I John 5:7

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 18 2006,21:54)

Hi,
Some may find this site of interest.
=http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions]http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions[/URL]

Nice try Nick, but I looked at it for less then a minute, this site you posted to speak against the King James and I found falsehood. Now, should I take the time to shread it to pieces or should I just continue with the doctrine and your futile attempts to disprove God's Holy Writ? Since you have no success in your battle against the doctrine posted here, it speaks for itself. For if it was of man, it would be proven untrue, but that which comes from above is faithful and true.

So if your agrument on my posts cannot stand, your post against the Holy Bible from this site will not stand.

September 19, 2006 at 10:59 pm#28738

Participant

Hi,
For the interest of all I post this view too which I do not neceassarily agree with.

“When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine
When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.

1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.

2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads “Then cometh Jesus,” where the original KJV read “Then cometh Judas.” Not all the changes are for the better, though – for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read “strain out a gnat,” which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have “strain at a gnat.” These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.

3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine.
a. They asserted that “the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.” In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God.
b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant.
c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate.
d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b).
e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible.
f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the “vulgar,” or common, language of the people – implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed.
g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.

4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine.
a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV.
b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is “pure” is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions.
c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.

5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself.
a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence.
b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse?
c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.

6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or “perversions” of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a seg
ment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).

7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible.
a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text.
b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen.
c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.

8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.

10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion.
a. Arguably the “Ruckmanites,” a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation.
b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an “inspired” revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries.
c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.

11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.

12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) “per-versions” of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.

Bibliography 1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related) Works

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint [1883]. Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible

Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

——————————————————————————–

God Bless You
acap
AtlantaChristianApologeticsProject
P.O. Box 450068
Atlanta, GA 31145
(770) 482-ACAP
http://www.atlantaapologist.org
——————————————————————————–

September 19, 2006 at 11:11 pm#28741

Participant

The Four-Fold Superiority of the King James Bible
by Dr. D.A. Waite

Dr. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean Burgon Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects. The following study is a summary of Waite's book Defending the King James Bible, which is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108. Waite presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: (1) SUPERIOR TEXTS (HEBREW AND GREEK); (2) SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS; (3) SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE; and (4) SUPERIOR THEOLOGY.

We begin with a couple of introductory thoughts about Bible translations:

Readability and the King James Bible. Many people say, “The KING JAMES BIBLE is too hard for people to read, they can't understand it.” Well, if you consult the readability index called “Right Writer” (a computer program) that is absolutely neutral on this subject, you will find readabilities for the portions of the KING JAMES BIBLE examined as follows:

From this chart you can see that the KING JAMES BIBLE is NOT too difficult to understand–provided that you can read at a 6th to 10th grade level. Our son, D. A. Waite, Jr., has written a study he calls Six Bible Versions Compared on Readability–A Comparison of the KJB, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV. He took the first chapter of every book in the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation and compared the six versions of the Bible mentioned above. In this sampling, the KJV, over all, has a “Flesch Grade Level” of from 6.1 to 8.6. The NIV, on the other hand, has a “Flesch Grade Level” of from 6.1 to 11.0!! The NIV is not only less accurate by far, but also less readable than the King James! From this evidence, we see that it's not too hard to understand the KING JAMES BIBLE.

I know hundreds of people whose intelligence and educational levels have not reached as high as some of these … people who say they can't understand this King James Bible, yet these people do understand it. How do you figure that out? Remember 1 Co. 2:14 which states, `But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' This verse is still true, regardless of which translation is used.

Some people say they like a particular version because they say it's more readable. Now, readability is one thing, but does the readability conform to what's in the original Greek and Hebrew language? That's the question! You can have a lot of readability, but if it doesn't match up with what God has said, it's of no profit. In the King James Bible, the words match what God has said. You may say it's difficult to read, but study it out. It's hard in the Hebrew and Greek and, perhaps, even in the English in the King James Bible. But to change it around just to make it simple, or interpreting it, instead of translating it, is wrong. You've got lots of interpretation, but we don't want that in a translation. We want exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English.

Do we need more “translations” of the Bible? It can be asked: “Do we really need more `translations' of the Bible? Are these new versions really necessary?”

1. Complete English Bibles. In the back of our book, Defending the King James Bible, there's a chart that lists the number of “complete English Bibles” by years. From the 1300's through the 1900's, there were a total of 135 “complete English Bibles.” This is taken from a research that's been done on English Bibles of all kinds. We notice that, on the average, there has been one complete English Bible every 4.4. years. Do you think we need more Bibles? In the last 604 years (from 1388 through 1991) complete English Bibles have increased in frequency. In the 1300's, there were only three; in the 1400's, there were none; in the 1800's, there were forty-five; in the 1900's, there were fifty-three (averaging one every 9.9 years).

