Bible Versions
Stewarton Bible School
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Original Autographs
(Masters)
3. Copies of the Masters
A
Divine Warning
4. The Masorites
5. Manuscripts
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
Misleading
Footnotes
Dean John William Burgon
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Oldest and Best!
The Invention of Printing
10. The King James Version
Archaic
Language
Thee & Thou
Alleged Errors: Easter/Passover
KJV Translators
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
Dangerous Changes
Spiritual Pollution
12.Famine of the Word of God!
A
Solemn Warning
Martyrs for the Word of God
The Basic Bible Study
13.SUMMARY
1. Introduction
The Proof
Part Three
1. Reference Books: Publishers/Authors, Useful
Addresses
Part One
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 second.
DIVINE INSPIRATION
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:
PROVIDENTIAL
PRESERVATION
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 translation, 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 (Yahweh) 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 version/s 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?"
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.
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.
Divine Preservation
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.
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:
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.
Paul writes:
|
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. |
|
2 Thess.2:2 |
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.
John writes:
|
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 four facts: |
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… |
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… |
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
known fact.
|
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.'"
(Ref:J5) |
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.
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). |
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 & onwards)
"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 France) (AD177)
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.
ENGLISH BIBLES
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." (Reef: E4)
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." (Ref:F3) |
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: E6) "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…" (Ref:A5)
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
did so.
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) |
Two Bibles
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 Church. |
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… |
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.
Misleading Footnotes
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.
John William Burgon
John Burgon
was undoubtedly one of the greatest defenders of the Greek text of the New
Testament. He exposed the hundreds of amendments, deletions and additions in
the Minority Text and defended the reliability of Textus
Receptus till the day of his death. Unlike most
Bible students, Burgon was a Greek scholar of the
highest rank who spent much of his life browsing through the museums and
libraries of Europe examining the ancient Greek manuscripts. He had first hand experience examining the Vatican texts
whilst he ministered to a congregation in Rome. His findings are of utmost
value in these days of wilful, spiritual ignorance
and sin. I will quote a few extracts about this magnificent warrior from David
O Fuller's book Which Bible?
|
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…the 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. |
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... |
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. |
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. |
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… |
Rev. Gipp
|
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. |
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.
|
Quote: |
"In the reign of
Edward 1 of England, about 1272, the price of a complete (hand-written) Bible
was from £30 to £37, and occupied a careful scribe in his
scriptorium about ten months, while the days wage of
a working man only averaged 1.5 pennies. When it is borne in mind that it
only cost £25 to build two arches of London Bridge in 1240, while the
price of a complete Latin Bible was considerably more, it will readily be
allowed that only the rich and scholarly had access to the Word of God." (Ref: A7) |
"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:
'We must root out printing
or printing will root us out.' "
(Ref:E3)
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. |
Archaic Language
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. |
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.
Hebrew
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. |
Greek
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 exemplary
lives… 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) |
Why the King James Version Should be Retained.
This is so important an
issue that I will again quote from Edward F Hills' book The King James
Version Defended pages 218-219
|
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 the 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:
|
Quote: |
"All 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: B11) |
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. The 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… The convergence, 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.
Dangerous Changes
|
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 and cursive'…The
Vatican Codex …sometimes alone, 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
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. |
Yes, God's words are
important - vitally important. A translator must, therefore, translate God's words - all of
them - and not assume that he understands the Almighty's thoughts and can
change or delete the divine words to reflect what he thinks God meant.
The King James Version translators employed a 'word for word'
translation technique. That is, they translated each Hebrew and Greek word as
closely as possible into its English equivalent. Modern translators chose a
vastly different method called 'dynamic equivalence.' using this method
the translator primarily endeavours to carry forward 'God's
thoughts and intentions' without paying too much attention to His
actual words. Using 'dynamic equivalence' in hundreds yea
thousands of places, the modern translators have changed the very 'words of
God' and replaced them with what, they think, God meant. In
effect, dynamic equivalence is not true translation, but interpretation or
paraphrase.
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)
SPIRITUAL POLLUTION
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, |
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.
A Solemn Warning
In the closing chapter
of his book The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills pens this
solemn warning. We all do well to take heed.
|
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) |
Martyrs for the Word of God
Multiplied millions of
true believers in ages past have died for the Word of God. Publishing
the Bible was a major crime. To possess a Bible, or even portions of one,
placed a Christian in a very dangerous position. During the dark ages the
situation was immeasurably worse. One has only to study the history of the Waldensian Church to see how dangerous it was
for true believers to possess the Scriptures. Multitudes perished by sword,
famine, beatings, burning, hangings and torture. Many were slain with Bibles
tied around their necks. One of the greatest Christian classics on this subject
is Fox's Book of Martyrs: a book which in ancient days was chained -
alongside the Bible - to the reading desks in many British churches. Make time
to study this book. It tells of martyrs who died in their tens of thousands -
yea millions - all because they lived and loved the teachings of the Real Word
of God. Here is a quote from page 179 of this masterpiece concerning William
Tyndale, the first man to translate the Bible into English from the
original languages:
|
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!
PART ONE has brought many vital facts to your attention:
the most important of which is that unbelieving copyists and unbelieving
translators have resulted in the production of millions of modern English
Bibles which are nothing more than counterfeits of the Real Word of God -
the KING JAMES VERSION. Let me now summarise Part
One.
Elder David B Loughran
INTRODUCTION
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.
THE PROOF
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 APOCRYPHA
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.'
THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION …1984
The title of this
version is extremely deceptive and positively dangerous; because the
unsuspecting believer will purchase it not knowing that he/she is getting an
unholy counterfeit of the real Bible - the King James Version. In
his book Final Authority author William P Grady says this concerning the
NKJV.
|
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 sword… 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 TEXTUS RECEPTUS! … 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:
VERSION………………………………CHANGES
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?
VITAL QUESTIONS
Now that you know these
facts, and you ought to examine this issue till you are fully convinced in your
own mind, several unavoidable questions will present themselves.
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. Yahweh 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
Part Three
REFERENCE BOOKS
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
USEFUL ADDRESSES
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.
Modern Translations
Other Ancient Writings
Questions About Bible Versions
Reference Books on Bible Versions
One of the most,
perhaps the most, important decision facing Christians today concerns Which
Bible to select for daily study. Currently there are some 100+ modern
English language 'Bibles' in circulation! They are all different from
each other and all cast doubt on the Authorised
King James Version: the version Almighty God has sanctioned and
blessed for nearly 400 years: the version which triggered the great Protestant
Reformation - throughout the world! In view of these facts it is vital that
you know something about Bible history before you choose the version you and
your family study every day.
The following books
are all highly recommended.
Write to these
addresses requesting lists/prices of books dealing with the Bible Version
issue and study the matter. You owe it to yourself, your family and your local
church.