely Herod knew that the Passover had passed and that the days of unleavened bread were in progress.
What, then, was Herod really waiting for before releasing Peter? The answer is: Herod was waiting for Easter to come and go - just as the King James Version says. We can be confident that the translators of the KJV knew full well why in this passage they rendered the word 'Pesah' as 'Easter' and not 'Passover' as at other times. Their combined knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and the vast amount of manuscript evidence before them (thousands of copies, versions, and church-father citations etc.) were all used to arrive at every word in the King James Version. Are we, whose knowledge of these languages is microscopic by comparison, to challenge their judgment? The fact is that Herod, during the days of unleavened bread, was not waiting for the Passover - which had come and gone: he was waiting for Easter just as the KJV says.
The events in our story tell us that:
The question now arises: Was the pagan festival of Easter known at that time? And were the Romans keeping Easter? The answer is - yes. The pagan festival of Easter, with its hot cross buns and Easter Sunday sunrise services was well known in ancient Babylon and Rome centuries before the events recorded in Acts 12. Let me quote a short passage about EASTER from Alexander Hislop's book The Two Babylons. (ISBN 0 7136 0470 0)
|Quote:|| "Then look at Easter. What means
the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It
bears its Chaldean origin on its forehead. Easter is nothing
else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the QUEEN OF HEAVEN,
whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently
identical with that now in common use in this country. That
name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar.
The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced
into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of the
groves" (page 103)|
No scholar doubts the fact that Easter is
a pagan festival which came down from ancient times, long before
the Christian era. The next question is: Did some Israelites
keep Easter and worship the QUEEN OF HEAVEN? Did they
bake hot cross buns for Ishtar - Easter? The answer, surprisingly,
is again - yes! Ancient Israel worshipped the Queen
of Heaven - ISHTAR and they honoured her each year with
special cakes (buns) and drink offerings. I quote Scripture:
|Jeremiah 7:18|| The children gather wood, and the
fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make
cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings
unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
|Jeremiah 44: 18|| But since we left off to burn
incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink
offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed
by the sword and by the famine. 19: And when we burned incense
to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings
unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour
out drink offerings unto her, without our men? 20: Then Jeremiah
said unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to
all the people which had given him that answer, saying, 21: The
incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah, and in the streets
of Jerusalem, ye, and your fathers, your kings, and your princes,
and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and
came it not into his mind? 22: So that the LORD could no longer
bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the abominations
which ye have committed; therefore is your land a desolation,
and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at
this day. |
23: Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as at this day. 24: Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the women, Hear the word of the LORD, all Judah that are in the land of Egypt: 25: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
Oh yes, many ancient Israelites kept Easter.
Modern Israelis still do. In summary we can say that when Herod,
after the Passover and during the days of unleavened bread shut
up Peter intending to bring him out after Easter, Herod
meant exactly what the King James Version is saying. He meant
Easter not Passover which had already come and gone. This
means that every translation which uses the word Passover
in Acts 12:3-4 is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Easter
is the correct word, and the King James Version uses it.
The Protestant Reformers
When the early Protestant Reformers of Europe (German,
Dutch, French and English etc.) began to translate the Old and
New Testaments into their native languages, they first had to
decide which Hebrew and Greek Text they were going to use.
For the Old Testament, the King James translators used the traditional Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This text was produced under the strict Masoretic rules mentioned earlier. Besides it was the only trustworthy Hebrew Text available. Do not the Scripture teach in:
|Romans 3: 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.|
For the New Testament, the Protestant translators of the King James Bible had a choice between two vastly different Greek texts:
Wisely they settled for the Received (Majority)
Text. No doubt the Spirit of God was guiding their
minds and providentially preserving His Word. It is a grave
error to think that the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th
and 17th centuries were unaware of the Minority Texts
produced in the 4th century. They were well aware
of them. They had before them copies of the Majority, Minority
and Neutral texts. In addition they had many ancient
versions of the Scriptures: the Peshitta, Old Latin Vulgate,
Italic, Waldensian, Albegensian, Gaul and Celtic Bibles. They
also had before them thousands of scriptural citations of the
early Church Fathers, which date back to the 2nd
and 3rd century. They were also well aware of the fact
that the Roman Church used a Eusebio-Origen type of Bible
based on the Minority Text. What did these great men of God do?
The answer is: in making their translations they set aside the
Minority Text and chose to produce versions of the Bible
which were all based on the Majority Text, the text used
by the early Christian Church. The following quotation
will help fix this fact in the reader's mind.
|Quote:||"Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -German, French, and English - were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles." (Ref:F6)|
The King James Version Translators
When the LORD God of Israel chose the prophets and apostles of old to pen the Scriptures, He made His selection with the utmost care. Faith, holiness, a love for truth and inherent ability were the deciding qualities He looked for. In other words the Most High looks within when selecting His servants. That is how He always judges men.
|1 Samuel 16:7||But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.|
The Protestant translators of the King James Version were providentially chosen by God in exactly the same way: firstly for their faith, holiness and love of truth, and secondly for their linguistic abilities. In other words, they were TRUE BELIEVERS. At their centre some 47 pious scholars were involved. In addition many hundreds of Protestant ministers and believing linguists throughout the UK assisted in the great work. I cannot over stress the importance of that fact: that FAITH IN GOD was the first and overriding reason why the Almighty chose the KJV translators for their sacred task. It is totally inconceivable that the Almighty, who initially inspired "faithful, holy men of God" to write the Scriptures in the first place, would then - centuries later - hand over the translating of those selfsame Scriptures to unbelievers and sceptics. So I repeat: the translators of the King James Version were men of FAITH, who believed that the text they were translating was, in fact, the WORD OF GOD!