2. Complete English New Testaments. In the same book, there is a chart that lists the number of “complete English New Testaments” by years. From the 1300's through the 1900's, there were a total of 293 “complete English New Testaments.” This is, on the average, one complete English New Testament every 2.1 years. Do you think we need more New Testaments? Even if they were all presently available, imagine someone reading all of them. In the last 612 years (from 1380 through 1991) complete English New Testaments have also increased in frequency. In the 1300's there was only one complete English New Testament; in the 1400's, there was none; in the 1800's, there were ninety; and in the 1900's, there were 144 (averaging one every .69 years). That's quite a jump–from ninety to 144!

3. Complete English Bibles and New Testaments combined. If you put the charts together we can see that during the 612 years, from the 1300's to the 1900's, there were a total of 135 complete English Bibles, and 293 complete English New Testaments. This totals 428. It means that, on the average, there was either one complete English Bible or complete English New Testament published every 1.4 years. Do we need more complete English Bibles or complete English New Testaments? That's the question. I believe that the major factor in the production of Bibles and New Testaments is money. When the publishers discover that a certain version no longer brings financial profit to their treasuries, that version runs out of print in a hurry! Very few churches are doing what the Berean Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana, is doing–printing Bibles and giving them out at low cost. In fact, they give many of them away without charge. To my knowledge, only those who have the real truth found in the King James Bible are doing this. You will find few, if any, publishers of the many perversions printing them at low cost or without charge!

Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible:

#1: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS. The first reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior texts, both Hebrew and Greek. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek.

THE KJV HAS A SUPERIOR O.T. HEBREW TEXT. There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the inaccurate one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHK) (1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well as in the Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHS) (1967-77) with all of their suggested footnote changes. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which our KJV is based is also available. It is called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). We carry this Hebrew Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in 1866. It has the Masoretic Hebrew text in the center and the King James Bible in the margins. This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of 1906 and 1912, used that texts and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a or “L”). He used this because he claimed it was the oldest single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about 1008 A.D.

Both of these inaccurate Bi
blia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page. This adds up to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. One or the other of these false Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used as the basis for the O.T. in all modern versions, as can be shown by reading their introductory pages. How many of these changes in the Hebrew text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,000? How about 20,000? 10,000? How about 5,000? How about 1,000? How many of you would like to accept 500 changes?

If you do not start with an absolute, where there is no doubt, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.

My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the “closest to the original autographs,” but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years–to a “thousand generations.”

The New Versions attempt to “CORRECT” The Hebrew Text in at Least 19 different ways. The NIV uses all nineteen of these, by the way.

In effect, the new version “translators/paraphrasers” might say, “Oh, I don't want to take this Hebrew word here. I want to take the Septuagint (LXX) reading instead.” But the Septuagint (LXX) version for the most part is worse than a Living Version. It is the Old Testament written in Greek. Its text is corrupt. Even the ISBE article, (the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) on the Septuagint (LXX) states that it has a very tattered and inferior Greek text. Remember, the ISBE is no friend of the King James Bible's text. The use of the Septuagint (LXX) by these new versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error.

Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at all. It is pure conjecture. They might say, “I don't have any proof, but I think it sounds better this way.” When this is done, they often print in the footnote an “L” which stands for “legendum,” meaning in Latin, “which read.” I remember Dr. Merrill F. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written many books, including Unger's Bible Dictionary. He was an apt and humble man, though he reminded me of an “absent-minded professor” at times. He taught us Isaiah in our second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way that differed from the Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, “Why did you read it that way? It doesn't read that way in the Hebrew text?” Dr. Unger replied, “Well, I just thought it sounded better that way, so I changed it.” Dr. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins University for his Ph.D. work. He was taught by Dr. Albright who was far from sound in his theology. Perhaps Dr. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. What was Dr. Unger doing? He was “CORRECTING” the Hebrew text by conjecture.

Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with the Syriac Version. Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with just “a few Hebrew manuscripts” rather than the entire Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text. Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with the Latin Vulgate. Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are a few problems. Problem #1: How do you know which Hebrew manuscripts this heretical cult (called the Essenes) took with them when they left the temple of Jerusalem and went to the area of the Qumran caves? Problem #2: How do you know the methods they used and the accuracy with which they copied and recopied those manuscripts? It just so happens that the Dead Sea Scrolls, probably 99% of the time, did concur with the Hebrew text that underlies the King James Bible. But, in the places where they don't, we should stick to the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.

Some (like the NIV), use “quotations from Jerome” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use Josephus, an unsaved Jewish man, to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use a “variant Hebrew Reading in the margin” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use “words in the consonantal text divided differently” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or Symmachus to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use the Hebrew Targums, Theodotion, or the “Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for the Hebrew Word of God? Was he there?

Still others use a “different set of Hebrew Vowels” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use “an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew. Some use the BIBLIA HEBRAICA of Kittel or Stuttgartensia to “CORRECT” the Hebrew. These are 19 of the different methods that other English versions have used to “CORRECT” the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, thus changing the very Words of God!

God authorized the Jews to be the exclusive guardians of His Words. The Jews were to be the guardians of the O.T. Hebrew text. God did not give that privilege and responsibility to any other race or people. “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Ro. 3:1,2).

