The Superiority of the King James Bible

By Pastor Danny Jack

Pastor of GUIDING LIGHT BAPTIST CHURCH
Shag Harbour, Nova Scotia

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

Introduction............................................................………...4

Inspiration and
Preservation...........................................................……….15

The Exercise of
Faith.......................................................................……….29

There Is No Such Thing as Two

Bibles....................................................................………..34

The Text is
Superior.................................................................………..37

Two Approaches Taken to God’s

Word......................................................................……….39

The Old Testament

Text........................................................................……….42

The New Testament

Text.............................................................................……51

The Translators Are

Superior........................................................................….105

The Technique Is
Superior.........................................................................…128

2
The Theology Is
Superior.....................................................................……149

Conclusion........................................................................176

Appendix
A............................................................................………187

Bibliography........................................................……….188

3
Introduction

As I begin to write I am reminded of the fact that

there are many great people who have spent their lives
studying the subject of Bible versions1. We would do well
to read the writings of these men that we are so indebted to
in this area. Some of these men will be quoted and referred
to in this study. Please keep in mind that just because I
quote someone does not mean that I stand for all that
person stands for, and that I agree with him in every area of
doctrine. The basic outline that I have used comes from a
book by D.A. Waite.2 The Bible version issue is a battle
that has been going on for quite some time and shows no
indication of going away, nor should it!3 As long as there
are multiple versions in the English language the truth must
be told.

The Bible is the final authority of all that we say and

do as Christians. If Satan can keep us from the Bible than
we have no direction as believers. If he can keep us in the
dark concerning the version issue than he has won the
victory. If I am not using the proper Bible then Satan has
me defeated as a Christian and I would then have no
authority for my life. Is it any wonder that he has been
doing all that he can to rid us of the Word of God and to
corrupt any copies that we have!

1
Hugo W.K. Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy –
Answered (n.p., n.d.), 3.
2
D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Version (Collingswood, NJ:
The Bible For Today, 1992).
3
Schönhaar, op. cit., 5.
4
 This is not intended to be a scholarly study. It has
been purposely written for the person in the pew, who has
for far too long been told that we cannot know for certain
whether or not we really do have God’s Word today. Any
preacher who has such a view regarding God’s Word would
be doing everyone a favor to get out of the pulpit and find a
job doing something he does believe in4. This is written for
people who have never taken the time to look into what has
been done in the modern versions and who is behind them.
It is written for people who have been asking, “Is there a
difference in the various English versions or do they all say
the same thing?” These people need to be made aware of
what Satan has been doing to the Bible. For a personal
reason, I am writing this because I hold a very jealous
regard for God’s holy Word, and I cannot keep silent when
it is being tampered with. Abraham Lincoln once said, “To
sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of
men.” Hosea wrote, “My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge...”5 Satan is destroying the Bibles of many
Christians through their lack of knowledge of the English
Bible. There are many versions out there that have “Holy
Bible” written on the front of them. We have learned a
long while ago that we should never judge a book by its
cover. Are all of these versions the Word of God? Is one
of them the Word of God? Is the Bible that you carry the
Word of God? This document is the result of years of study
in the life of the author to answer that very question.
4
Ibid, 6.
5
Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be
no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will
also forget thy children.
5
 What has really bothered this author is how many of
these modern versions are being accepted and used by
many Christians who do not know where or why these
versions were brought into existence, and even less about
the men who wrote them. It is widely believed by many
Christians that modern translations are merely an updating
of the English language. What few realize, however, is that
these modern versions (1) are translated from highly
questionable sources, (2) tamper with the text in such a way
as to change key doctrines in some places, and (3) omit
words, phrases, verses, and even entire sections of
Scripture which, we are told, are not in the “older and better
manuscripts.” (We will deal with this later.)

The reason why Satan hates the Bible so much and

has been seeking to destroy it is because the Bible is the
Word of God. He would love nothing more than to get us
to the point that we would no longer have the Word of God
in the English language. There are many people who
would be just as content to sit down and watch it happen,
but this author is not one of them. I believe that the Bible
is the Word of God and that the world needs God’s pure
words today. John W. Burgon stated it well when he said:

“The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the
throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every
syllable of it, every letter of it, it is the direct utterance of the Most
High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some of it
more, some of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth
upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.”

6
 Well did the hymn writer tell us our source of
authority was the Bible when she wrote:

“Jesus loves me! this I know, For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong, They are weak, but He is strong.”6

Contained in what we often call a children’s hymn is

a very profound concept. How do I know that Jesus loves
me? THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO! How do I know that
Christ died for my sins? THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO!
What is the basis for believing any doctrine of Christianity,
for claiming any promise of God (including salvation)?
THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO!

For the Christian, our source of authority in all

matters of faith, doctrine, and practice is the Bible. Our
hope is not built on fables, philosophy or feelings. Our
faith is based upon the written record of God’s revelation to
man. In fact, without the Word of God we can have no
faith as “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God” (Romans 10:17).

The Bible is not merely an accessory to Christianity.

It is our source of truth, wisdom, doctrine, assurance and
hope. It is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone
that believeth” (Romans 1:16). It is not man’s concept of
God, but rather God’s revelation of Himself.

Because of the very nature of the Bible as our source

of authority, it is crucial that the Scriptures themselves have

6
Anna B. Warner, Jesus Loves Me!
7
absolute authenticity. If it is something less than the precise
and exact Word of God, then it no longer carries the
authority of God. It is not enough for a Bible to just
contain the Word of God. A Bible must be the Word of
God.

“Mixing the Word of God with the words of men

results in a work which leaves the believer in a quandary.
How would you know which words are God’s and which
ones are men? Doctrine would be suspect; hope would be
unsettled; assurance would vanish; revelation would be
uncertain and faith would be without ground.”7

Realizing the truth that the Bible is the Word of God

and that it is the final authority of faith and practice, is it
any wonder that Satan has attacked it and sought to corrupt
it. Satan began his work of questioning and corrupting
God’s Word in the Garden of Eden8 and he has been at it
ever since. Not only does Satan question, add to, subtract
from, deny, and twist God’s Word9, but he has many
modern day Eves10 working for him to accomplish this as
well. Notice how he undermines the Word of God in
Genesis 3 as he is still using the same method today. He
has not changed at all.

7
Norman Ward, Perfected or Perverted? (Grand Rapids, MI: Which
Bible? Society, n.d.), 1.
8
Genesis 3:1 - Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the
field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman,
Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
9
Schönhaar, op. cit., 3,4.
10
Ibid, 4.
8
 What God said: What Eve or the Devil said: The truth affected:
And the Lord God Yea, hath God said,...? Satan questions and casts
commanded the man , Genesis Genesis 3:1 doubt on the Word of God.
2:16a

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

Here we can see the deceit practiced by Satan as he

handles the Word of God. Eve was a part of the first
revision committee that Satan came up with to corrupt the
Word of God. The ultimate result of her “revision” of the
Word of God was that death came to the human race. Men
have been “handling the Word of God deceitfully”12 ever

11
loc. cit.
12
II Corinthians 4:2 - But have renounced the hidden things of
dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God
deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to
every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
9
since the devil first taught Eve how to do so. The history of
the Bible text is a history of a conflict between God and
Satan. In II Corinthians 2:17 the Holy Spirit warned
against the “many who corrupt the Word of God.”13 You
can be certain that this corruption is of the devil. Any man
or movement that encourages doubt in God's Word is
satanically motivated. II Corinthians 11:3 states, “ But I
fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted
from the simplicity that is in Christ.” We need to be
willing to stand against what is erroneous and be ready
always to give a reason for the hope that lieth in us with
meekness and fear.14

C.H. Spurgeon stated it well when he said, “The

craving to alter the Word of God is accursed. This is the
crime of the present day. The Lord preserve us from it.”15
Martin Luther said: “No greater mischief can happen to a
Christian people than to have God’s Word taken from them
or falsified, so that they can no longer have it pure and
clear. God grant that we and our descendants are not
witnesses to such a calamity. Let us not lose the Bible, but
with diligence, in fear and invocation of God, read it and
preach it. What would he say if he knew the situation that
13
II Corinthians 2:17 - For we are not as many, which corrupt the
word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God
speak we in Christ.
14
I Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the
hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
15
Donald T. Clarke, God’s Miracle Book: The King James Bible
(Halifax, NS: People’s Gospel Hour, n.d.), 8.
10
we are in today almost five hundred years later?

We are living in a day and age where Satan has put

out a malicious attack on the Word of God and many of his
men have been busy on his revision committees. He is
doing all that he can to cause people to doubt and question
the Word of God. We can thank Satan for the confusion he
has brought upon this issue. He is the mastermind behind it
all. David Otis Fuller put it this way:

“Born again Christians are facing the most malicious and vicious
attack upon God’s inspired Holy Word since the Garden of Eden.
And this attack began in its modern form in the publication of the
Revised Version of the Scriptures in 1881 in England.”16

D.A. Waite had this to say about the confusion that Satan
has brought:

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

Now what does your common sense tell you about

who would be behind all this confusion. It certainly isn’t

16
David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine (Grand Rapids, MI:
Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975), 9,
17
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 51,52.
11
God!18 Satan is the master of deceitful doubting and he is
the author of all this confusion. The devil wins if he can
plant seeds of confusion and doubt into the hearts of
people. Once you forsake a standard, you’re adrift on the
sea of doubts. There is nothing to take its place. Satan has
had a constant attack against two things: the Word of God
and the Son of God. David Otis Fuller says:

“The ‘god of this world’ directs his attack first on the character and
person of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word,
and then on the integrity and accuracy of the written Word of God -
the Bible. From the beginning there has been no pause in the assault
of God’s Son and God’s Word.”19

Just because Satan has been carrying out his attack

on the Word of God does not mean that we are not to
reverence the Word, which Satan seeks to destroy. Just
because “Bible scholars” are putting question marks all
over God’s Word does not give us a reason to belittle it.
Rather, we are to magnify the Word of God even if
everybody else is dragging it through the mud. Someday
you and I will have to give an account to the Author of that
Book for how we treated His Word and the place that it
held in our hearts. It is important to note that God’s
attitude towards His Word has not changed and God
desires for our attitude to be the same towards His
Word. Notice what Psalm 138:2 tells us:

18
I Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of
peace, as in all churches of the saints.
19
David Otis Fuller, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids
International Publications, 1970), 4.
12
“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy
lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word
above all thy name.”