|Quote:||"Thus started the greatest writing project the world has ever known, and the greatest achievement of the reign of James I - the making of the English Bible which has ever since borne his name." (Ref: L2)|
W Scott writes as follows:
|Quote:||"King James named 54 pious and scholarly persons - and who were empowered to communicate with 'all our principal learned men within this our kingdom,' so that the scholarship of the country was consecrated to the noblest work which could engage the heart, the mind, and the pen of men - the production of our admirable English Bible. Seven of the number, through death and other causes, were unable to serve, so that the list was reduced to 47. It may be interesting to know how and to whom the work was distributed. There were six committees chosen, two of which sat at Westminster, two at Cambridge, two at Oxford. The whole were presided over by Bishop Andrews, who, besides possessing an intimate knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, and Syriac, was familiar with 16 other languages. As each set or committee of translators finished the particular part assigned to them, it was then subjected to the criticism of the other five sets in order; so that each part of the Bible came before the whole body of the translators. When the 47 finished their work it was then carefully reviewed by the final committee. Dr Miles Smith, Bishop of Gloucester, wrote the preface." (Ref:A8)|
Always bear in mind the spiritual qualifications of these great men of God. They were
Here are a few quotes about some of these great men of God from Rev.Gipp's book entitled An Understandable History of the Bible..
"It should be noted that these men were qualified
in the readings of the church fathers which prevented them from
being 'locked' to the manuscripts, causing earlier readings to
be overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by
modern translators. It should also be recognized that these men
did not live in 'ivory towers.' They were men who were just as
renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed
education. It is a lesson in humility to see such men of great
spiritual stature call themselves 'poor instruments to make God's
Holy Truth to be yet more and more known.' " (Ref:B10)
William Grady backs up this evidence:
|Quote:|| "The men on the translation committee
of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned
men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook.
They were overall both academically qualified by their
cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their
William John Bois was only five years old,
when his father taught him to read Hebrew. By the time he was
six, he could not only write the same, but in a fair and elegant
character. At age fifteen, he was already a student at St John's
College, Cambridge, where he was renowned for corresponding with
his superiors in Greek." (Ref:E7)|
|Quote:|| "But, someone may reply, even if the King
James Version needs only a few corrections, why take the trouble
to make them? Why keep on with the old King James and its 17th
century language, its thee and thou and all the rest? Granted
the Textus Receptus is the best text but why not make a new translation
of it in the language of today? In answer to these objections
there are several facts which must be pointed out. |
In the first place , the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not the type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W A Irwin (1952) are to the same support. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th century English - which was very different - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation.
In the second place , those who talk about translating the Bible into the language of today never define what they mean by their expression. What is the language of today? The language of 1881 is not the language of today, nor the language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. In none of these languages, we are told, can we communicate with today's youth. There are even some who feel that the best way to translate the Bible into the language of today is to convert it into folk songs. Accordingly, in some contemporary youth conferences and even worship services there is little or no Bible reading but only crude kinds of vocal music accompanied by vigorous piano and strumming guitars. But in contrast to these absurdities the language of the King James Version is enduring diction which will remain as long as the English language remains, in other words, throughout the foreseeable future.
In the third place, the current attack on the King James Version and the promotion of modern-speech versions is discouraging the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children. Why memorize or require your children to memorize something that is out of date and about to be replaced by something new and better? And why memorize a modern version when there are so many to choose from? Hence even in conservative churches children are growing up densely ignorant of the holy Bible because they are not encouraged to hide its life-giving words in their hearts.
In the fourth place, modern-speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible is not a modern, human book. It is not as new as the morning newspaper, and no translation should suggest this. If the Bible were this new, it would not be the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is an ancient, divine Book, which nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself. Hence the language of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible, and the King James Version fulfils these two requirements better than any other Bible in English. Hence it is the King James Version which converts sinners soundly and makes of them diligent Bible students.
In the fifth place, modern-speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the Bible has always savoured of the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It has always been biblical rather than contemporary and colloquial. Fifty years ago this fact was denied by E J Goodspeed and others who were publishing their modern versions. On the basis of the papyrus discoveries which had recently been made in Egypt it was said that the New Testament authors wrote in the everyday Greek of their own times. This claim, however, is now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration. As R M Grant (1963) admits, the New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint and most of them were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence their language was not actually that of the secular papyri of Egypt but biblical. Hence New Testament versions must be biblical and not contemporary and colloquial like Goodspeed's version.
Finally in the sixth place , the King James Version is the historic Bible of English-speaking Protestants. Upon it God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval through the usage of many generations of Bible-believing Christians. Hence, if we believe in God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, we will retain the King James Version, for in doing so we will be following the clear leading of the Almighty." (Ref: G3)
11. MODERN VERSIONS & TRANSLATORS
Most, if not all, modern translations are based on the Revised Version (1881-5) which, as we have already learned, was influenced throughout by the Alexandrian manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In effect there really are only Two English language Bibles to choose from.
I list a few of the 100+ modern Bibles which followed in the trail of the Revised Version of 1881-5:
As Samuel Gipp so succinctly puts it:
modern translations, such as the New American Standard Version,
are linked to the Revised Version of 1952, which is a revision
of the American Standard Version, an American creation growing
from the English Revised Version of 1881." (Ref:
The Revised Version Committee
It is true that many of the Revised Version's (RV) committee members were godly scholars: but they cannot be compared with the King James Version's committee when it comes to extreme reverence for the Word of God. W Scott, writing over 100 years ago, makes this enlightening comment concerning the RV committee.