It was the Hebrew O.T. text that God preserved, not some text in Greek, Latin, or Syriac, or any of these other documents. It must be Hebrew. There were eight or more important, strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew scribes who copied and recopied the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text. These rules were to insure that each letter, word, and sentence of the Hebrew text was preserved exactly. The Jews were meticulous and reverent in the copying and recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. That's why I believe that we should not change any of the Hebrew Words of God that underlie the KJV.

The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament Text is available today. I hope that the American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society keep printing and circulating this Letteris Hebrew text. That's what they call it, the Letteris text of 1866. This came out before Kittel decided to scrap it for his false Ben Asher text. These same Bible Societies print the false Hebrew texts, too. If they stop printing the true Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament text, by God's grace, we will do every thing in our power to see that it's reprinted page by page and get it back into circulation. We'll preserve the very O.T. Hebrew Words of God ourselves, if that becomes necessary. Sometimes this Hebrew Bible has gone out of stock at the American Bible Society, but it has always come back in stock by a shipment from England.

THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS A SUPERIOR NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. There is a simple table in our book which speaks volumes concerning the New Testament Greek text debate. Here it is:

The Greek Text that underlies the KJV. If you examine this table carefully, you will learn much about the debate that is raging concerning the Greek N.T. On the left of the table are some facts about the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJv. The Trinitarian Bible Society has published this text and made it available to anyone. The TBS took this text from that of Dr. Frederick Scrivener who was commissioned in about 1885, by the Cambridge University Press, to come up with the exact Greek text that underlies the King James Bible. Scrivener set down all of the Greek words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version. He inserted the exact a
lterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way. This Greek text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful tool. Scrivener's Greek text is also available on the LOGOS Computer Program which enables the student to study more carefully. Dr. Jack Moorman counted 140,521 Greek words in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener's Greek edition has 647 pages which would average 217 Greek words per page. That's what the Textus Receptus has.

2. The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort that underlies the Modern Versions. Though there were some scattered opposition to the Received Text in years before, the concerted effort against the Received Text came in 1881, and after. In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a radically new Greek text. Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T.

You might rightfully ask, “How did you come up with this number of changes?” That's a valid question. I took a copy of the original Scrivener's Greek N.T. to a summer Bible Conference where I was preaching. During the afternoon, when there were no meetings, I studied that volume carefully, making notations on it as I read. When I indicate that there are 5,604 places in the Greek N.T. where Westcott and Hort actually altered the Greek Textus Receptus used by the KING JAMES BIBLE translators, it is because I actually counted that many places. I have the data in my copy of Scrivener's Greek New Testament. These 5,604 places involve a total of 9,970 Greek words. How do I know that? Again, I counted them. I saw from the footnotes exactly how many Greek words each of the 5,604 places involved. As you might know, some of the places involve twelve entire verses (Mk. 16:9-20 and John 7:53– 8:11). In each of the 5,604 places, compared to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV, Westcott and Hort either added Greek words, subtracted Greek words, or changed the Greek words in some other way. You can see that the Westcott and Hort alterations amount to just thirty words short of 10,000 Greek words. This means that there are almost 10,000 Greek words that are different in the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (and probably about the same or more in the Nestle/Aland 26th edition Greek text) as compared to the Greek text that underlies our KJV.

This inaccurate Greek text, with its approximate 10,000 alterations, was the basis for virtually all of the modern English versions and perversions, including the ERV, ASV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV, LV and the rest.

Hort's own three estimates on the extent of the Greek textual problems between his text and the Textus Receptus. In 1882, Hort wrote an Introduction to the so-called Westcott and Hort Greek Text of 1881. In his Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek–The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., Hort made an estimate of the differences between various Greek texts. His estimate had three parts. Let me quote each of the parts:

(1) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that was virtually accepted by everyone. He wrote: “With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is NO VARIATION or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism; . . . The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is VERY GREAT, not less, on a rough computation, than SEVEN EIGHTHS OF THE WHOLE. The REMAINING EIGHTH therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism” (Hort, p. 2).

Since the “whole” in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek N.T. as seen in our table, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 7/8ths of the Greek New Testament virtually agreed to by all would be 122,956 Greek words (87.5%=566 pages). Hort's 1/8th of the Greek N.T. that he claimed was in dispute would be 17,565 Greek words (12.5%=81 pages). In point of fact, as seen in the above table, the area of dispute between the Westcott and Hort Greek text as opposed to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV is only 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). So Hort's estimate in this area is incorrect.

(2) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that would still be in doubt if his principles were followed. He wrote: “If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgement in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about ONE SIXTIETH of the whole New Testament” (Hort, loc. cit.).

Since the “whole” in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 1/60th of the Greek New Testament still subject to doubt if his principles were followed, would be 2,342 Greek words. This represents 1.76% of the Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek New Testament if put all in one place. But we don't follow Hort's “principles” at all. Because of this, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are still disputing 9,970 Greek words (rather than only 2,342 Greek words). This represents 7% of the Greek words (rather than only 1.76%), or 45.9 pages in a Greek New Testament if the words were put in one place (rather than only 11.4 pages). So Hort's estimate in this area is incorrect again. We still maintain that the of Greek words in dispute are vastly more in number than Hort has stated.