What a profound statement! If God has “magnified”

His Word even “above” His name, we ought to be doubly
careful as to how we treat this precious Bible, the Word of
God. What is our attitude towards the Word of God?
When we handle God’s holy Word, are we fully persuaded
that it is different from any other book ever written? We
should be. It is a supernatural Book, a Book that our
sovereign God has written through His servants of old. If
we will but stop and think of how the prophets, apostles,
and patriarchs of old treated the Holy Word of God with
such reverence and adoration, it can be clearly seen that we
need to adopt the same attitude. Thus we should have the
utmost reverence and respect for it. The Bible is our
infallible guide through a dark world. It is the anchor of
our souls in a world of storm. It only makes good sense for
the Christian to stand for that which God has magnified.
Thank God that He has reserved to Himself many good
Bible believers who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

We find an interesting passage in relation to this in

Amos 8:11-13,

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a
famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but
of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to
the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and
shall not find it.
13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.
13
 It is indeed true today, for so many there is a famine
in the land. We have the “Bible” in many versions but yet
Christians have never been so spiritually illiterate20.
Almost without exception, people who use modern versions
hardly ever read them. How many people do you know
who own a modern version that is marked up and worn out
from usage? Without this Book, our hope is without
assurance, our doctrine without ground and our faith
without foundation! We would be of all men most
miserable. Without Scripture, we would fumble in spiritual
darkness, unaided by the very bright beacon of the absolute
and final authority of the Word of God. There would be no
satisfaction for our spiritual hunger.

20
Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 5.
14
Inspiration and Preservation

There are many views on the inspiration and

preservation of the Scriptures. What I want to do here is
very simply look at the truth of Scripture and not the
teaching of men regarding this subject. Let us look at what
the Word of God teaches in relation to inspiration and
preservation. II Timothy 3:16,17states,

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable

for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works.

Notice also what II Peter 1:19-21 says about

inspiration:

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto Ye do

well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until
the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This verse does not teach the “mechanical dictation

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

15
Scripture?” Let us see what God says about this. There
are a number of references that teach regarding this, but we
will look at just a few of them from the Gospel of John.

John 3:34 - For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God:
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

John 6:63 - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 12:48 - He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath
one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall
judge him in the last day.

John 14:23 - Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he
will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come
unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 17:8 - For I have given unto them the words which thou
gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I
came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

We have seen from the passages that are quoted

above that God has placed a tremendous value on His
Words. It is clear as we read through the Scriptures that
God has inspired the very words and that He places great
value on them. The Bible was inspired at a word level, not
just a concept level. Therefore, the specific, individual
words must be treated with a holy respect.

It is evident from the Bible that God wants us to treat

these individual words with a holy respect. Here are three
strong warnings that He has placed in the Scriptures against
tampering with His Words to show us the seriousness of
16
such a folly.

Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:5,6 - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them

that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
found a liar.

Revelation 22:18,19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out
of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

We can see from these passages that God has

inspired every word of the Bible and that for anyone to
tamper with what He has said puts him in serious trouble
with God. We need to be like the church in Thessalonica
who accepted the Word of God as the Word of God.21 The
question needs to be answered, “Did God preserve that
which He has inspired? Do we have the pure Word of God
today?” Jack Moorman, in commenting about this says,

“We have a strange anomaly today; Christians claim to believe what

the Bible says about its own inspiration but virtually ignore the
21
I Thessalonians 2:13 - For this cause also thank we God without
ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard
of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the
word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
17
equally direct statements concerning preservation. To say that you
believe in the full inspiration of Scripture while at the same time
accepting textual theories inherent in the modern versions, is about as
incongruous as taking Genesis one literally while holding to the
theories of Darwin.”22

He goes on to say,

“The questioning of the Bible’s preservation is the starting point of all

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

Bible believing Christians believe that God directed

the whole process of inspiring and preserving His Word. If
we believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were
verbally inspired of God, then we must believe that they
were providentially preserved down through the ages to
today. These two beliefs go hand in hand; you can’t have
one without the other.

Modern critics (or should I say critiques) tell us that

22
Jack Moorman, Missing in Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story Being
Told? (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1989), 66.
23
Ibid, 66.
18
we cannot, with any degree of certainty or reasonableness,
claim to have the actual words of God today. That is what
they say, but Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away
but my words shall not pass away.” To say that no one
Book contains the preserved Word of God is to charge the
God of heaven with falsehood24.

Most Christians will readily agree that the original

writings were inspired. Yet many of these same Christians
readily accept the dictums of modern critics who say that
“numerous errors” and “spurious additions” have crept into
the text in the intervening centuries.

What an incredible theory! They are saying, in

effect, that God took the time and trouble to give to man
His inspired, infallible Word and then either could not, or
would not, protect and preserve that Word. How do the
modern revisers justify their actions in the light of God’s
clear promise for preservation? If we accept the fact that
God inspired the Bible, then we must also accept the fact
that He preserved the Bible. Inspiration without
preservation is useless. Ralph Yarnell says,

“It should be clear that in reference to the Word of God, either God
has preserved His Word, or He has not preserved it. If He has not
preserved His Word, then there seems to be no alternative than that
He has abandoned it. The word preserved in its primary meaning is to
keep from corrupting, keep from spoiling, or to keep pure.”25

Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered.

24

Ralph Yarnell, A Fresh Look at the King James Bible (Marietta,

25

OH: n.p., 1983), 13.

19
 Many people who do not believe that we have God’s
Word preserved in the English language today in one Book
hide behind the styrofoam wall of the “inspiration of the
originals.” What is the good of believing that the originals
were inspired when nobody has them today? William
Grady referred to is this way,

“In fulfillment of their end-time propensity for a “form of godliness,”

apostate fundamentalists engage in clever double-talk. While they
don’t believe in a preserved Bible, they often deceitfully employ
language that gives the impression they believe “the very Book they
hold in their hands is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.”
For the record, not a one of them believes it. How can they if
inspiration is limited only to the autographs?”26

If we cannot know that the Bible we read from is the

completely accurate and Divinely inspired English
translation of the original God-inspired manuscripts (II
Timothy 3:16), then no pastor or individual Christian may
say that he knows what GOD HAS SAID WITH ANY
DEGREE OF CERTAINTY! Thus, the work of churches
will degenerate into a conglomeration of conflicting human
opinions on what man THINKS GOD HAS SAID!

If you are not sure that you hold the preserved Word
of God in your hand than you are no better off than modern
day cultists. If you can’t believe every word in your Bible
you can’t really believe one word! To cast doubt on one
verse is to cast doubt on every verse! The “almost Bible”
leaves too much of a gap. It makes the Grand Canyon look

William P. Grady, Final Authority (Scherervile, IN: Grady

26

Publications, 1993), 18.

20
like a wormhole. The gap between the “almost Bible” and
God’s inspired Word is the lake of fire. So then faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God”
(Romans 10:17). ONLY GOD’S WORD BRINGS LIFE!
Rejecting God’s Word will destroy a Christian or a church
more quickly than anything else.

Those who doubt that God has preserved His Holy

Scriptures are invited to turn in their Bibles to II Timothy
3:15. Paul tells Timothy, “And that from a child thou hast
known the holy scriptures...” Was Paul inferring that, from
his childhood, Timothy had the actual autograph
manuscripts of Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel? Of course not!
Those autograph manuscripts had most likely turned to dust
centuries before Timothy was born. Paul did, however,
view the copies that Timothy did have access to as being
the inspired Word of God, divinely preserved through
countless copying.

We can see what kind of a straw man that these

people who believe God’s Word is only in the originals
have to hide behind. They have successfully stripped the
Christian’s authority away from him. When you ask them
where we can find the Word of God they boldly proclaim
“in the originals.” Thus you can see they are trying to get
us to put our faith in something that has never existed. As
you can see the Old Testament originals would have been
turned to dust even before the New Testament. There never
was a full copy of the Word of God in the “originals.”
What does exist is a copy of the originals that had been
faithfully copied and preserved. We have no reason to be

21
concerned that no original writings are preserved. If it had
been the will of God that original writings be available in
our age, God most surely would have preserved them.27
After criticizing Madelyn Murray O’Hare for expelling the
Bible from America’s schoolrooms, they are exposed as
ministers who cannot even profess to have Bibles in their
studies.28

Time after time, Jesus Christ and the apostles

referred the people to the Scriptures. The Scriptures that
they referred them to were not the original autograph
manuscripts. They were copies of that Scripture and Jesus
viewed them as authoritative. Our Savior and His apostles
accepted divine preservation as a fact.

As Christians, we place ourselves under the Lordship

of Jesus Christ. If He commands that we should not add to,
take from or change His Word, then we are to be obedient
to that command. If He promises that “Heaven and earth
will pass away but my words will not pass away,” then we
should believe Him and trust in that promise.

Notice what Acts 17:11 says of the Berean

Christians, “These were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.” The Scriptures that they
searched were not the original manuscripts but rather

27
James F. Holmes, From the Mind of God To the Minds of Men
(Texarkana: TX, Bogard Press, 1987), 37.
28
Grady, op. cit., 20.
22
copies of those Scriptures. Obviously, the Bereans had full
confidence that those copies were the divinely preserved
Word of God.

Ralph Yarnell had this to say about Acts 17:11 and

the Westcott-Hort scholars,

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

Norman Ward had this to say about the modern

critics:

“These men have spent their lifetimes trying to ‘reconstruct’

and ‘recover’ a text that Jesus Christ promised could NEVER be lost!
The last thing these men want is for you to believe that you actually
do have the Word of God because they make their LIVING trying to
convince Christians that God LIED to them about divine preservation.

For these men, the pure, perfect, infallible and inerrant Word
of God began and ended with the original autograph manuscripts.
They have made the mistake of thinking that the Word of God was the

29
Yarnell, op. cit., 11.
23
paper and ink the words were written on rather than the words
themselves.

The preface of almost any modern version will accurately

convey this attitude on the part of the scholars. Does the Word of
God exist today? In the preface to the New International Version,
‘Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man,
this one undoubtedly falls short of its aims.’”30

There are many other things that could be said on

this subject but I believe what I have said is sufficient to
prove the point. Sometimes, these critics will hide behind
the empty argument that King James only people believe in
double inspiration. Let us deal with this cheap argument
before we move on.