|Quote:||"The movement for a revision of the authorised version of the Holy Scriptures commenced on May 6,1870, in the Convocation of Canterbury. An influential committee was at once formed, consisting mainly of distinguished scholars and divines within the pale of the Established Church, but with power to consult or add to their number eminent Biblical scholars of all denominations. Many of its members were truly eminent for godliness and of distinguished ability, but it may be gravely questioned whether the constitution of the Committee as a whole may be compared with that nominated by King James, for piety and extreme reverence for the Word of God." (Ref: A9)|
Sad to say the revision committee when faced with a choice between Textus Receptus and the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, usually chose the Egyptian manuscripts. To be sure the Egyptian codices, written on vellum, were in far better physical condition than the papyrus or parchment MSS. But beauty, as pointed out earlier, is no indication of character. In Part Two we will examine some 80+ texts which have been seriously corrupted by these Egyptian codices. Two of the revision committee's most prominent translators were:
Brooke Foss Westcott
Westcott was a Cambridge scholar who played a leading role in the production of the Revised Version. A very brief look at this man's spiritual standing is sufficient to tell us that the Almighty would never have used him in the preservation of His Word. Before anyone blindly accepts Westcott's decisions, he/she should consider what this man believed. The following statements by Westcott, (from the book Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott) are quoted in William Grady's book Final Authority:
Rev. Gipp has this to say about Westcott:
|Quote:||"We have in Brooke Foss Westcott a
man who believed in communal living; a man who believed that the
second coming of Christ was spiritual, heaven was a state of the
mind, prayers for the dead were permissible in private devotions,
and that Christ came to bring peace through international disarmament.
He believed in purgatory and admiration for Mary, and he thought
the Bible was like any other book. |
This is the man who walked into the Revision Committee and sat in judgement of our Bible. He thought he saw room for improvement in the Authorized Version and offered a pro-Roman Greek text with which to correct it.
ironic thing is that Bible-believing Christians, educators and
preachers, who would never agree with his theology, have for years
exalted his opinion of the Greek as nearly infallible. These
facts alone should be reason enough to condemn Westcott and Hort,
their Greek Text and the MSS which they used to arrive at such
a text. But let us look at their actions concerning the molesting
of the pure words of the King James Bible, in favour of Rome.
Saddest of all, we have in Brooke Foss Westcott a man who neither
believed in salvation by grace nor ever experienced it. There
is no record in his 'Life and Letters' that he ever accepted Christ
as his personal Saviour." (Ref: B9)
We can see from these quotations that Brooke Foss Westcott wasn't really a believer in the Almighty or in His inspired Scriptures. By his own admission he was a sceptic who doubted the infallibility of the New Testament and the miracles of Jesus. He was unable to give up the scepticism and unbelief that stormed his mind. He totally rejected the infallibility of Scripture and confessed that simple faith would never be his. These are warning signals! You ignore them at your peril!
Fenton John Anthony Hort
Hort was another leading translator of the Revised Version. Most of the other committee members were unfamiliar with the methods of textual criticism and dynamic equivalence which Westcott and Hort introduced to get their way. Besides, and this is a fact we all do well to remember, Westcott and Hort were theistic evolutionists. To them the Genesis account of creation was absolutely unacceptable. Darwin's book on the Origin of the Species was more to their liking.
David Fuller writes:
|Quote:|| "Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from
theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or
no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his
conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept
the Bible as the very Word of God." (Ref: F2)|
A quick look at what Hort wrote will leave one in
no doubt but that he disbelieved the most basic Bible doctrine,
that the universe was created by God in six literal days.
He was also an ardent admirer of the Roman Church. Indeed only
recently (October 1996) Pope John Paul 11 declared that
"Today new discoveries lead one to acknowledge in the
theory of evolution more than a hypothesis
of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes
a significant argument in favour of this theory."
However, he added, "The soul was created directly by
God." You may be sure that very soon the entire Roman
Catholic Church will be following the Pope's lead in rejecting
the Biblical account of the creation.
Hort believed in the evolutionary theory over a century ago. Here are a few statements of his from the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort taken from page 223 of the book Which Bible?
In his book Defending the King James Bible Rev.D.A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D writes on page 41 as follows:
|Quote:|| "The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus
Receptus in over 5,600 places
My own personal count, as at
August 2, 1984, using the Scrivener's GREEK NEW TESTAMENT referred
to above, was 5,604changes that Westcott and Hort made to the
Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these,
5604 alterations, I found 1,952 omissions (35%), 467 to be additions
(8%), and 3185 to be changes (57%). In these 5604 places that
were involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words
included, making a total of 9970 Greek words that were involved.
This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages (such as Scrivener's
text) this would average 15.4 words per page that were changed
from the Received Text." (Ref: Q1) |
Dr Henry M Morris, a founding father of the Institute for Creation Research, USA, made these telling comments concerning modern translators.
|Quote:|| "As far as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolph
Kittel is concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a
German rationalist higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy
and firmly devoted to evolutionism. The men most responsible
for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F.Westcott and
F.J.A.Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard
Nestle and Kurt Aland. All these men were evolutionists.
Furthermore, Westcott and Hort denied Biblical inerrance and promoted
spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German
theological sceptics. |
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers
So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His word? Would he not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?
I believe therefore, after studying the, teaching and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians - especially creationists - need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great revivals, in the world-wide missionary movement and in the personal lives of believers, more so than He has with all the rest of the versions put together, and 'by their fruits ye shall know them' (Matthew 7:20). It is the most beautiful, most powerful and (I strongly believe), the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns. " (Ref:N1)
The Revised Standard Version Committee
Few Protestants know that the Revised Standard Version (RSV) committee had Roman Catholic members on it: or that the RSV is the preferred choice of the Roman Church. I quote from the preface of this Bible:
|Quote:|| "The Revised Standard Version Bible committee
is a continuing body, holding its meetings at regular intervals.