(3) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that contains “SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION.” He wrote: “In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than A THOUSANDTH PART of the entire text” (Hort, loc. cit.).

Since the “whole” in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 1/1000th of the Greek New Testament that he thought could be called “SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION” would be 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647 pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the Greek N.T. This is extremely wide of the mark of truth! Since we don't follow Hort's “principles” at all, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are still disputing, either in “SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION” or otherwise, a total of 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). It is Hort's last estimate that has been seized by his modern day puppets and grossly distorted in order to fool people into thinking that the problem is very tiny, when in reality, it is much, much larger!

The misquotation of Hort by his followers on the extent of the Greek textual problems between his text and the Textus Receptus. Modern disciples of this false Westcott and Hort Greek text have enlarged upon Hort's estimates. They say, in effect: “If all of the variant readings between the Westcott and Hort-type text and the Textus Receptus-type text were assembled together in one place
, they would amount to a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament.”

Hort's pupils are either knowingly or unknowingly misquoting their teacher. They want to make the DIFFERENCES in the Greek texts very, very slight so as to minimize the arguments against the false Westcott and Hort-types Greek text. From the above quotations from Hort's Introduction, his differences in Greek texts would be either 81 pages (1/8th), or 11.4 pages (1/60th), or .647 pages (1/1000th). Rather than merely “a little over one half a page,” Hort's 1/8th of total differences would amount to 81 pages. In reality, we are faced with faced with 45.9 pages of difference!

@PARABEFORE2 = A current illustration of this practice of distorting the facts in this area is found in a tape-recorded message given by Dr. Kenneth Barker, the chairman of the translation committee responsible for the New International Version. Dr. Barker spoke in the Sunday evening service, September 12, 1993, at the Southside Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina. A friend recorded the message and gave me a copy. Dr. Barker stated:

@BODY TEXT2 = “There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and all of them are AGREED 98% of the time. So all of this debate that Carson refers to in The King James Version Debate, all of this debate, all of the hullabaloo is over less than 2% of the entire text of the New Testament. And in that less than 2%, you can select any reading that you wish among the manuscripts, (that's not our approach, but you can) and it won't change Christian doctrine one bit.”

@PARAAFTER2 = Dr. Barker is wrong on TWO COUNTS! (1) His “less than 2%” difference between any of the Greek manuscripts would be 2,810 Greek words (12.9 pages). The truth of the matter is that there is a 7% difference between the Westcott and Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. This would be 9,970 Greek words (45.9 pages). This is a most serious error. It is a blatant falsehood that is being promulgated by the chairman of the NIV translation committee. It would give false confidence to the pastor and members of this church that had just recently given up the KJV in favor of Dr. Barker's NIV. (2) The second serious error is Dr. Barker's statement relative to the fact that variations in manuscripts “won't change Christian doctrine one bit.” In our book, we specify 158 such passages. Dr. Jack Moorman lists 356 such passages. These two falsehoods, from someone who should know better, are the major ones used to lull Bible believing Christians into deep slumber concerning the Bible version controversy that has been raging.

The King James Bible's Greek text is worth fighting for! The Greek Text of the New Testament is truly a BATTLEGROUND! Someone might say to you that there is really very little difference in the two Greek texts. They may tell you that you shouldn't be fighting about these differences. It seems to me that almost 46 pages of the Greek N.T. ARE worth fighting about. 9,970 Greek words are worth fighting about. 7% of the Greek N.T. is worth fighting about. This is a BATTLEGROUND! We must not retreat. We must do battle for the Lord's Words! We must stand fast. If we lose in this battle between truth and error, there's no stopping the onrush of more error. In the tug of war with truth and error, there is no middle ground. Those of us who believe in standing up for the Lord Jesus Christ should remember His Words: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38).

THE KING JAMES BIBLE'S GREEK TEXT IS ATTESTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Here is a table that is printed on page fifty-seven of Defending the King James Bible. It gives us a summary of the manuscript evidence that is available to us today.

As of 1967, Kurt Aland, of Munster, Germany, counted a total of 5,255 Greek manuscripts still in existence. Though there are a few others since 1967, I use these figures which are still very close. Aland is the lead editor of the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament which is being used as the critical text of today. I am using Aland's 1967 figures.

As you can see from the table, there are 81 (now 88) papyrus fragments. There are 267 uncial manuscripts. These are large, capital letter documents. There are 2,764 cursives manuscripts. These are the flowing hand manuscripts. There are 2,143 lectionary manuscripts. These are portions of Scripture that were read on certain days of the church year. This totals at least 5,255 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. that have been preserved and are available for us today.