“Those of us who hold to the inspiration of the

Authorized, King James Version, have often been accused
of believing in double inspiration. That is a weak and
foolish argument to say the least. What they mean is that
they think we believe God inspired the translators of the
KJV just as He did the writers of the 66 original
manuscripts. We believe no such thing. If that were true,
the translators of the King James Version would not have
needed any manuscripts to translate from. They would
have direct inspiration as the original writers did. Those
critics evidently fail to see the difference between Original
Inspiration and Continuing Inspiration. It simply means
that God is preserving an inspired Word not an uninspired
Word.”31 “Double inspiration” is rendered unnecessary
30
Norman Ward, Famine in the Land (Grand Rapids, MI: Which
Bible? Society, n.d), 5.
31
Yarnell, op. cit., 32.
24
because of “infallible preservation.”

Let us look at what the Bible has to say about the

preserving of God’s Words.

Psalm 12:6,7 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.

Psalm 119:89 - For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of
our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 59:21 - As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the
LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put
in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever.

Notice in Isaiah 59:21 we find both the inspiration of

Scripture and the preservation of Scripture.

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away.

Matthew 28:19,20 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world. Amen.

25
 Since part of the Great Commission is teaching them
to observe all things, obviously God knew that we would
have it all to teach them. Otherwise, He would not have
commanded us to do something that we could not do.

I Peter 1:23-25 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of

incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of
grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word
which by the gospel is preached unto you.

These are just a few of the verses that God has put in
the Bible that prove the preservation of His Word. Other
verses are II Kings 10:10; Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 111:7,8;
117:2; 119:152,160; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Mark 13:31; Luke
6:17; 21:33; II Timothy 3:15,16; and Revelation 22:18,19.
God has clearly promised that He will preserve His Word;
man is saying that God has not preserved His Word for us
today. Obviously, somebody is lying! Who would you say
it is: man or God?

Norman Ward has this to say in relation to the preservation

of the Scriptures,
“The operative factor in the doctrine of divine preservation is not
inspiration, but rather providence. God has promised to preserve His
Word (Psalm 12:6,7) and He faithfully fulfills His promises (Romans
4:21). The clear teaching of Scripture is not that God only foresaw
that the Bible would endure forever, but also that He would cause it to
endure. By this we understand that God exercises providential care
over His Word.”32

32
Ward, op. cit.,18.
26
 Seeing that God has clearly promised to preserve His
Word, how do the modern revisers justify their actions in
the light of God’s clear promise of preservation? The
answer is simple; they simply change God’s promise.
Notice the deceit that Satan and his workers have been up
to in the following illustration:

Psalm 12:6,7 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.

Psalm 12:6,7, NIV - And the words of the Lord are flawless, like
silver refined in a furnace of clay purified seven times.
7 O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people
forever.

As Christians, we know that the Bible is inspired,

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

28
The Exercise of Faith

“If we begin (as the modern versions and scholars

do) with the premise that God was either unable or
unwilling to keep His promise to preserve His Word, then
our final conclusion must be that we do not have His word
today. On the other hand, if we approach this problem with
faith (believing God), then our conclusion will be that we
do have the Word of God today. The primary question for
the believer then is, “Do you believe God? If you do, then
believe His promise to preserve His Word. If you can’t
believe His promise to preserve the Bible, then you have no
business believing any promise contained in the Bible!”33
Edward Hills puts it this way:

“But what if we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures

and deal with the text of the holy Bible in the same way in which we
deal with the texts of other ancient books? If we do this, we are
following the logic of unbelief, which leads to maximum uncertainty.
When we handle the text of the holy Bible in this way, we are
behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the
providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are
saying that it is not an important fact, not important enough to be
considered when dealing with the text of the holy Bible. But if the
providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is
the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God
has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why
would He of infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not
important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is
it important to insist that the Gospel is completely true? And if this is
not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine

33
Ibid., 10.
29
Son of God?”34

Unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain

of nothing concerning the Bible and its text. “If we do not
have the pure, perfect words of the living God, then every
other facet of the Christian experience is without validity
and value. Why adhere to doctrine when you doubt the
veracity of the book that gave you that doctrine? Why trust
in a promise if you don’t trust the book that gave you that
promise? Why contend for a faith if you have no
confidence in the book that gave you that faith? Why look
to a book as your absolute and final authority if you do not
believe that it is the absolute and final authority? If the
Christian life is to have any validity whatsoever, then it
must, rest on a Bible that is unquestionably the pure,
perfect, infallible and inerrant Word of God.”35

The Bible believer is satisfied simply to know that

God will do that which He has promised to do.36 The
primary directive for the Christian is simply to believe God.
This faith is to transcend our trust in any man or group of
men, including educators, scholars, clergymen, and even
ourselves. Psalm 118:8 tells us, “It is better to trust in the
LORD than to put confidence in man.” Proverbs 3:5 says,
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto
thine own understanding.” Jeremiah 17:5,7 also teaches us
34
Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines:
IA, The Christian Research Press, 1956), 224,225.
35
Ward, op. cit., 1,2.
36
Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the
son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
30
the error of trusting in men and the blessing of trusting in
God.

In Romans 14:23b it says, “for whatsoever is not of

faith is sin.” From this verse it is clear that in the life of the
Christian, everything we do must be in the exercise of
FAITH or it is sin.

The matter that I am referring to of course is the

matter of how we receive or reject the Bible today. Do we
by faith receive it as the inspired, and inerrantly preserved
Word of God, or do we take the attitude that we cannot
know if the above is true or not? If we take the Bible to be
literal (and I do), then according to Romans 14:23 we are
sinning if we take a doubtful or uncertain position
concerning the Word of God, for whatsoever is not of faith
is sin.

Edward F. Hills had this to say about the logic of

faith:

“The spiritual man is drawn to the holy Bible by the logic of faith as
by a magnet. For how else can he take God at the starting point of all
His thinking save through the diligent study of the sacred Scriptures.
They are God’s revelation of HIMSELF, the eyeglasses through which
we may view aright God’s revelation of Himself in history, the pure
well of salvation to which the preachers of the Gospel must
continually go to for fresh supplies of living water.”37

In other words, the best and surest proof of an

inspired and inerrantly preserved Bible is the internal
37
Hills, op. cit., 239.
31
evidence right within the pages of the book itself. The
proof of the pudding is in the eating, that is, what the Bible
does for you when you continually feed on it. By the way,
for a Christian to read anything else more than he reads the
Bible is sin!!!

This has always been the mark of a true believer in

confining his faith to the truth within the Word of God, and
not placing his faith in the teachings of men that change or
contradict the Word of God (I Corinthians 2:13; I
Thessalonians 2:13; I Timothy 6:20,21). Any scholarship
that causes a Christian to doubt (if we have the inspired and
inerrant Word of God today) is a scholarship (science)
falsely so called. When the teachings of men contradict the
truth of God, any person who is truly a Christian will know
which one he needs to follow.

The internal evidence of the Bible makes it quite

clear that men were at work corrupting the text even before
God had finished giving it (II Corinthians 2:17, 4:2, and
11:4). History confirms that the text suffered its greatest
corruptions in its first few centuries.

Our faith is not built then upon philosophy

(Colossians 2:8), fables (II Peter 1:16), the traditions of
men (Matthew 15:9), the “whispering” of some spirit to our
heart (I John 4:1) or some good man (Romans 3:10). Our
faith is built upon the rock of the true utterances of the
living God. This is why the doctrine of divine preservation
is so vital.

32
 “God has called us to believe in Him, to believe on
Him and to believe Him. If we deny the doctrine of divine
preservation, then we deny the authority of the Bible. If we
deny the authority of the Bible, then we deny the authority
of God. “He that believeth not God hath made Him a liar;
because he believeth not the record that God gave of his
Son” (I John 5:10b).38

Romans 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is
blessed for ever. Amen.

“When men change the truth of God, they invariably

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

38
Ward, op. cit., 12.
39
Yarnell, A Fresh Look at the King James Bible, 3.
33
There Is No Such Thing as Two Bibles

If you have two books that both claim to be the Word

of God and they contradict each other, you must draw one
of two conclusions. Either one is the Word of God, or,
neither of them is the Word of God; by no stretch of the
imagination can you say that both of them are the Word of
God. Saying they are both the Word of God makes God the
author of confusion,40 and makes Him contradict Himself,
and if either were true He wouldn’t be God. How supposed
Bible believers can say that of the more than 100 versions
from the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (of which no two
agree) are the best, and the closest (at this point in time) we
come to the Word of God, staggers my mind.

“We find that the modern versions frequently

contradict the Authorized (King James) Version, often
contradict each other, and sometimes even contradict
themselves. Most importantly, we note that these different
versions seem to have a whole different attitude toward
Jesus Christ. While the Authorized Version exalts our
Saviour, the modern versions attack His deity, His virgin
birth, His blood atonement, and His miracles.”41

David Cloud summarizes what we have said so far

by saying this:

“The only position in the issue of Bible versions which leaves one
with a Bible preserved in its words and details is that which stands in
40
I Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but
of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
41
Ward, op. cit., 1.
34
defense of a Received Text and the King James Bible. All other
positions leave one, to varying degrees, with uncertainty and doubt.
They leave you dependent upon scholars rather than the testimony of
the Word of God itself.”42

It is interesting today that when one stands for the

King James Version he is looked at by other people as
being divisive. We are classified as troubling the people
of God with our beliefs when really it is the modern critics
who are the ones who are being divisive. Here is a very
good quote that brings out the truth of this:

“There can be no doubt that the King James Bible has been the
historic Bible of the English speaking believers for almost four
centuries. In fact, the King James Bible is a revision of that line of
Received Text English Bibles stretching back to Tyndale in 1524.
Today, though, this ancient position is looked at as new and divisive!
King Ahab charged faithful Elijah with troubling Israel. In fact, it was
Ahab, with his apostasies and improvisations, who was doing the
troubling (I Kings 18:17,18). We are convinced that this is precisely
the case today. It is the modern version proponents, with their roots in
nineteenth century Rationalism, who are troubling churches with their
innovations.”43

As we continue, we will see that in contrast with the

modern English versions, the King James Version is based
upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by
superior translators; it incorporates superior translation
techniques; it demonstrates superior theology; it embodies
a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it

42
David Cloud, For Love of the Bible (Oak Harbour, WA: Way of
Life Literature, 1995), 48.
43
Ibid, 9.
35
has a superior history.