It has become both ecumenical and international, with
Protestant and Catholic active members who come
from Great Britain, Canada and the United States."|
Since most of the citations in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first update of this catechism in some 400 years, are from the RSV, we can safely say that this translation has virtually become the official version of the Roman Church. In effect, the aim of the translators is ecumenical. They want all the churches, yea all religions, to unite under one supreme authority - the Pope! Several on the RSV committee regard the Scriptures as being on an equal footing as church TRADITION: for this is - and always has been - the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The RSV committee, in other words, is vastly different from the Protestant committee which produced the King James Version. They are as different as chalk is from cheese. A brief look at some of the members of the RSV committee is startling to say the least. The following quotes are taken from Rev. Gipp's book An Understandable History of the Bible:
Some Christians flatly refuse to take account of these facts. They contemptuously brush them aside as false or irrelevant. But these are facts which can be proved and should not be ignored. They are well documented statements and they are vital. In them we can see, and that very clearly, that the leading and most influential members of the Revision committee were confessed unbelievers.
How should Protestants who believe in the
divine inspiration and preservation of Scripture
evaluate this committee's work? I answer without hesitation:
With grave suspicion!
JEHOVAH the Holy One of Israel, who initially gave us the Scriptures through His prophets and apostles of old, who carefully selected the King James Version translators on the basis of their faith and linguistic ability and has since blessed His Word for some 400 years, would certainly never, never change His methods and use translators who reject basic Bible doctrines such as the creation account in Genesis. Would the Almighty, who claims never to change (Malachi 3:6), now use unbelievers to re-translate the Bible? The very idea is preposterous, if not blasphemous. I am still aghast that it took me so long to learn these facts. I am even more astounded when Christians, who are given this information, continue to hold to their modern Bibles.
|Quote:|| "Even the jots and tittles
of the Bible are important. God has pronounced terrible woes upon
the man who adds or takes away from the volume of inspiration.
The Revisers apparently felt no constraint on this point, for
they made 36,000 changes in the English of the King James Version,
and very nearly 6,000 in the Greek Text. Dr Ellicott, in submitting
the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation in 1881, declared
that they had made between eight and nine changes in every five
verses, and in about every ten verses three of these were made
for critical purposes. And for most of these changes the Vatican
and Sinaitic Manuscripts are responsible. As Canon Cook
says: 'By far the greatest number of innovations, including those
which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the
authority of two manuscripts, or even on one manuscript,
against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial
The Vatican Codex
generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths
of the most striking innovations in the Revised Version
There is a case where a little means much. 'If one wonders whether it is worth while' says Dr Robertson, speaking of the Revision, 'he must bear in mind that some of the passages in dispute are of great importance.' 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 would come as truly as if he were blown to pieces." (Ref: F4)
Every word in Scripture is important: infinitely more important than a bolt or rivet in a jet airliner; or a line of code in a life-saving computer program. If His Father's words were that important to our Saviour, yea every jot and title, how much more should they be to us in these end times.
|Matthew 4:4||But he (Jesus) 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 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.|
|Rev.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: 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.|
Writing in his highly recommended book Defending the King James Bible, Rev. D.A.Waite writes on page 105: "A paraphrase makes no effort to carry over or translate the words of one language into the words of another language but rather to 're-state, interpret or translate with latitude.' Since this is the object of a paraphrase there's no assurance of fidelity in carrying-over exactly what is there in one language - no more and no less - into the other language, no more and no less. Therefore, paraphrase takes great liberty in doing any of these three things or all of them: ADDING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings; SUBTRACTING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings; or CHANGING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings. That is the essence of paraphrase, that is the essence of dynamic equivalence. So it is commentary, it is interpretation, it is not translation." (Ref: Q2)
We have seen that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
are corrupt and unholy manuscripts; that
they were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who amended,
added to and deleted many portions of the true text and then palmed
off their work as the Word of God. These manuscripts were
then taken up by sceptical translators, who didn't believe
that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, to spawn a
whole generation of new translations.
With these sobering facts in mind let us now consider a Biblical principle of which comparatively few Christians know anything. It concerns SPIRITUAL POLLUTION, of how something unholy can pollute everything it touches. This little-known principle is described in the following passage:
|Haggai 2:11|| Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask
now the priests concerning the law, saying,
12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
What does this symbolic drama, involving dedicated meat, bread and wine becoming unclean if touched by an unclean person, mean? What spiritual truth is the Almighty trying to put across in this passage? The answer, I believe, is as follows:
At its basic physical level it means that
if an ancient Israelite believer, whilst carrying his consecrated
tithes (flesh, bread, wine or oil) to the Temple, happened to
come in contact with an unclean person (a leper or corpse for
example) his offering would lose its holiness and would become
unacceptable to God. It's like pure meat being infected with
a disease virus: or like a cup of tea being polluted by a fly:
or a computer hard disk being infected by a virus-laden floppy.
In other words: unclean and unholy people or things pollute
whatever they touch.
At its higher spiritual level it means that any sacred offering (prayer, charitable gift or act of worship) becomes unacceptable to God if the unholy element of unbelief motivates it.
Does this spiritual principle, that diseased things pollute everything they touch, apply to Bible translations? I'm certain it does. The Bible is the Bread of Life, the strong spiritual meat for the soul. It can also become spiritually unholy, unclean and unacceptable to God if its words are infected by the unbelief of a scribe or translator or twisted out of context by the leprous spirit of Satan. That is exactly what happened to the holy manuscripts which were carried down to Egypt.
And so the high-level spiritual lesson of Haggai 2:11-13 has become a living reality in these last days. First: the sacred texts were corrupted by unbelieving Egyptian copyists and Second: unbelieving modern translators used those corrupt manuscripts to complete their work. The end product was a deluge of unholy modern Bible versions. That is why we should never refer to modern translations as "Holy Bibles" because they are far from holy: and most certainly the Spirit of the Holy One of Israel was not involved in their production. They are unholy counterfeits posing as the Word of God! We ignore those two facts at our peril. Indeed, these are the two main reasons why I have set aside all modern English translations of the Bible and have returned to the King James Version.