The table gives the approximate number and percent of each type of Greek manuscript that supports the Westcott-Hort (WH) Greek text, as well as the number and percent of each class that supports the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text. These approximations are taken from the careful research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his book Forever Settled (see Bibliography). The WH figures are given first and those for the TR second. For the papyrus fragments the score is 13 to 75 (15% to 85%). For the uncial manuscripts the score is 9 to 258 (3% to 97%). For the cursive manuscripts the score is 23 to 2,741 (1% to 99%). For the lectionary manuscripts the score is 0 to 2,143 (0% to 100%). For the totals for all classes of manuscripts the score is 45 to 5,210. This is a ratio of less than 1% to more than 99%!

THE KING JAMES BIBLE'S GREEK TEXT HAS BEEN PRESERVED BY GOD. Which of the two kinds of Greek text has God preserved? How do you define preservation? The Scripture says:

“The Words of the Lord are pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep Them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve Them from this generation for ever” (Ps. 12:6,7).

Obviously God has “KEPT” and “PRESERVED” His Words in the 99% of the evidence, rather than in the 1%. By very definition, this is “PRESERVATION.” Suppose I had 100 million dollars to begin with and a thief stole it from me. Suppose I reported this to the police; and after long investigation, they were able to recover 99 million dollars out of the 100 million dollars. The thief would keep one million dollars. Which of the two parties could most accurately be described as having “PRESERVED” the 100 million dollars: the thief who had the one million dollars, or the police who recovered the 99 million dollars? The one million would be a “PRESERVATION” of practically nothing (1%) compared to the 99 million (99%). And so it is with the Greek manuscripts of the N.T. The fulfillment of God's promise to “KEEP” and “PRESERVE” His Words is to be found in the more than 99% of the manuscripts we have today. And these support the Greek Text that underlies the KJV, and NOT the Greek text that underlies the modern versions and perversions!

THE FALSE GREEK TEXTS OF “B” AND “ALEPH” CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER IN OVER 3,000 PLACES IN THE GOSPELS ALONE. In the total numbers of manuscripts, you'll notice that the Westcott- Hort type has only 45 manuscripts that go along with it as over against 5,210 that go along with the TR that underlies the KJV. This 45 includes “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) and forty- three of their little heretical puppets that follow them. The theory behind the acceptance of these less than 1% is that “The oldest are the best.” The oldest are not necessarily the best, especially if they have been tampered with by heretics!

Both Dr. Frederick Scrivener and Dean John William Burgon agreed that the greatest pollution of the stream of pure manuscripts was accomplished in the first 100 years after the New Testament was written! So the oldest are not necessarily the best! This is especially true since the heretics had their knives out “correcting” the Greek N.T. almost as soon as it was written. The Egyptian scribes and editors of “B” (Vatica
n) and “Aleph” (Sinai) were some of the most vicious “correctors” of God's Words; yet these two Greek texts form the very bedrock of the new versions and perversions of our day. “B” and “Aleph” contradict each other, as Herman Hoskier has so accurately pointed out in his two volume work entitled Codex B and Its Allies, in over 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone! So, they are not good witnesses. They are false witnesses indeed!

#2: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS. The second reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior translators.

Let's take a brief look at the superior translators of the KJV. Why do I say that the KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because they ARE superior! I think that there is no question about the expertise and ability of the translators who gave us our KJV. The new version people often say that the KJV translators were rather ignorant and didn't know as much about translating as the “translators/paraphrasers” of today. This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic qualifications are unequaled!

The accomplishments of Lancelot Andrews. Let's mention Dr. Lancelot Andrews. He was certainly a superior KJV translator. He had mastered fifteen languages. Someone said that if Dr. Andrews had been present at the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, he could have served as interpreter general. I don't know any of the modern “translator/paraphrasers” who have mastered fifteen languages, do you? Send me their names, if you have proof of this.

The acumen of William Bedwell. How about Dr. William Bedwell? He was famed in Arabic learning. I don't know how many of these new men who are “translating/paraphrasing” for these modern versions and perversions who have studied as much of the Arabic language as he had. In fact, he published in quarto, an edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. I don't know how many men today could do that. Dr. Bedwell left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. In fact, he wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary which is among Archbishop Laud's manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford today. I don't think anyone among our modern “translators/paraphrasers” of today has done this or could do this! Do you know any of these men who have written an Arabic dictionary and begun a Persian dictionary, or done anything similar in the scholarly world that will even come close to the accomplishments of William Bedwell? If so, send me their names and the proof. In our day, many people watch too much television. They attend too many football games, baseball games. and basketball games. We are ignoramuses today compared to the scholars who gave us our KJV!

The acceptability of Miles Smith. Look at the acceptability of Dr. Miles Smith. He was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost as familiar to him as his native tongue. Dr. Smith went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers, making annotations on them all.

The activities of Henry Savile. Sir Henry Saville was proficient in both Greek and mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. I don't know how many queens or kings our modern “translators/paraphrasers” have tutored, do you? Saville translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes. He published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on the Elements of Euclid. He was the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He was a profound, and exact scholar.

The academics of John Bois. John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. He studied at his father's knee. In fact, at the age of five, he had read the whole Bible IN HEBREW!! At the age of six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. If you know anything about the Hebrew letters, it's difficult to write in an elegant style, or in any style, for that matter. Much more could be said about John Bois.