Now let us see how the King James Version is

superior in each of these areas.

36
The Text Is Superior

We have looked at the fact that God has said that He

not only inspired His Word but that He has preserved it for
us today. Either we believe God or we call Him a liar.
Those who favor and use the modern versions call God a
liar in this area as we shall see in the pages to come. The
question is, “If God cannot be trusted in what He has said
about the inspiration and preservation of the Bible, how can
I trust Him about anything, including what He has said
about salvation?” To shake one’s faith in the Word of God
is to shake one’s faith completely and leave him in grave
danger. Alexander McClure had this to say,

“Whoever attempts to shake the confidence of the common people in

the common version, puts their faith in imminent shipwreck. He is
slipping the chain-cable of the sheet-anchor, and casting their souls
adrift among the breakers.”44

Before we get too far into the manuscript evidence

behind all the versions, it is important for us to realize what
constitutes “manuscript evidence.” Many people are under
the false assumption that there exists, somewhere, a single
authoritative Greek texts from which all translations and
versions are made. However, what we have is a collection
of what is called “manuscript evidence.” At present, this
collection includes something in excess of 5,000 pieces of
evidence. This evidence takes in different forms. It
includes:
1. The Papyrus Fragments. They are fragments of

Alexander McClure, Translators Revived (Mobile, AL: R E

44

Publications, 1858), 25.

37
 papyrus scrolls that contain portions of Scripture.
They date from the second to the eighth centuries.
2. The Unical Manuscripts. These are usually
codices (books) although some are in scroll form.
They are written in capital Greek letters and range in
date from the fourth to the tenth centuries.
3. The Cursive Manuscripts. These are manuscripts
written in the flowing lower case Greek. They date
from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.
4. The Early Translations. These are the
translations from the Greek into other languages.
They date from the second to about the fifth century.
5. The Lectionaries. These are aids to service
worship quite similar to responsive readings used in
some churches today.
6. The Church Fathers. The writings of early
Christians (second to fifth centuries) comprise a very
important body of evidence. Almost the whole of the
New Testament can be reproduced from their
writings alone.

This is a very impressive body of evidence. No other

book in the world can lay claim to a body of evidence as
varied, as ancient or as voluminous as can the Bible. It is
equally impressive that ninety-five percent of this evidence
supports the text of the King James Version.

38
Two Approaches Taken to God’s Word

There are two approaches that can be taken to God’s

Word, only one of them however is Biblical. First of all,
there is the Bible believing approach. This means that I
take God for what He has said. I believe that God has
inspired and preserved His Word, just as He said He would,
and that I have it today. I believe that God’s Word has
never been lost because He has said that it will never pass
away. As a result of this I handle the Bible with respect for
it is the Word of God.

Many of the modernists take what they call a neutral

approach to the Word of God. They say that the Bible
should be approached in the same manner as any other
book and judged by the same criteria. The people who do
so do not see the error and folly of their ways.

“It is not possible to be neutral about the Bible. If

you try to be neutral, if you ignore the divine inspiration
and providential preservation of the Bible and treat it like
an ordinary human book, then you are ignoring the very
factors that make the Bible what it is. If you follow such a
neutral method of Bible study, you are still playing about
on the surface and have failed to come to grips with the
very essence of the Bible. In your textual criticism you
have not yet dealt with the very real, divinely inspired and
providentially preserved Bible but with a false, human
Bible of your imagination. And since you are dealing with
a false, purely human Bible, doubts as to the purity of its
text must necessarily arise in your mind, doubts which you

39
can find no means of banishing.”45
“The problem with this approach is: GOD HAS NO
NEUTRAL CORNER. He is not ‘neutral’ about sin
(Ezekiel 18:4), sinners (John 3:16), His Son (John 15:9) or
His Scriptures (Revelation 22:18,19). Jesus said, ‘He that
is not with me is against me’ (Matthew 12:30). The only
way that the Bible can be approached from a ‘neutral’
standpoint is by pretending that God does not exist (Psalm
14:1) and that the Bible cannot be what it claims to be. In
choosing to ignore the promises and providence of God and
the work of the Holy Spirit, the apostate scholar has chosen
to ignore the most significant fact concerning the book.
The antics of these poor fellows would be quite
amusing were it not for the seriousness of the issue. Here
we have an apostate scholar, running around like a
cockroach caught in a Chinese fire drill, trying to “recover”
a text that was never lost in the first place. He proposes to
solve the “mystery of the unmissing text’ by ignoring the
most important clue of all (see the above paragraph). The
real mystery is why he is engaged in this study in the first
place since he doesn’t believe the book to begin with. This
“Keystone Comedy” is capped off by the fact that, since
neither he nor anyone else has seen the original
manuscripts since eighteen centuries before, the poor
scholar has no way of knowing when he has “recovered”
the text or if he has successfully recovered it. The sad part
about the whole mess is that he is being paid by Christians
to perform this ‘service’!!
The results of this application of the ‘neutral’

Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (Collingswood, NJ: The Dean

45

Burgon Society Press, 1999), 53.

40
approach to textual criticism are predictable. For the
apostate scholar they include:
1. A paycheck (Philippians 3:19).
2. The praise of his fellow apostates (John 12:23).
3. A continuing source of employment (He is careful
to point out that his latest work is not quite perfect.
If it were, he would be out of a job!)
4. The elevation of himself to a position of authority
above that of the Scriptures he ‘corrects’ (Ezekiel
28:2).
5. The addition to himself of every plague written in
the book and the subtraction of his name from the
book of life (Revelation 22:18,19).

For the Christian who accepts the dictates of these

men, the results are equally predictable. They include:
1. Doubt as to the authenticity of portions of
Scripture.
2. Doubt as to the authenticity of every promise,
precept, and doctrine contained in the book.
3. Doubt as to the authenticity of Scripture as a
whole.
4. Doubt as to God.”46

With this in mind let us begin our study of the texts

behind the Old and New Testament of the English Bible.

46
Ward, op. cit., 14,15.
41
The Old Testament Text

As we look at the texts of the Old and the New

Testament I think that you will realize that the King James
Version is superior in the texts used for both testaments.

Let us look first of all at the superiority of the Old

Testament text in the King James Version. It is translated
from what we call the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old
Testament Text. These other versions that are translated
today, such as the New American Standard of 1960, the
New International Version of 1973, or even the New King
James Version of 1979 (which is no more the New King
James than I’m the New King Cole), have big question
marks as far as the foundation of their Old Testament Text.
There are many things that are changed when compared to
the text of the King James translators who used the Old
Testament Masoretic Hebrew Text. The word “Masoretic”
comes from masor, a Hebrew word meaning “traditional.”
The Masoretes handed this text down from generation to
generation, guarded it and kept it well.47

Let us take a look at the Old Testament of the King

James Bible and why it has a superior text. First the Jews
accumulated it, and secondly, Jesus authenticated it.

It is important that we understand that the Jews were

designated by God to be the guardians of the Old
Testament. Notice what it says in Romans 3:1,2,

47
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 20.
42
“1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed
the oracles of God.”

The word “oracles” in verse two is referring to the

“words” and “utterances” of God. D.A. Waite has this to
say about the Masoretic text, “The reason that we place so
much confidence in the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old
Testament text is because those Jews guarded and kept it
for us. This is also the reason why the King James
translators used this text as the basis for their Bible rather
than the Latin Vulgate (which is not Hebrew at all) or the
Septuagint Greek (which we will comment on later), or
Symmachus, or Theolotion (all these are Greek), or an
ancient tribal tradition, or any other source which is not
Masoretic Hebrew Text. None of these other things should
ever have a say in how the text should read, nor should any
of them be used to contradict the traditional Masoretic
Hebrew Text that underlies the King James Bible.”48

I feel that it is important that we now look at how the

Jews fulfilled this Bible promise by their strict rules in
49

copying the Hebrew Old Testament. This is from General

Biblical Introduction by H.S. Miller written in 1960, pages
184-185. He lists eight rules the Jews used in copying of
the Synagogue Rolls of the Old Testament Scriptures.

48
Ibid, 24
49
The truth of Psalm 68:11 is brought out through the faithfulness of
these Scribes. “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of
those that published it.”

43
These rules are mentioned in the Talmud:
1. Parchment must be used from the skin of clean
animals; must be prepared by a Jew only, and the
skins must be fastened together by strings taken
from clean animals.
2. Each column must have no less than 48 nor more
than 60 lines. The entire copy must be first lined...
3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and
it must be prepared according to a certain recipe.
4. No word nor letter could be written from
memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy
before him, and he must read and pronounce
each word aloud before writing it.
5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before
writing the word for “God” and he must wash his
whole body before writing the name “Jehovah” lest
the Holy Name be contaminated.
6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the
letters, spaces between letters, words, and sections,
the use of a pen, the color of parchment, etc.
7. The revision of a roll must be made within 30
days after the work was finished; otherwise, it was
worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the
sheet; if three mistakes were found on any page, the
entire manuscript was condemned.
8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a
letter was omitted, or if one letter touched
another, the manuscript was condemned and
destroyed at once.

These were the rules the Jews used. Miller also

44
added these words which we should bear in mind:

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

Mickey Winter sums up the duty of these Jewish

Scribes this way:

“During the New Testament dispensation, Jewish scribes known as

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

What about the Hebrew text used by the King James

Bible translators? Let us look at some background on it.

50
Mickey Winter, The Bible: The King James Version on Trial
(Russell Springs, KY: Godby’s Printing, n.d.), 10.
45
The Daniel Bomberg edition, 1516-1517, was called the
First Rabbinic Bible. Then in 1524-25, Bomberg published
a second edition edited by Abraham Ben Chayyim (or Ben
Hayyim) iben Adonijah. This is called the Ben Chayyim
edition of the Hebrew text. Daniel Bomberg’s edition, on
which the King James Bible is based, was the Ben
Chayyim Masoretic Text. This was called the Second
Great Rabbinic Bible. This became the standard Masoretic
text for the next 400 years. This is the text that underlies
the King James Bible. For four hundred years that was the
Old Testament Hebrew text. Nobody translated the Old
Testament except by using this text.51

Not only did the Jews accumulate the Old Testament

Hebrew Text, but Jesus also authenticated it. Time and
time again during His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus
spoke unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament
text (Matthew 22:42; John 20:44), thus indicating His
confidence that the Old Testament had been accurately
transmitted. He also stated this conviction in the strongest
manner possible when He said, “...Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

Not only do we need to see the superiority of the Old

Testament Hebrew Text of the King James Versions but we
also need to look at the inferior Old Testament Texts of the
New Versions. It is interesting that many of these versions
themselves admit that they are inferior and are not perfect.
Let us look at just a few of these versions and what they
51
Waite, op. cit., 27.
46
have to say. Notice in the Preface to the New American
Standard Version what they admit on page viii,

“Hebrew Text: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolph

Kittel’s BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the
most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead
Sea Scrolls.”