12. FAMINE OF THE WORD OF GOD
Bible prophecy never ceases to amaze me. I used to wonder how come the Bible predicted a famine in the last days for the Words of the Lord, when there are still millions of "Bibles" being printed every year. Are not Christian shops, churches and homes bursting with Bible translations and paraphrases to suite every taste? What does this prophecy mean?
|Amos 8:11||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 .|
I wonder no longer, because now I know that the predicted
famine of the Word of God has already begun. The Real
Bible is fast disappearing from Christian churches and homes.
To be sure there are scores of modern translations available:
but the Real Word of God, the King James Bible,
is comparatively hard to find and seldom used. Soon it will be
as scarce as is bread during a literal famine.
|Quote:|| "In regard to Bible versions many contemporary
Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children.
They want a Bible version that pleases them no matter 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
in which 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 ways. Some of them unite
with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or N.E.B.
Others deem the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more evangelical.
Still others opt for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible.
But God is bigger than you are dear friend, and the Bible version which you must 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 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 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. 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 concede this, then it follows that the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is likewise unimportant. For why is it important that God should infallibly inspire the Scriptures, if it is not important that He should preserve them by His special providence?
Where, oh where, dear brother or sister, did you ever get the idea that it is up to you to decide which Bible version you will receive as God's holy Word? As long as you harbour this false notion, you are little better than an unbeliever. As long as you cherish this erroneous opinion, you are entirely on your own. For you the Bible has no authority, only that which your rebellious reason deigns to give it. For you there is no comfort, no assurance of faith. Cast off, therefore, this carnal mind that leads to death! Put on the spiritual mind that leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the true Text of God's Holy Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations." (Ref: G4)
Concerning the peculiar, yea dangerous, mind-set of the Westcott and Hort followers both past and present, Dean Burgon wrote:
|Quote:||"Phantoms of the imagination [That's where they begin.] henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubts, - wretched misbelief, - childish credulity, -judicial blindness, - are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long allowed istelf in a systematic trifling with Evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is demonstrably true: has rejected what is indubitably Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for historical facts; to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all." (Ref: P2)|
|Quote:||" Tyndale thought with himself no way more to conduce thereunto , than if the Scripture were turned into the vulgar speech, that the poor people might read and see the simple plain Word of God. He perceived that it was not possible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scriptures were so plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue that they might see the meaning of the text; for else, whatsoever truth should be taught them, the enemies of the truth would quench it, either with reasons of sophistry, and traditions of their own making, founded without all ground of Scripture; or else juggling with the text, expounding it in such a sense as it were impossible to gather of the text, if the right meaning thereof were seen."|
In the book of Revelation we read that the Apostle John was banished to the island of Patmos for the Word of God!
|Reb.1:9||I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the WORD OF GOD, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.|
The prophecy of the Revelation goes on to tell of a great company of believers who would live and die for the WORD OF GOD! a martyrdom which is to be repeated in these last days. I will not exhaust the reader with frightening details: but this is what the prophecy says. Note carefully that these martyrs and their end-time kinsman were - and still are to be - slain for the WORD OF GOD! The main themes of the Word of God are the Son of God (Yeshua the Messiah) and the Law of God (the Torah). These martyrs, past and future, are slain because they loved the living and written Word of God and kept the commandments recorded in it.
The Basic Bible Study
" 'The textual critic J. Harold Greenlee has said, 'New Testament textual criticism is, therefore, the basic Bible study, a prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work.'
|Quote:|| This is not an overstatement of the importance
of this issue. As believers we have the responsibility in our
day and age of proclaiming the Gospel, the pure Gospel, the undiluted
Gospel. We also have the right and privilege of being the next
in the line of protecting God's Word and proclaiming it. Each
individual Christian will make a decision on this matter, of which
text is correct. Unmistakably, this decision will be made, consciously
or unconsciously, by every single believer.
This decision is made when the believer decides which edition of the Bible he will use to read and study; and if he chooses a translation based upon corrupted manuscripts which reflect views which omit the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His virgin birth, then the decision has been made to extend this error to the next generation.
If, however, today's Christian chooses a translation of the Word of God which is translated from the Traditional Text of the New Testament, the decision has been made to continue to see God's working through His providence in providing His Word in its complete form, not only for this generation but for those to come." (Ref:L1)
In my opinion, the quote you have just read is one of the most important in this whole publication, that
'New Testament textual criticism is, therefore, the BASIC BIBLE STUDY, a prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work.'
If you stop to think about it, you will see how true this is: that before we even begin to study any book claiming to be 'The Holy Bible' we should check to see if that really is the case. I must confess that, like multiplied millions of other Christians, I just didn't do that. I blindly accepted every modern translation as the Word of God; some better or worse than others: but all equally holy. How wrong I was! How terribly wrong! But I thank the Almighty that He mercifully pardoned my ignorance, allowed me to live through a massive heart attack and then opened my eyes to the error of my ways - before it was too late! I could so easily have died on the operating table. God knows the surgeon warned me of that possibility. But JEHOVAH answered my prayer and allowed me to live and even to place this article on the Internet. Praise His holy name!
Elder David B Loughran
In Part Two we will consider some 80+ texts in the King James Version which have been corrupted in the Revised Version upon which most modern 'Bibles' are based. You are now invited to check the particular translation you are using against these texts. To appreciate this exercise, carefully note the words printed in bold text. They will highlight the:
Following some of the texts below is a brief Comment.
You should, however, also pause at texts which are not commented
on and think about the effect of the error being pointed out.
Comment: Whole verse is missing.