The superior translators in general. Have you ever heard of Gulliver's Travels? It tells of Gulliver's adventures with the inhabitants of Lilliput. Do you remember what the Lilliputians did to poor Gulliver? They were tiny, tiny people, and Gulliver was like a giant to them. While he was asleep, they tied up Gulliver with tiny cords so he couldn't move. I liken the KJV translators to the giant Gulliver and the “translators/paraphrasers” of today to tiny Lilliputians. It states in Ge. 6:4: “There were GIANTS in the earth in those days…” It was true also from 1604 to 1611, when these profound scholars gave us our incomparable King James Bible! They had mastered English as well as the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. They also knew the cognate or brother-sister- cousin related languages that shed light on the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek such as the Aramaic, the Arabic, the Persian, the Coptic, the Syriac, and the others. When the modern “translators/paraphrasers” come upon a word they don't understand, they throw up their hands in dismay. The KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. Our modern “translators/paraphrasers” are linguistically illiterate when compared to the men who gave us our KJV. They truly were “GIANTS”!!

#3: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE. The third reason for defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior technique of translation. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior technique of translation.

The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence–not dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and perversions have used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal equivalence.

Alleged exceptions.

1. “God Forbid.” Some people allege that the KJB translators used dynamic equivalence in their expression “God forbid.” Even if it were the case (and I do not accept that it is), it is found only fourteen times in the New Testament: Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. It is a rendering of “mE genoito” which is “may it not be” or “let it not be.” This is perfect 1611 parlance for “God forbid.” It was quite literal in 1611. If you don't believe it, consult the Oxford English Dictionary which gives you the meaning of “God forbid” in 1611. It is found only seven times in the O.T.: Ge. 44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:23; 1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5. It is a rendering of “chalal” which is “may it be something profane” or “may it be far from me.” Again, “God forbid” is a perfect 1611- parlance for the Hebrew words used.

2. “God Save the King.” Another favorite allegation of dynamic equivalency in the KJV is the expression “God save the king.” Even if it were the case (and I do not accept that it is), it is only found four times in the O.T.: 1 Sa. 10:24; 2 Sa. 16:16; 2 Ki. 11:12; 2 Ch. 23:11. It means “may the king live long” or “may the king be preserved or safe.” Well, if the king lives long, he is “saved” is he not? [Editor: The term “salvation” was used in a much broader sense in past centuries.] So why not let the 1611- parlance of “God save the king” alone? The fact is that such examples are very, very few in the KJV, whereas they abound in the modern versions and perversions because in those, the dynamic equivalent technique is the rule rather than the exception.

The King James Bible's verbal and formal equivalence. Th
e KJV basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the grammar. They didn't take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper concept of what “translation” really is. It comes from translatus which in turn comes from two Latin words, trans (“across”) and latus which is the past participle of fero (“to carry”). It means to “carry across” from one place to another, or from one language to another. It does not seek to CHANGE, or to ADD, or to SUBTRACT!

Let me illustrate “translation.” If I have my wife's pocketbook and I want to translate it from one side of the church to the other, I would simply pick it up, take it across the aisle, and put it on the other side of the church. I wouldn't leave any of it behind, even though there may be some things in it I wouldn't want to take over. I wouldn't add anything to it, and I wouldn't drop any of it in the center aisle. Now that's translation, translatus. That's what the KJV translators did. They just simply took the Hebrew words and put them into English. They picked up the Greek words and put them into English. That's translation. That's the superior technique.

The modern versions' use of dynamic equivalence. I have a computer print-out research of three of these modern versions–the New King James, the New American Standard, and the New International. When compared to the Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Words of God. In a similar study of the New American Standard Version, I found over 4,000 such examples. In a similar study of the New International Version I found over 6,653 such examples.

What is meant by dynamic equivalency? “Dynamic” means “moving or changing.” “Equivalence” means “the same or unchanging.” You can't have it both ways! It is either changing or unchanging. Those who use this erroneous technique in the various “translations/paraphrases” think it's a great technique. The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to ADD to God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God's Words (which is sin), or to CHANGE God's Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest possible CURSE on anyone who dares to do any of those three things to God's Words!! Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para (“along side or beside”) and phrasis (“a word or phrase”). It means to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning. It is to state something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators sought, to put into English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather than to give something that is “beside” or “along side of” the word or phrase.

#4: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR THEOLOGY. The fourth reason for defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior theology. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior theology.

Some denials that theology is affected by Greek or English versions. It is said by those who use the new versions and perversions of the Bible that there is no difference in any of them when it comes to theology. It is also said that there is no difference in any of the Greek texts in the matter of theology. This is even said by those who are looked up to as Bible believing leaders. There are two phases of their theological denial:

(1) These men believe that the Greek textual variants between the two basic Greek texts do not affect theology or doctrine. They believe that the false Westcott and Hort Greek text (when compared to the Greek text of the KJV) contains nothing that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is false.