D.A. Waite had this to say about the Hebrew text that
these translators used,

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

Now let us look at what is said by the editors in the

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

52
Ibid, 21.
47
Masoretic text...The translators also consulted the more important
EARLY VERSIONS - the SEPTUAGINT, SYMMACHUS and
THEODOTION, the VULGATE, the SYRIAC PESHITTA, the
TARGUMS and for the Psalms, the JUXTA HEBRAICA of Jerome.
Readings from these versions were occasionally followed...Some
words were read with a DIFFERENT SET OF VOWELS. These
instances are usually NOT indicated by footnotes.”

If listening to the testimony of the editors of the New

International Version would not be enough to scare you
away from this book that calls itself a “Bible” than I don’t
know what it would take to do so. Listen to the words of
D.A. Waite as he comments on the Preface to the NIV,

“The New International Version editors have very honestly and very
boldly altered the foundations of our Old Testament text in the above
fifteen DIFFERENT WAYS, whenever it suited their fancy! You
don’t know at what point they used one document to contradict the
Masoretic Hebrew text, at what point they used another document. It
is like not being sure whether they used cement or sand for a
foundation. They may have used a little cement, but all of a sudden
there is much sand. You don’t know whether it will hold up as a
building or whether it will fall flat. The foundation is different. It has
been altered.”53

Now we need to look at the most dangerous one of

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

53
Ibid, 22.
48
Appendix A). Would you drink one glass of water each
day that “only” had one tablespoon of arsenic in it? It
would be 95% water and only 5% arsenic. Of course you
wouldn’t...so why should you read a Bible every day that is
even “a little bit” corrupt. Be consistent!!!! Even as we
think about this we realize that our acceptance or rejection
of anything ought not to lay with instinctive reactionary or
successive motives, but with careful and prayerful study of
the facts in the light the Scriptures itself. This will be dealt
with in more detail under our study of theology.

Some people would try to believe that the people

who translated the New King James Version were more
fundamental in what they believed and that they would not
dare change what God has said in the Old Testament Text.
However, as you look at the Preface in the New King James
Version on page vi it says:

“...that the text used was the 1967/77 STUTTGART EDITION of

BIBLIA HEBRAICA.”

It is important to note that this is not Kittel’s Biblical

Hebraic but a new edition. The date, however, is not 1937,
but 1967/77. It has similar arrangements as Kittel’s
edition. D.A. Waite had this to say regarding this Old
Testament Text:

“The Hebrew Text (though not the same as the Hebrew text that
underlies the King James Bible) is printed on the top of each page.
The same thing holds true for this Hebrew text as for Kittel’s, that is,
there are about fifteen to twenty suggested changes in the Hebrew text
placed in the footnotes of each page. This amounts to about 20,000 to

49
30,000 suggested changes throughout the Old Testament.”54

In addition to this, the Preface goes on to say (p.vi):

“...with frequent comparisons being made with the BOMBERG

EDITION of 1525, the SEPTUAGINT version of the Old Testament
and the LATIN VULGATE, in addition referring to a variety of
ANCIENT VERSIONS of the Hebrew Scripture and manuscript
evidence from the DEAD SEA SCROLLS.”

As you can see there are at least six admitted

foundations consulted and possible used for the New King
James Version as a Hebrew Text foundation.

So you have in all three of these Bibles that

Christians are using today, a Hebrew text and Old
Testament foundation that are different from that of the
King James Bible. So, if you have a different foundation,
how can the building, the words, be the same? They can’t
be the same. They are not the same. They are different.

Many people are teaching today that only the

“scholars” can know what is God’s Word and what isn’t.
However, you do not have to be a scholar to figure out
which English Bible is of God and which ones are of the
devil. As an old preacher once said, “You don’t have to be
a Greek scholar to know whether or not a translation is
good. Just take a look at what it does for Jesus. If it
magnifies Him, it is a good translation. If it plays Him
down, it is of the devil!”55
54
Ibid, 23.
55
Cummons, The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, 52.
50
The New Testament Text

“It is just here that many Christians are fatally

inconsistent. They say they believe in Christ’s promise to
preserve the true New Testament text, but in practice they
ignore this promise and treat the text of the New Testament
exactly like that of an ordinary book concerning which no
such promise has been made. Thus they are guilty of a
basic unfaithfulness. In their efforts to be pleasing to
naturalistic critics they themselves have lapsed into
unbelief. They have undermined their own faith and
deprived themselves of all ground for confidence in the
infallibility of the Bible. For if the New Testament is just
an ordinary book, then the trustworthiness of its text is, at
best, only a probability, never a certainty.”56

The underlying Greek text of the King James

Version is called the Textus Receptus or the “Received
Text.” It is also referred to as the “Byzantine Text” and as
the “Majority Text” because 95% of all manuscript
evidence supports this text. Let me emphasize that: ninety-
five percent of all manuscript evidence comes from the
same line of ascension that the King James Version comes
from. The Textus Receptus is based on Beza’s 5th Edition
of 1598. It is a text that hasn’t changed nor had a revision
for 404 years. We realize as a result of this that “the textual
foundations of the King James Bible are the best
foundations of any English Bible that exists today.”57

56
Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine, 20,21.
57
Waite, op. cit., 20.
51
 As we look at the superiority of the King James
Bible it is also fitting that we look at some of the
milestones in the development of the King James Version
text. As we look at this, we realize that the providence of
God played a very important role in the preservation of the
true New Testament text. Indications can be found in the
ancient New Testament versions of this God-guided
movement of believers away from readings that were false
and misleading and toward those, which were true and
trustworthy. We will see this as we move through the
remainder of this section.

The earliest of Bibles in this line that we need to look

at is the Old Latin Vulgate; this is not to be confused with
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that the modern versions are based
on. As the Word began to saturate every province of the
Roman Empire in the first two centuries, the need arose for
a New Testament in Latin. Because of such, the Greek
Vulgate was translated into Latin. The Bible produced was
the Old Latin Vulgate. This second century Bible agrees
with the King James Version.

Another one of the early Bibles that we want to look

at as we follow the milestones in the development of the
King James Version text is the Syrian Peshitto. Some of
the modern critics have tried to give this Bible a much later
date to take away its witness as an ancient version. But as
you look at the evidence, it becomes clear that this Bible
proceeded from the second century. Bishop Ellicott in 1870
wrote:

52
“It is no stretch of imagination to suppose that portions of the Peshitta
might have been in the hands of St. John.”58

It was translated from the Greek Vulgate in 157

A.D. and was called the “Queen of Versions,” because of
its beauty and simplicity. There are one hundred and
seventy-seven manuscripts still in existence, most in the
British Museum. The version was translated because Syria
was so close to Judea, and the rapid growth of Christianity
spread to its borders from Judea, producing a demand for
the Scriptures in the Syrian language.

There were also other works that were milestones in

the development of this text. These include: the Papyrus
readings of the Receptus (150-400 A.D.), the Unical
readings of the Receptus (500-1500), the Latin Bibles of
the Waldenses (1100-1300), the Latin Bibles of the
Albigenses (1380-1550), the Latin Bibles of the Lollards
(1300-1500), Martin Luther’s Bible (1530) and the
Receptus of 1516, 1534, 1550 and 1565.

It is important to note that the first printed edition of

the Greek New Testament was edited and published by
Erasmus. Let us look very briefly at Desiderius Erasmus of
Rotterdam. Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at
the age of 70. This was no small feat living in the days
when the plagues, coupled with primeval medicine
practices, worked together to limit the average age of a
man’s life to approximately 35-40 years.

Moorman, Missing In Modern Versions - Is the Full Story Being

58

Told?, 46.
53
 Both of the parents of Erasmus died of the same
plague when Erasmus was only a boy. He and his brother
went to live with their uncle who promptly sent them off to
a monastery to get rid of them. Thus Erasmus’ destiny was
sealed before he had any say in the matter.

Erasmus became known for his wit, charm, and an

above average intellect even at a young age. He was the
intellectual giant of Europe. He was always on the search,
in every nook and corner of the world, visiting libraries,
collecting, comparing, writing, and publishing. He is
known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all
times. He was later chosen to be an Augustinian on the
sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of
libraries.

His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian

standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat
meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to
function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his
body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still
unfettered.

Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the

many excesses of the Roman Catholic Church. He berated
the papacy, the priesthood, and the over indulgences of the
monks. He stated that the monks would not touch the
money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning
wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical
concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman
Catholic Church dealt with so called “heretics.” He is even

54
credited with saving a man from the Inquisition.

One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled

“Against the Barbarians” which was directed against the
overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church.59 Europe
was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed
the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the
priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion
of the day. For people who accuse him of being a Catholic
it is evident that he was the worst Catholic the Roman
Church has ever seen. He not only refused a cardinal’s hat
because he would not compromise his convictions but he
also chose to die among his protestant friends.60

In 1550, Robert Stephens also printed the Majority

Text and these became the basis for the King James
Version New Testament. Now let us look at some of the
English versions that lead up to the King James Version.

The first English version that we need to look at in

this line is that of Tyndale (1525). William Tyndale was
so skilled in seven languages - Hebrew, Greek, Latin,
Italian, Spanish, English and French - that whichever he
spoke, you would suppose it his native tongue.

William Tyndale was a Protestant Reformer. He was

also a student of Erasmus, the man who printed the first
Greek New Testament. It was the Greek New Testament of
59
Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book (Shelbyville, TN: Bible and
Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989), 149,150.
60
Gary E. La More, Erasmus of Rotterdam (Toronto, ON: Historic
Baptist Press, 1999), 1.
55
Erasmus that Tyndale translated into English. He did not
use Wycliffe’s version since it had been translated from the
Vulgate of Jerome. He was an accomplished scholar and
was resolved to read the New Testament from the original
language, which was Erasmus’ pure Greek text. “Tyndale
also compared the work of Erasmus with the Latin of the
Vulgate; however the influence of the Vulgate does not
appear except in some phrasing and general shifting of
language here and there. The German work of Luther was
also used as a basis for the Tyndale translation.”61

He was exiled from England because of Catholic

opposition to his translating the Bible into English. He
went into Germany where the first New Testament was
printed in 1525 at Cologne. Later, at least fifteen thousand
copies were secretly imported into England.