Messiah's Ascension to Heaven
Many translations (we can hardly call them versions for they are merely revisions of the Revised Version) reflect disbelief in the resurrection and bodily ascension to heaven of Jesus Christ; or even that he came from heaven in the first place. Consider the next few verses.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ
Missing Name or Title
Many texts in the modern translations omit the Saviour's name (Jesus) or Christ, which means the Anointed One - the Messiah. Is it important? Very important; because by omitting such information the specific person being referred to and his mission are not identified. Scores of men in the Saviour's day were called Jesus. It was a common name. By omitting the word 'Christ' the one specific Jesus being referred to - the Messiah - is missed. By omitting the word 'Lord' his title is ignored. Here are a few examples of where such specific details are missing:
The following quotation is taken from the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible page 33, article Apocrypha.
|Quote:|| " The [Greek word apokrypha means
hidden or secret things, used by ecclesiastical writers for:
1) matters secret or mysterious. 2) of unknown origin, forged,
spurious. 3) unrecognised, uncanonical.] The name generally
given to the following 16 books: 1 and 11 Esdras, Tobit, Judith,
the Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch
with The Epistle of Jeremy, The Song of the Three Holy Children,
The History of Susanna, Bel and the dragon, The Prayer of Manasses,
1, 11, 111 and 1V Maccabees being omitted."
"Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which are in Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic, the apocryphal productions are in Greek The Jewish Church considered them uninspired, and some of their writers disclaim inspiration, (prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 11 Macc.2:23; 15:38). The Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha were produced between about 250 BC and somewhere in the early Christian centuries. They are not found in the Hebrew canon: they are never quoted by Jesus; and it cannot with certainty be affirmed that the apostles ever directly allude to them "
"The Church of England in the 6 th of the Thirty-nine Articles published in 1562 calls the apocryphal treatises books which the 'Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.' The Westminster Confession of 1643 declares, as a matter of creed, that 'the books, commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, or to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.'"
"The Council of Trent at its sitting on April 8th, 1546, pronounced an anathema against anyone who ventured to differ from it in opinion. This has since regulated the belief of the Roman Catholic Church."
"A controversy on the subject was carried on between the years 1821 and 1826, which resulted in the exclusion of the Apocrypha from all Bibles issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society." (Ref:H3)
We can see from the above that neither the Saviour, the Apostles, the Jewish Nation nor the Protestant Church reckoned that the Apocrypha was inspired. The only major group which currently holds to the Apocrypha is the Roman Church. In view of these facts, Stewarton Bible School's advice is that you look upon the Apocrypha as the writings of uninspired men and certainly of no use whatsoever when deciding doctrine.
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV)
This version is gaining in popularity. Strictly speaking it is not a version, but a revision like most of the other modern translations: which can all be traced back to the Revised Version. I, personally, in my ignorance have given away scores of copies of the NIV. May the Almighty pardon me.
As Edward F Hills says in his book The King James Version Defended:
|He writes:||"Modern versions are rich in omissions. Time and again the reader searches in them for a familiar verse only to find that it has been banished to the footnotes. And one of the most familiar of the verses to be so treated is Matthew 6:13, the doxology with which the Lord's Prayer concludes." (Ref: G2)|
Try finding these verses in the NIV
Bear in mind that the earliest versions of the Bible (the Peshitta, Italic and Old Latin Vulgate etc.) have all these verses: but the NIV leaves them out! Isn't that a serious string of omissions? Obviously the translators of the NIV are ignoring the command in Deuteronomy 4:2. and the awesome warning in Revelation 22:18-19 For more about this translation see The New International Version.
It is vital that you check these verses in the modern version you are using to see if these words, verses or passages are either missing or mistranslated. Once again I invite you to imitate the believers of Berea mentioned in the book of Acts.
|Acts 17:11||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.|
God knows that after reading this article you can never say 'I didn't know.'
|Quote:|| "From 1611 to 1881, God's foot soldiers wielded
KJV swords while defending spiritual barley fields against Jesuits
armed with Douay-Rheims Versions. Their grip grew tighter from
1881-1974 as one Alexandrian impostor after another was driven
from the field. Suddenly, a profit-oriented corporation (the same
crown who manufactured the enemies swords) would prevail upon
the church to believe that the Holy Spirit had abruptly ordered
a weapon change - in the very heat of the battle! Their
corrupt rendering of Romans 1:25 says it best. Instead of KJV's
changed we read, 'exchanged the truth of God for
a lie.' A true believer will never exchange his KJV for a NKJV.
The reason for this resistance is the same today as it was in
Bible days. With his very life at stake, the grip of the ancient
warrior was so intense that warm water was often needed at battle's
end to literally pry the weapon from his cramped hands. A person
with an ounce of spiritual discernment can see that He who
is not the author of confusion would never pick such timing
to introduce yet another English revision! The outstanding distinction
of a spiritual warrior will always be that, his hand clave unto
The truth of the matter is that the New King
James Version represents Satan's ultimate deception to oppose
God's remnant in the closing days of the New Testament age .
Having enlisted the lukewarm materialist with his NIV,
the devil sets a trap for the diligent soul winner with the NKJV.
Although his worldly counterparts embraced the oldest is best
theory of manuscript evidences, the true Bible believer refused
to abandon the Majority Text, retaining the Divine commendation
of, 'thou has kept my word.' Thus we find Satan attempting
to wean him away from his Authorised Version with the deceitful
half-step of a generic look-alike, TRANSLATED FROM THE TRUSTWORTHY
Conservative estimates of the total translation changes in the NKJV are generally put at over 100,000! This is an average of 82 changes for each of the 1219 pages in the NKJV Along this line of abuse, the most shocking revelation about the 'New' King James Version is that it is literally laced with 'old' readings from the Revised Standard and New American Standard Versions. This revival of Alexandrian readings is one of the best-kept secrets of the decade. Whenever there is a marked departure from the text of the KJV, the alternative reading is frequently taken from either the RSV, NASV, or oftentimes, both. For instance, in the first chapter of John's Gospel, there are 51 verses. Of this total, 45 (or 88%) have been altered by the NKJV. Among this number, 34 (75%) exhibit a distinct RSV or NASV reading while 6 show a partial reading. Only 5 (15%) appear unique to the NKJV." (Ref:E2)
No doubt very soon another counterfeit Bible will make its appearance. Perhaps it will be called the New Authorized Version. All I can say to the Christian world is - BEWARE!