(2) These men also believe that the modern English versions do not contain changes from the KJV that affect theology or doctrine. They believe that you can take any modern English version you wish and when you compare it to the KJV, that version does not have anything in it that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is also false.

Dr. John R. Rice stated: “The differences in the translations are so minor, so insignificant, that we can be sure not a single doctrine, not a single statement of fact, not a single command or exhoratation, has been missed in our translations.” (meaning the English Revised Version of 1881 or the American Standard Ver- sion of 1901)

This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: “The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine.” This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: “No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading.” False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: “No doctrine is affected.” False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: “Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us.” False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: “Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine.” False again!

Some examples of theology that is affected by Greek and English versions. I have given 158 examples of the theological superiority of the KJV in my book. I selected these from Dr. Jack Moorman's compilation of a total of 356 doctrinal passages that have been changed in the Egyptian heretical Greek texts of “B” (Vatican), “Aleph” (Sinai), and others. I'll give you some examples of doctrines that are affected by these false Greek texts and new versions.

1. John 3:15. “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” 2. Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”.

Because “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? [Editor: While it is true that verse 48 is retained in this passage in the modern versions, the power and authority is weakened by two- thirds. The God- honored Received Text says Jesus repeated this statement three times to emphasize the horrors of going to hell. The critical text removes two of these statements, thus weakening the force of the doctrine.]

When you take the “literal fire” out of hell, as many new- evangelicals and (and even some fundamentalists) have done, and as all of the apostates have done, and as Mary Baker Eddy and all false cults have done, you are in serious trouble and in grievous doctrinal error! For centuries, many have removed the fire out of hell even though the KJV keeps it in. Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a “fireless hell”!

3. John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive “everlasting life.” But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the “B” (Vat
ican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, “on me.” Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes “on me.” So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because “on me” (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: “Whoever believes has everlasting life.” Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says “believes.” According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That's major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!

4. Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

The heretical Greek texts of “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) remove the two words, “of Christ” in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. “Gospel” means “good news” or a “good announcement.” What “gospel” could be inserted there instead of the “gospel of Christ”? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!

5. John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, “Aleph” (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.”

According to the Greek text “Aleph” (Sinai), the word “yet” must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of “yet” makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!

Concluding remarks: I believe that in the King James Bible we have the Word of God kept intact in English. I believe we should defend the KJV for four reasons: (1) It has superior original language texts (Hebrew and Greek); (2) It has superior translators; (3) It has superior technique; and (4) It has superior theology.

@PARABEFORE2 = We ought not to be ashamed of the Book of books that has stood the test of time and will continue standing. Let's stand for it and with it. I hope the reader will secure for himself a copy of our book, Defending the King James Bible–A Four-fold Superiority–Texts, Translators, Technique, and Theology. In it we have elaborated on each of the above considerations. The KJV, which is being hammered and beaten on every hand today (by so-called “friend” and foe alike), can be very much likened to the “ANVIL” in that famous poem with which I close:

THE ANVIL OF GOD'S WORD
Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door
And heard the anvil sing the vesper chime;
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with blasting years of time.

“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he; and then, with twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so I thought, the anvil of God's Word
For ages, skeptic blows have beat upon.
Yet tho' the noise of falling blows was heard
The anvil is unharmed–the hammers gone.
–John Clifford

September 19, 2006 at 11:20 pm#28745

Participant

Hi h,
You argue for the” KJV only” form of faith and are alone here is playing such a carnal game. We accept and love the kjv alongside the other translations, despite all their faults.

Those who do what you are doing often really are only paying lipservice to the KJV and are using it for personal power, and claiming their own personal infallibility, because when they are challenged they say they are standing on the ultimate proof.

September 19, 2006 at 11:31 pm#28747

Participant

And what if I am right? The doctrine posted comes from the King James and speaks for itself. If it is not of God, it will be proved wrong. Yet, if it is of God, nothing on this earth will move it.

September 20, 2006 at 4:21 am#28776

Participant

Hi H,
The manuscripts are not the problem.
The men who translate them are imperfect.
Also those who teach from them are imperfect
especially if they do not abide in the Word
and make changes to that bible to justify their teachings.

September 23, 2006 at 11:58 pm#29072

Participant

And yet the doctrine I have post here that comes from the King James you cannot discredit Nick, but it has revealed who you really are and that is one who does not stand on the true Word of God.

September 24, 2006 at 8:52 am#29092

Participant

Hi H,
What we are looking at here is the veracity of the Word of God as shown in the kjv and it seems as good as most with the odd flaw. Your involvement in the posting of it adds liitle in importance does it?

September 24, 2006 at 5:19 pm#29098

Participant

Sorry, I really don't see the big deal. Jesus and the Father are one in the Holy Spirit. Most of the translations say THREE that bear witness. God is one. We are to be one in the Holy Spirit just as Jesus (the Word) and the Father are one. Spiritually one + one + one =ONE However we know in order the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father being the greatest. That's what I see when taking all scripture together.

1Jo 5:7

(ASV) And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

(CEV) In fact, there are three who tell about it.