In 1535, he issued a third edition of the English New

Testament, and this became a forerunner of the King James
Version. In 1536, he was betrayed by a friend and
persuaded to return to England where he was arrested and
later martyred. He was first strangled and then burned at
the stake. His last words were, “Lord, open the eyes of the
King of England.”

That prayer was answered not long after his death. A

petition backed by 1,000 ministers was sent to King James
asking, among other things, for a complete translation of
the Bible into the English language.

61
McClure, Translators Revived, 22.
56
 Other English versions that are part of the pure line
of manuscripts are the Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the
Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539) and the
Geneva Bible (1560). The Geneva Bible was the first
English Bible divided into verses, and it led the way to the
revision of the whole Bible. The Bishop’s Bible (1568)
also belongs to this line. This Bible was used as the
foundation for the translation that later became known as
the Authorized, King James Version.

It is hoped that the reader will familiarize himself

with the progression of these Bibles, for the very
foundation of our present day King James Version is laid
during this period of time, and it is of the utmost
importance that we understand the use of the manuscripts
from which the King James Version is taken. The King
James Bible is in harmony with the Textus Receptus and
each of these ancient versions mentioned.

The translation of the Authorized, King James

Version was completed at a very flourishing time as we
shall see. “The English language had passed through many
and great changes, and had at last reached the very height
of its purity and strength.62 Jack Moorman says this about
the English language of the early seventeenth century,

“Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune

condition than it had ever been before or ever would be again, but the
Hebrew and Greek likewise had been brought up with the
accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point.
The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial
62
Ibid., 61.
57
achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men
of great minds, supported by physical health, had possessed in a
splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and
literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship.”63

He goes on to say,

“We are now come, however, to a very striking situation which is

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

The King James Bible is in harmony with the Textus

Receptus (Old Greek Vulgate and Majority Text), and each
of these ancient versions mentioned.

As we now move into the texts behind the modern

versions we will see even more that the King James Bible
and the modern versions are very different the one from the
other. With differences this great it is obvious that they all
63
Moorman, Forever Settled, 244.
64
Ibid, 245.
58
cannot be the Word of God. We must stand for one or the
other. Compromise upon this matter is impossible. John
Burgon put it this way,

“Indeed there exists but two rival schools of textual criticism. And
these are irreconcilably opposed. In the end, one of them will give
way: and, unconditional surrender will be its only resource. When
one has been admitted to the right, there can be no place be found for
the other. It will have to be dismissed from attention as a thing
utterly, hopelessly in the wrong.”65

As we turn our focus to the modern versions we will

find that these “Bibles” not only have corruptions in the
Greek text but also have apostasy and cultist teaching
within their pages. Clearly these “Bibles” are nothing more
than the work of Satan trying to get the Word of God out of
the hands of the people of God to replace it with a book
that they feel comfortable calling a Bible even though every
doctrine in it has been watered down. The fact that the
modern texts and versions are founded upon apostasy is
evident in a number of ways. It can be seen in the men who
developed the textual theories in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. It can be seen in the theories
themselves. It can be seen in the theology of the majority
of the Greek editors who have promoted these theories. It
can be seen in the theological nature of the critical Greek
text. It can also be seen in the theology of a great many of
the men involved in these new translations.

Furthermore, the Greek texts that underlie the

65
John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
(Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998), 18.
59
modern versions are the same texts preferred and used by
the Catholics and other cultists including the Jehovah’s
Witnesses. That’s right, if you are using a modern version,
it has been translated from the exact same texts as the New
World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness Bible). When Rome
and other cultist groups accept any Bible the warning lights
should come on in the mind of any true believer.

David Cloud has this to say about the acceptance of

modern versions,

“Who has accepted the modern versions? The Roman Catholic

Church has put its stamp of approval on most of them, including the
RSV, NEB, TEV, and the NIV. But the Roman Catholic Church still
rejects the King James Version. The Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the
Westcott-Hort text, and rejoice in its weakened position on Christ.
They also publish their own Watchtower version based on the
Westcott-Hort text. The modern critical text has ridden upon a wave
of last-days apostasy. The Textus Receptus and the King James
Version flow from a stream of revival, whereas the critical text and its
translations flow from a stream of end-time apostasy.”66

David Otis Fuller also comments about how the new

“Bibles” are Catholic Bibles. He states,

“A result of this revision is that when our time-honored Bibles are

revised, the changes are generally in favor of Rome. We are told that
Bible revision is a step forward; that new manuscripts have been made
available and advance has been made in archaeology, philology,
geography, and the apparatus of criticism. How does it come then that
we have been revised back into the arms of Rome? If my conclusion
is true, the so-called Bible revision has become one of the deadliest

66
Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 45
60
weapons in the hands of those who glorify the Dark Ages and who
seek to bring Western nations back to the theological thinking which
prevailed before the Reformation.”67

“The history of the Alexandrian tradition is the story

of the Roman Catholic Church and its pages are littered
with the names of dozens of men who worshipped at the
altar of scholarship (so-called) and who sought to join the
body of Christ to the Harlot of Rome.”68

Let us move on now to look at the history of the texts

behind the modern versions and some of the teachings that
have influenced them. This line of manuscripts is known as
Alexandrian manuscripts for they came out of Alexandria,
Egypt. Before we get into these texts we need to look at
some of the teachings which formed the thinking of this
corrupt line of texts.

First of all, there was a man by the name of Arius.

Very early in life he began to teach that Jesus was not co-
eternal with the Father, therefore He was a created being.
Arius would have objected to the phrase: “I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” We see this thinking
coming out in the teachings of Westcott and Hort and in the
Bibles that come from their Greek text.

Contrary to what some believe and teach, the stream

is not always purer the nearer you get to its source. You
have probably heard this lie through the “oldest is best”
theory which states that the older a text is the purer it will
67
Fuller, Which Bible?, 266,267.
68
Ward, Famine in the Land, 44.
61
be. This isn’t necessarily true, the easiest way to determine
which ones are pure and which ones are not is to look at
their point of origin. The text that is the basis for the King
James Bible came out if Antioch, Syria while the texts
behind every other Bible came out of Alexandria, Egypt.
Stop and think about it, which city do you think, based on
the teachings of the Word of God, that God would choose
to use to preserve His Word. The obvious answer is
Antioch. God loves the city of Antioch. Believers were
called Christians first at Antioch (Acts 11:26). When God
wanted the first worldwide missionary endeavor to happen
He went to the church of Antioch to get the missionaries
for it (Acts 13). These are just a couple of the references to
what God thinks of Antioch.

Any person who is even a casual reader of the Bible

knows that God does not think much of Egypt. Egypt is a
picture of the world. God told His people to come out of
Egypt and not to have anything to do with it again. Egypt
was a vile city. Read God’s Word and note what He says
about Egypt.

While we are on the theory that “oldest and best” we

might as well deal with this styrofoam wall that the modern
critics hide behind. We will see that oldest and best does
not always go hand in hand. Those who get into the study
of the history of texts realize that Satan did all he could to
destroy God’s Word right from the very beginning. That
should not surprise us as he started that task in Genesis 3
and was continuing to try to pervert the Word of God even
while it was being written. Indeed, some manuscripts were

62
corrupted the most within one hundred years of the
finishing of the writing of the New Testament. One such
person who was involved in this was a man by the name of
Marcion. Jack Moorman has this to say about Marcion and
the time in which he lived,

“This rising flood, as we shall see, had multiplied in abundance of

copies of the Scriptures with bewildering changes in verses within one
hundred years after the death of John (100 A.D.) . As Irenaeus said
concerning Marcion, the Gnostic: 'Wherefore also Marcion and his
followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not
acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel
according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone
are authentic, which they themselves have shortened.'”69

Epiphanius in his treatise the Panarion describes no

less than eighty heretical parties, each of which planned to
further its own ends by the misuse of the Scriptures.70
David Otis Fuller goes on to say,

“Those who were corrupting Bible manuscripts said they were

correcting them, and corrupted copies were so prevalent that
agreement between them was hopeless. The worst corruptions to
which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within
one hundred years after it was composed. The African fathers and the
whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian church, used far inferior
manuscripts to those employed by Erasmus or Stephanus thirteen
centuries later when molding the Textus Receptus. Many of the
important variations in the modern versions can be traced back to the
influence of Eusebius and Origen.”71

69
Moorman, op. cit., 129.
70
Fuller, op. cit., 2.
71
Ibid, 2,3.
63
 Furthermore, we realize that the fact that they still
exist is a point against them, not a point to their advantage.
If these manuscripts were not corrupted they would have
been read to pieces long ago. The King James Bible that I
am using while writing this is falling apart because of use.
This is what happens to any book that is used. These
manuscripts are still around and in the shape that they are
in because they were found to be corrupted and therefore
were not fit to be read or copied and they were set aside.
We can still see this evidenced today. I have known a good
many people that have worn out King James Bibles through
use but I have not heard of too many that have a modern
version that is worn out from use. Notice what John
Burgon says about these old manuscripts,

“The fact of their being the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament
in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused them to be
credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being mainly
due, to their having been written on vellum according to the fashion
introduced in that school, instead of the original papyrus. The fact is
such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of resounding to
their honor, because if they enjoyed general approval, they probably
would have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use
for which they were intended.”72

David Otis Fuller says this about these manuscripts

that are referred to as “oldest and best”,
“Thus the fact that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so old is a point
against them, not something in their favor. It shows that the church
rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have been

John William Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional

72

Text (Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society, 1998), 284.