Comparisons with the KJV
In his book God Wrote Only One Bible Jasper
Ray compares some 162 verses in 46 different Bible translations
with the KJV which is based on Textus Receptus, the text used
by the early churches and Protestant Reformers. His findings make
the purchase of his book an absolute must. Very briefly here are
a few of his findings:
Notice how each new translation contains more errors than the one that went before. Are you, dear reader, willing to recognise such error; and how Satan is gradually weakening the very foundation of Christian doctrine - the Holy Bible? Bear in mind that every verse, every word, every jot and tittle of Scripture is eternal: it will outlast the present universe!
|Matt.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.|
How presumptuous, then, for puny man to attempt to delete, amend and corrupt the sacred Scriptures. I tremble to think of the fate of those who are responsible. Believe it or not, when I learned these facts I was stunned, flabbergasted and ashamed all at the same time. To think that I had been taken in so easily - for so long! But once I saw the light I determined that if God would allow me to live after my heart attack and triple bypass operation - I would tell the world! The Internet is allowing me to do so. I pray that in the course of time millions will find out what I have learned these past months. You too may have a part in exposing the corruption in the modern translations of the Bible. The question is: Do you have the humility and the courage to face up to these facts? Have you the spiritual eyes to see that the real Bible for the English-speaking world is still the King James Version?
These are vital questions all informed believers
have to answer for themselves. We cannot ignore them. Should we
continue to daily study corrupt "Bibles" and
risk the wrath of the Almighty God? Eating infected meat, by
comparison, is of minor importance when we consider the awesome
spiritual issue before us. Would you knowingly eat infected
or unclean meat once it has been brought to your notice? Surely
no one would knowingly eat polluted food, however attractive,
appetising or nourishing it may otherwise be. The recent CJD
or E-Coli outbreaks in Britain caused by eating
infected meat are simply low-level illustrations of how easily
infection can spread and cause death. How much more serious do
you suppose is this matter of eating unholy spiritual meat!
The Bible tells us that God overlooks people's ignorance; but once they know the truth, they are held accountable.
the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)
Yes, as far as this Bible Version issue is
concerned, you now know the truth. You are no longer ignorant
of it. What then are you going to do about it? For my part I will
no longer study any "Bible" based on corrupt
manuscripts and translated by unbelievers. Moreover, ALL future
Bible quotations at the SBS Internet site will only be from the
Authorised King James Bible. SBS articles placed on the Internet
before March 1997 will, in the course of time, be purged of quotations
taken from modern Bible translations: simply because readers may
think that I accept those translations as the inspired Word
of God - which I no longer do. Present hard copy stocks of
SBS Booklets, Sermon Notes and Lessons held in Stewarton will
be used up: and future reprinted Bible quotations will only be
from the King James Version. ...[JEHOVAH] willing - this will be done.
A final comment by Rev. Gipp:
|Quote:||"All the translations before and after 1881 which were going to replace the Authorized Version lie silently in the 'grave' right now. Those which do not, shall soon join their ranks in the halls of the 'improved,' 'thoroughly reliable,' 'truly accurate,' and 'starters of a new tradition,' dead. They have failed to start one revival. They have failed to induce Christians back to reading their Bibles, and have only succeeded in casting doubt on the true word of God. The question is, can we repair the damage already done and proceed from here? The answer is YES!" (Ref: B8)|
My sincere prayer is: That you will be amongst those
who help repair the enormous damage already done.
Elder: David B Loughran
A) .. STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE by W Scott
B) .. AN UNDERSTANDABLE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Rev. Samuel C Gipp. Bible believers Baptist Bookstore: 1252 East Aurora Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056 USA
C) .. LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Chick Publications: PO Box 662, Chino, CA 91708-0662 USA
D) .. GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE by Jasper J Ray, Eye Opener Publications: PO Box 7944, Eugene, Oregon, 974 01 USA
E) .. FINAL AUTHORITY by William P Grady. Grady Publications: PO Box 506, Schererville, Indiana 46375. USA
F) .. WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, D.D. published by The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503. USA
G) .. THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F Hills. Christian Research Press PO Box 13023, Des Moines, Iowa 50310-0023 USA
H) .. WESTMINSTER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
J)..TRUTH TRIUMPHANT published by Teach Services, Route 1 Box 182, Brushton, USA
K) .. FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS published
by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand rapids, Michigan USA
L) .. TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY:
Tyndale House , Dorset Road, London SW19 3NN
M) .. Answers to Tough Questions by Josh McDowell and Don Stuart. Scripture Press, Amersham-on-the-Hill, Bucks HP6 6JQ, England. (ISBN 0-946515-51-4)
N) .. CREATION SCIENCE MOVEMENT
P) .. REVISION REVISED by Dean Burgon. Published by the Dean Burgon Society, Box 354, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108, USA Tel:609-854-4452
Q) DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE by Rev. D.A. Waite Th.D, Ph.D, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108 USA
Send to the following addresses for lists of books dealing with this Bible Version issue and study the matter further. You owe it to yourself and your family.