(DRB) And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

(ESV) For there are three that testify:

(GNB) There are three witnesses:

(GW) There are three witnesses:

(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(KJV+) For3754 there are1526 three5140 that bear record3140 in1722 heaven,3772 the3588 Father,3962 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Holy40 Ghost:4151 and2532 these3778 three5140 are1526 one.1520

(KJVR) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(LITV) For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

(MKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

(MSG) A triple testimony:

September 24, 2006 at 7:29 pm#29100

Participant

Hi kenrch,
You say
“Sorry, I really don't see the big deal. Jesus and the Father are one in the Holy Spirit. Most of the translations say THREE that bear witness. God is one. We are to be one in the Holy Spirit just as Jesus (the Word) and the Father are one. Spiritually one + one + one =ONE However we know in order the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father being the greatest. That's what I see when taking all scripture together.”

So Jesus and the Father are one in the Holy Spirit.
TRUE
That is two that are one.
We are one in that same Spirit in Christ .
That is many in one.
So where does three come from?

September 24, 2006 at 8:57 pm#29106

Participant

Hi Nick,

I would think that the Holy Spirit is what makes them and us one.
Father + Son + their Spirit =three But spiritually One + one +one + ALL HIS CHILDREN= ONE. God all in all.

September 24, 2006 at 9:34 pm#29110

Participant

Dear Kenrch,

Only those of the same spirit of God will understand the things of God. You and I know that the Holy Spirit is God. And that for any to say 1 John 5:7 is contrary to truth only means the truth is not in them. For Jesus was begat of the Father and by the unction of the Holy Spirit, which filled him completely, he was and is and always will be the perfect will of the Father. So to say that this scripture is not true is bordering on the line of blasphamy in my opinion. Only the enemies of God will say this scripture is not of truth.

September 24, 2006 at 9:47 pm#29112

Participant

Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 24 2006,21:57)

Hi Nick,

I would think that the Holy Spirit is what makes them and us one.
Father + Son + their Spirit =three But spiritually One + one +one + ALL HIS CHILDREN= ONE. God all in all.

Hi kenrch,
God and his Son are eternally united in the Spirit of God since the Jordan.
The Spirit is never separate from God as another person.
We in Christ are also united in God's Spirit, in God, in Christ.

September 24, 2006 at 10:11 pm#29123

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 24 2006,22:47)

Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 24 2006,21:57)

Hi Nick,

I would think that the Holy Spirit is what makes them and us one.
Father + Son + their Spirit =three But spiritually One + one +one + ALL HIS CHILDREN= ONE. God all in all.

Hi Nick, I didn't say the Holy Spirit is a separate person.
Jesus has a spirit of his own. You and I have a spirit of our own. The Father who IS SPIRIT has the Holy Spirit. Jesus has the Holy Spirit, we have the Holy Spirit, All God's children have the Holy Spirit. This is how we are ONE. And in the New Kingdom God by the Holy Spirit will be all in all.

1Co 15:28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

September 24, 2006 at 10:40 pm#29132

Participant

Do you understand what I'm saying Nick.

September 24, 2006 at 10:56 pm#29133

Participant

Hi kenrch,
You say
“Father + Son + their Spirit =three “

Father and Son are two.

Father gives fleshly life to Jesus and so the son has his earthly spirit which he loses again at Calvary.
Matt 27
“50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit”

Jesus is also anointed with God's Spirit [becoming in him the Spirit of Christ]and God raised him by this abiding Spirit.

Lk 4
” 1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness “

We too can be vessels for the Spirit.

So there are not three but two.

September 24, 2006 at 11:18 pm#29136

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 24 2006,23:56)

Hi kenrch,
You say
“Father + Son + their Spirit =three “

Father and Son are two.

Father gives fleshly life to Jesus and so the son has his earthly spirit which he loses again at Calvary.
Matt 27
“50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit”

Jesus is also anointed with God's Spirit [becoming in him the Spirit of Christ]and God raised him by this abiding Spirit.

Lk 4
” 1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness “

We too can be vessels for the Spirit.

So there are not three but two.

Ok so God is the Holy Spirit?

September 24, 2006 at 11:21 pm#29137

Participant

During the three days and nights wasn't it Jesus who preached to the spirits in prison?

September 24, 2006 at 11:32 pm#29141

Participant

Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 25 2006,00:18)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 24 2006,23:56)

Hi kenrch,
You say
“Father + Son + their Spirit =three “

Father and Son are two.

Father gives fleshly life to Jesus and so the son has his earthly spirit which he loses again at Calvary.
Matt 27
“50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit”

Jesus is also anointed with God's Spirit [becoming in him the Spirit of Christ]and God raised him by this abiding Spirit.

Lk 4
” 1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness “

We too can be vessels for the Spirit.

So there are not three but two.

Ok so God is the Holy Spirit?

Hi kenrch,
The Holy Spirit is of God.
The Spirit is the Spirit of God.
The Spirit is the finger of God.
The Spirit is never separate from the Source of that Spirit-
God.
But God is in heaven.
His Spirit is poured out and infuses his creation.

September 25, 2006 at 12:20 am#29143