64
worn out and disappeared through much reading.”73

We should define the “oldest and best.” By using

this phrase they are referring primarily to Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus. Both of these manuscripts are old, but there is
overwhelming proof that they are the poorest and most
unreliable. God has been faithful in preserving His Word
for us as He has said. There were copies that did not suffer
corruption. David Otis Fuller goes on to say,

“Many ancient copies of the Scriptures have perished, but the Divine
revelation has been preserved. In countless instances the old and
well-worn copies were deliberately destroyed when new copies were
made from them. In this way the ancient text has been perpetuated in
less ancient copies. Some very ancient copies have escaped decay and
corruption for the simple reason that they were not regarded as
accurate enough for copying purposes or for common use.”74

The new versions will also lie to you about the age of
the evidence they utilize. They are fond of using the
phrases “the oldest manuscripts” and “the most ancient
manuscripts” in their footnotes. All too often, the
manuscripts that they refer to are not the “oldest” or the
“most ancient”. They are, instead, the oldest manuscripts
which could be found to agree with the reviser’s corrupt
reading.

One of the prominent features of the modern bibles is

the abundance of footnotes found in them. Their purpose
is, supposedly, to advise the reader of the existence of
alternate readings. The effect, however, is to cast doubt on
73
Fuller, op. cit., 94.
74
Ibid, 6.
65
the Word of God. These footnotes are not for the scholar or
for the textual critic who is already aware of any alternate
readings. They are for the “benefit” of the average
Christian. The average Christian, however, has no idea
what “ancient manuscripts” are being referred to or how
corrupt these manuscripts may be. When the average
Christian encounters such a footnote, his response is to
assume that there is some question about what God actually
said in that passage. He may rightly reason that if learned
scholars are not sure what does or does not belong in the
Bible then he can hardly be expected to trust it as the Word
of God.

The footnotes in the new versions are neither

accurate nor trustworthy. They are, at best, misleading and,
at worst, blasphemous. They are pitiful attempts to cloak
corruption with an aura of scholarship. Putting a footnote
at the bottom of the page is doing the same thing that
Satan’s question to Eve did in Genesis 3:1, “Yeah hath God
said?” It casts doubt on the Word of God. This is their
effect, if not their purpose. They use footnotes subtly to
change the Word of God. Notice what Alexander McClure
says regarding this,

“Marginal notes have a way of becoming entrenched in the main body

of Scripture, all one has to do is to become familiar with marginal
readings so that in due time, as the text undergoes change, there is no
surprise or shock.” 75

Much more could be said on the “oldest and best”

theory that will not be said because of space. The author
75
McClure, Translators Revived, 20.
66
feels that enough has been said to show the folly of such
thinking. The Christian may rest assured, as we shall see,
that the King James Version is supported by the most
manuscript evidence, the oldest manuscript evidence, the
most varied manuscript evidence, and the most trustworthy
manuscript evidence. Before we move on to the men and
texts behind these modern versions, we must briefly deal
with one more thing: a word about the “originals.”

In discussing the texts of the Bible, the revisionists

will often use the phrase “according to the original Greek.”
This leads one to believe that they have access to the
original autograph manuscripts. They do not. Nobody
today has the original writings themselves. Let me repeat
this: the original manuscripts of the Bible no longer exist.
They were written on perishable material and it is unlikely
that they lasted more than a few years, let alone nineteen
centuries! Actually, to believe that only the original
writings were inspired is to say that no one at any point in
history has had an entire Bible that they can call the Word
of God. Think about it: the Bible was written over a period
of about 1,600 years, do you really think that by the time
that John finished writing Revelation that the original copy
of Genesis was still around. People who believe that only
the originals are inspired must think that God had promised
to preserve the paper and ink that it was written with, when
what God had chosen to preserve was His word. It’s the
words and the purity of the words that God is concerned
about, not the paper and ink with which the words were
originally written. You can believe what you like about the
ORIGINAL manuscripts because they don’t exist, and

67
never will. They never have with the complete canon.
This is the bottom line of the whole issue at hand. Most
people who hide behind this straw man do so because they
believe that we do not have the Word of God today. Any
person who believes this and is in the pulpit ought to get
out of preaching and find a job doing something he does
believe in.

We will now examine the second line of ascension,

the line that supports the modern versions. This line of
ascension begins in Alexandria, Egypt, the land of
bondage. From there it moves on to Rome, the City of
Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore, and the Roman
Catholic Pope. This corrupt line of ascension amounts for
only FIVE PERCENT of manuscript evidence. This line of
text is written on vellum in classical Greek. Remember, the
New Testament was written on papyrus in Koine Greek. It
is important to note the difference between classical Greek
and Koine Greek for three reasons:
1. Since the New Testament was written in Koine
Greek, a manuscript copy in Koine Greek is apt to be
a closer reading.
2. There are 500 words in Koine Greek which are
used in the New Testament, which cannot be
translated into classical Greek.
3. The majority of early Christians accepted the
manuscripts in Koine Greek in preference to
manuscripts in classical Greek.

We need to look briefly at three men in the first two

centuries who were responsible for establishing the

68
Alexandrian tradition of the wisdom of men rather than the
revelation of God. Every one of them worshipped Greek
philosophy and put scholarship on a pedestal, preferring
worldly knowledge to spiritual understanding.76 These men
had teachings that contributed to heresy and to the final
issuing of manuscripts of a corrupt New Testament. The
refusal of modern critics to consider the spiritual aspects of
the Bible is simply a continuation of a tradition that was
started eighteen centuries ago.

The first of these men that we must look at is Justin

Martyr who was born 100 A.D. He came from a pagan
background. Early in life he studied Greek philosophy,
particularly that of Plato, and of the Stoics. His theory
reflected his pagan background and was a mixture of truth
and error. Even as a “Christian” teacher he wore the robes
of a pagan philosopher.

Justin Martyr’s teachings were carried on and put in

writing by one of his pupils, Tatian. After the death of
Justin Martyr in Rome, Tatian returned to Palestine and
embraced the Gnostic heresy. He then wrote a Harmony of
the Gospels, which he called the Diatessaron, meaning four
in one. The Diatessaron was such a corruption of the
Gospel that, some years later, a bishop of Syria threw our
76
I Corinthians 1:19,20 - “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom
of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the
prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer
of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”
See also I Corinthians 1:25,27 and I Corinthians 2:5 which cautions us
against elevating human wisdom.

69
some two hundred copies of it because some church
members were mistaking it for the true Gospel.

The third person that we need to look at is Clement

of Alexandria. Clement was a student of Tatian’s, and he
became head of a school of Alexandria where he continued
to teach false doctrine. To this school, he brought the
paganism of Martyr and the Gnosticism of Tatian and
mixed them with a liberal dose of his own love for Greek
philosophy. Like his predecessors, he sought to mix
Christianity with Greek and Oriental philosophies.
Clement said he would not hand down Christian teachings
unless he could hand them down with pagan philosophy.
He collected all the writings of the heretical teachers, which
he held in high regard, quoting from them as if they were
the Word of God. All modern versions trace their ancestry
back to the Alexandrian text from Alexandria, Egypt.
Norman Ward had this to say about the land of Egypt and
the Word of God,

“Unlike the Majority tradition which is associated with the God-

honored, Bible believing church of Antioch, Syria, the Alexandrian
tradition is associated with the North African city of Alexandria,
Egypt. This fact, in and of itself should cause the Bible-believing
Christian to approach this tradition with a certain amount of caution.

The outstanding characteristic of Egypt throughout its history is its

opposition to God. In the Bible, Egypt is a land of bondage and a
place of false refuge. In Bible typology, Egypt is symbolic of the
carnal world. It is a place to leave. God called the nation out of
Egypt, He brought Joseph’s bones out of Egypt and He called His

70
precious Son out of Egypt.”77

Probably the greatest contribution Clement made to

the depravity of Christianity was his most famous student,
Origen. Origen lived about 185- 251 A.D. Origen was a
brilliant man who succeeded Clement as head of the
Alexandrian school which specialized in Greek studies
when he was only eighteen years of age. He was the key
architect of the ALEXANDRIAN approach and source of
this family. His teachings were like that of Clement’s, the
idea of mixing Christianity and Greek philosophy. Origen
was a Gnostic. He did not believe in hell. He tampered
with the deity of Christ. In short, Origen would have made
an excellent Jehovah’s Witness. Thus, we should not be
surprised that Origen’s ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY is the
basis, not only for the New American Standard and New
International Versions, but also the New World
Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The
ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY is a corrupt line of manuscripts
originating with a man who held corrupt beliefs. Yet 99%
of all modern Bible translations owe their existence to this
family of manuscripts to some degree.

He believed and taught that Christ was a created

being, held to the pre-existence of the soul and is the father
of the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures. He
said, “The Scriptures are of little value to those who
understand them as they are written.” He also taught that
stars and planets had souls, and that the devil could be
saved. Norman Ward had this to say about his beliefs,
77
Ward, Famine in the Land, 44.
71
“Origen was a Gnostic and an Ebonite (one who accepts the moral
teachings of Christ but denies the doctrine of salvation) who rejected
the will of God as it was revealed to the Apostle Paul. He could not
tell you when, where, how or why he was saved. There is no record
of his ever winning one soul to the Lord. He believed in baptismal
regeneration, reincarnation, infant baptism and universal salvation
(that is, that all men would be saved rather than all men could be
saved). He did not believe in a physical resurrection, the second
coming of Jesus or the high priesthood of Christ.”78

What was the attitude of Origen towards the Word of

God? Norman Ward goes on to say this,

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

Origen influenced many with his teachings. It is on

the work of this man that the whole line of corrupt
manuscript lies. Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate
(not to be confused with the Old Latin Vulgate) was a
follower. Eusebius, another follower, claims to have
collected over eight hundred of Origen’s letters. He also
used Origen’s six column Bible, the Hexapla, in his
Biblical labors. The Hexapla had six columns, each with a
different version of the Bible.

It should be noted that the Septuagint is the fifth

column of Origen’s Hexapla. There is no evidence

78
Ibid, 45.
79
Ibid.
72
whatsoever for a B.C. Septuagint80. Origen was the author
of the Septuagint. Origen did not produce the Septuagint
until about 220 A.D81. The first century Christians did not
have a Septuagint to put their faith in. When the Dead Sea
Scrolls were dug up in the latter half of the twentieth
century, there was not one Bible manuscript that was
written in Greek.