This article is just an introduction to the vital subject of Bible Versions. Leading believers of whatever church: bishops, priests, ministers, pastors, theological students, elders, deacons, Bible instructors etc. all have a grave responsibility to make sure that they do not sideline this issue as unimportant: because it is critical! Once again I urge all Christian leaders to write to one or more of the addresses above for lists of books dealing with this matter of Bible Versions: for great will be the wrath of Almighty God on those who knowingly and wilfully remain in darkness or keep their flocks in blissful ignorance.
Elder: D B Loughran
A free printed copy of this booklet is available on request from Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland. Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and please mention the title (in this case Bible Versions) and your full mailing address - including the country!
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1611
Seeing its readings proves to cynics that the KJV's text has never been "revised" and is identical to that used today
(except for the rare 1611 typographical slips which were shortly thereafter fixed by King James translators themselves).
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1637
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1772
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1787
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1829
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1872
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1903
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 2004
You can now purchase a 1611 King James Version 400th Anniversary Edition at a very low price. Published by Zondervan this is an exact, page-by-page, digitally re-mastered replica of the original 1611 printing, re-sized to a convenient 8.1 x 5.7 x 3 inches, and contains the original Old English Black Letter font. Click Here
Compare these scripture verses, John 14:16, John 16:7, I Corinthians 1:18, II Corinthians 2:15, Revelation 1:18 and Revelation 20:13,14, in modern bible versions such as the NIV and the NKJV and you will see that the KJV's superior "Comforter" has been replaced by a subordinate "helper"; and the assurance of our present salvation here and now where we "are saved" by grace through faith has been replaced by a works-based salvation where we are in the process of "being saved" by our own good works; and the word "hell" has been omitted thereby obscuring its philological meaning.
It is no coincident that new bible versions often agree with the Jehovah Witnesses New World Translation and the Roman Catholic New American Bible. For those who take the time to [search] the scriptures daily to [p]rove all things, and search out a matter to try the spirits and do their own research (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21; Prov. 25:2; I John 4:1), the serpent's signature can be seen subtly weaved into the pages of new bible versions. There is overwhelming evidence exposing the nature of the unholy omissions, additions and substitutions and the spiritual forces responsible for the changes (Isa. 14:14; II Cor. 2:17; 11:14,15; Eph. 6:12; II Thess. 2:3,11; I Tim. 4:1; Rev. 13:8).
ROME'S CHALLENGE - WHY DO PROTESTANTS KEEP SUNDAY?
HISTORICAL BOOKS & DOCUMENTATION OF FACTS
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Do new versions corrupt the gospel?
2. Do new versions corrupt the Lord's model prayer?
3. Do new versions permit sodomy?
4. Do new versions support foul spirits?
5. Do new versions support Roman Catholic errors?
6. Do new versions hurt Christians?
7. Does the Amplified Bible ignore the Rev. 22 warning?
8. Do some Dead Sea Scrolls pervert scriptures?
9. What about the Geneva Bible?
10. Why didn't Jesus use the Septuagint?
11. Do new version editors admit "important" changes?
12. Where does the NIV omit 15 verses?
13. Why avoid Greek and Hebrew lexicons, interlinears, software, and grammars for Bible study and translation !!!!!!!!
14. What is the most subtle Catholic change in new versions?
RETURN TO THE OLD PATHS
BIBLICAL ENGLISH ARCHAIC WORDS ?
ANOTHER BIBLE - ANOTHER GOSPEL
KJV 1611 - THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
KJV 1611 - ONLINE PHOTOGRAPHIC COPY OF ORIGINAL
KING JAMES VERSION "ERRORS"
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE FACTS
KING JAMES AUTHORIZED VERSION: VIDEO
KJV VOCABULARY Why the King James Version Should be Retained
THE KJV's ITALICIZED WORDS
HOLY BIBLE TITLE PAGES (& 1611 KJV Gothic print)
For nearly 400 years the KJV remains unchanged
Archaic Words and the Authorized Version
BUYING A NEW BIBLE: Some factors to be considered
LEFT BEHIND BY THE JESUITS
THE TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS
BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS
1 JOHN 5:7 - KJV "ERRORS"
ALLEGED KJV ERRORS: Easter/Passover
AMERICA: REPENT OR PERISH!
ANOTHER BIBLE - ANOTHER GOSPEL
ARE YOU A MORMON ?
CHRIST'S MASS - HISTORY REVEALS THE TRUTH
CHRISTMAS 2000 Years Before Christ
CORRUPT LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES
COULD THIS BE THE MARK OF THE BEAST ?
FOX's BOOK of MARTYRS
FREE MASONRY EXPOSED
GNOSTICISM and CHRISTIANITY
GOD and AMERICA
GOT MORALS ?
HISTORY OF BAPTISM
HISTORY OF THE RED LETTER EDITION
IMPORTANT NEWS ARTICLES
IN AWE OF THY WORD
IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS
IS SUNDAY SACRED AND HOLY ?
JESUS' BIRTH - THE UNTOLD STORY
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE FACTS
KJV 1611 - THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
LUCIFER: ANGEL OF LIGHT - FATHER OF LIES
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS
OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS
ONLY ONE GOD
PROPHECIES OF THE MESSIAH FULFILLED IN JESUS CHRIST
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY
RETURN TO THE OLD PATHS -- EXCERPT FROM THE MORNING STARS
ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS ABOUT SUNDAY
SCRIPTURES FROM THE HOLY BIBLE
THE 1611 KJV DEDICATORY
THE BIG BANG
THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD (by a former priest)
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND
THE GOD OF HEAVEN OR THE god OF THIS WORLD ?
THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
THE SEVEN SEALS OF THE HOLY BIBLE
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
THE TRUE SABBATH
WHAT'S WRONG WITH HALLOWEEN
WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED ?
WHO IS KING JAMES ?
WICCA/PAGAN SATANIC TIES
WORLD RELIGIONS - Article 2
To Top of Page!