The idea that Ptolemy Philadelphus II (reigned 285-

250 B.C.) would commission seventy-two Jewish scholars
to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek is a fairy
tale! What is more far fetched is that this would be done in
Egypt with the idea that this would somehow help them
study their Bibles! What is unbelievable is that these
seventy-two scholars would be so adept in Greek and
Hebrew that the entire translation took only a few days.
Not even mighty King James could muster up men with
such linguistic expertise!82

As we close our look at the life and teachings of

Origen, let us sum up what has been said about him by
looking at a quote by Jack Moorman,

“When we speak the name of Origen, we speak of the name of him

who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of
apostasy down through the centuries. It was he who mightily
influenced Jerome, the editor of the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate.
Eusebius worshiped at the altar of Origen’s teachings. He claims to
have collected eight hundred of Origen’s letters, to have used

80
Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 14.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid, 15.
73
Origen’s six column Bible, the Hexapla, in his Biblical labors.
Assisted by Panphilus, he restored and preserved Origen’s library.
Origen’s corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged
and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have been so
much of this so-called scholarship of European and English
Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of
Origen.”83

In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine of Rome

converted to Christianity. The sincerity of his conversion
and his motivation for converting has come under serious
question. At any rate, he asked Eusebius, Bishop of
Caesarea, to make him fifty copies of the Bible. Eusebius
was Constantine’s chief religious adviser.

Unfortunately, Eusebius was the wrong man to ask.

He was an Arian (one who denies the deity of Christ) and
he did not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Worst of all, he was an admirer of Origen and embraced the
Gnostic ideas. As a result, the fifty copies of the Bible that
he made up for Constantine were based on the corrupt
works of Origen.84 Here we see a Bible being prepared by
those who taught that Jesus was a created being for
someone who was interested in unity rather than the purity
of God’s Word.

During the fifth century, Latin was the most common

language of the Western world, and it was felt that a new
translation of the Bible in Latin was needed. Damascus,
Bishop of Rome, appointed Jerome to do it. Jerome was
83
Moorman, Forever Settled, 130.
84
Ward, op. cit.,46.
74
an admirer of Origen and Eusebius, and studied their works
at the library founded in Caesarea by Eusebius. His Bible
was based on the work of Eusebius and Origen. Origenism
flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome, the Father of
Latin Christianity. “I love...the name of Origen,” says the
most distinguished theologian of the Roman Catholic
Church since 1850. “I will not listen to the notion that
such a soul was lost.”85 For the next thousand years it was
the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible
Jerome produced was officially declared the Bible of the
Church of Rome at the Council of Trent in 1546.

The Council of Trent met from 1545 until 1563. The

Pope for the purpose of defeating all Protestant gains called
it. They wanted to undermine the Protestant Bible, and to
destroy Protestant doctrine. Some of the major points made
in the fourth session affirmed in 1546 were:
1. Sacred tradition is on par with the Holy Scripture.
2. The Apocrypha was declared canonical.
3. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was pronounced
“authentic.”
4. Justification by faith was condemned.

The Rheims-Douay Bible was then translated with

the idea that it would undermine the Protestant Bible. It
was the first Catholic English Bible. The New Testament
was published in 1582, and the Old Testament in 1610.
“This counterfeit Bible was an English translation of the
Alexandrian tradition based largely on Jerome’s Latin

85
Moorman, op. cit., 131.
75
Vulgate and it reflected the heretical ideas of Rome.”86 The
footnotes in this version strongly attacked the Protestant
“heresies” and defended all Roman Catholic doctrines. The
translation failed in its objective to undermine the
Protestant Bible. The Tyndale Bible and the King James
were too popular.

Since the Rheims-Douay failed in its purpose, those

who sought to discredit the Textus Receptus undertook
another goal. They vowed to become masters of the New
Testament Greek and infiltrate all leading colleges and
universities where they would mold their thinking into their
Greek students.

This shows you some of the men and the Bibles that
are behind the Greek New Testament of 1881, which is
what all the modern versions, are based on. Men who
reject the Textus Receptus do these translations and who
apparently think their authority is higher than God’s. In
1881, a two-volume edition of the New Testament in the
original Greek was written. The authors were B.F.
Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Their edition was very popular
with Catholics and Protestants alike. However, it was
severely criticized by many conservative Christians,
especially those who were defendants of the Textus
Receptus. “Alarmingly, the average believer who uses an
English translation other than the Authorized (King James)
Version is completely unacquainted with the men who
initiated it.”87 My goal is for you to not only become
86
Ward, op. cit., 47.
87
Grady, Final Authority, 213.
76
familiar with the men behind the King James Bible, but
with the men behind the modern versions as well. Let us
look now at Westcott, Hort, and the influence that they had.

Their translation of the Greek New Testament was

based essentially on two Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus
and the Vaticanus. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered
by the German scholar Tischendorf in a wastebasket at the
St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. The
Vaticanus was found in the Pope’s library in the Vatican in
1841. Westcott and Hort as well as other liberal scholars
claim that the two manuscripts are two of the fifty that
Constantine ordered Eusebius to make. If this is true, then
the Westcott-Hort translation is based upon a manuscript
that adopted both Arianism and ecumenism. Before we
look at these two manuscripts in detail, let’s look at
Westcott and Hort to see who they really are and what they
believed.

Some of the followers of Westcott and Hort have

been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory;
and many people, even today, who have no idea what the
Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion,
accept the labors of these scholars without question. Jack
Moorman puts it this way,

“It is strange because the naturalistic critics themselves have shown

each of the principles that Westcott and Hort taught to be defective,
yet in a greater or lesser way they still embrace them. Under no
circumstance will they return to the Received Text! We see the same
thing regarding the theory of evolution. Science has disproved it at
every point but would not dare return to Biblical Creationism. What

77
spirit does the reader see at work here?”88

It is interesting in all the reading available about

these men you will not find anywhere where either one of
them talks about a conversion experience. The reason why
one cannot find a single conversion account of Westcott or
Hort is because they did not believe in such “nonsense.”
Writing to his wife, Westcott stated,

“I do think we have no spiritual right to exclaim against the idea of

the commencement of spiritual life, conditionally from baptism, any
more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from
birth.”89

In a letter to John Ellerton, Dr. Hort added:

“We maintain baptismal regeneration as the most important of all

doctrines...almost all Anglican statements are a mixture of the
proportions of the true and the Romish view; second, the pure
Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the
truth than the Evangelical.”90

And finally to his eldest son on his confirmation, Dr.

Hort wrote:

“While you were an infant you were claimed for God by being
made in baptism an unconscious member of His church, the great
Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles’
time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences;
taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father;
to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ,
88
Moorman, op. cit., 263.
89
Grady, op. cit., 229.
90
Ibid.
78
united to Him by strange visible bonds; to know that you have as
your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven... This is the
privilege of the Christian, to know assuredly and clearly the facts
which relate to all men.”91

Dr. D.A. Waite after studying 1,291 pages of the

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

“Both rejected the atonement of the substitution of

Christ for the sinner, or vicarious atonement; both denied
the death of Christ counted for anything as an atoning
91
Ibid.
92
Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 26,27.
79
factor. They emphasized the atonement through the
Incarnation. This is Catholic doctrine. It helps them
defend the Mass.”93

Hort was very fond of Darwin and his teaching on

Evolution. In fact, Hort said, “The book that has most
engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is
a book that one is proud to be contemporary with... My
feeling is that it is unanswerable, If so, it sums up a new
period.”94 Westcott feels95 the same way regarding creation
and evolution. He write to the Archbishop of Canterbury
on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: “No one now, I
suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for
example, give a literal history - I could never understand
how any one reading them with open eyes could think they
did.”

Let us sum up this section on the theology of

Westcott and Hort by a quote from D.A. Waite,

“Though it is impossible to examine the motives in a definitive

manner, one thing is certain: if a man is a heretic in his views on
theology, he is not particularly interested in handing a Bible-believing
theological fundamentalist a Bible that backs up that fundamentalist
theology. In fact, he is not even interested in promulgating a text
which is closest the original autographs. He really doesn’t care about
the exact wording, spelling, and phrasing of the Bible, because he
denies that the Bible was verbally inspired and inerrant and infallible
in the original writings. A man’s theology determines how he deals

93
Fuller, Which Bible?, 1970), 281.
94
Ibid, 278.
95
Ibid, 280.
80
with God’s Word.”96

If their theology is wrong, then does it not stand to

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

Hort writes to Westcott on October 17, 1865: “I

have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship
and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their
causes and in their results.”98

Not only was their theology apostate, Westcott and

Hort’s textual theory was apostate as well. In 1881, these
two theological heretics (posing as Conservatives) from the
Anglican Church published their Greek text that rejected
the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places. This included
9,970 Greek words that were added, subtracted, or
changed from the Textus Receptus. This involves on the
average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New Testament,
96
D.A. Waite, Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort
(Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1998), 25.
97
Moorman, op. cit., 265.
98
Ibid.
81
or a total of 45.9 pages in all.

As has been said earlier, Westcott and Hort were not

Bible believers. As a matter of fact, they detested the King
James Version and the Greek text upon which it was based.
Their expressed purpose was to “RID THE CHURCH OF
THAT VILE TEXT.” Westcott and Hort had no desire to
simply revise the King James Version as the Southern
Convocation had authorized, nor would they be satisfied
with a fresh translation from the existing Greek text. What
they insisted upon was a brand new translation based on a
brand new Greek text.

Where was this Greek text to come from? Why, it

just so happened that Westcott and Hort had composed a
Greek text that they felt was perfectly suitable for the job!
This man-inspired text was the basic text used by the
Revision Committee (after the committee was sworn to
secrecy by Westcott and Hort), and it was published within
days of the Revised Version.

The new Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and

especially their theories, have had unwholesome and
devastating effects on New Testament textual criticism.
EVERY BIBLE PUBLISHED TODAY, EXCEPT FOR
THE KING JAMES VERSION, IS BASED ON THE
WORK OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. The poison of
Westcott and Hort has tainted every Bible but the King
James Version. Let us see how this is the case.

Some versions, such as the Revised Version and the

82
American Standard Version, are based directly on the
Westcott and Hort text. Other versions are based on texts
which are either revisions of the Westcott and Hort text, or
ones which utilize the theories of Westcott and Hort, for
example, Nestle’s text (the basic text for the New American
Standard Version) and the Bible’s Society’s text (the basic
text for the New International Version).

What is pertinent to our study is the textual stream

from which Westcott and Hort fished their manuscript
evidence. All scholars and critics agree that the work of
Westcott and Hort rests upon the Alexandrian tradition and
that it stands in opposition to the Majority tradition. In
other words, the Westcott and Hort text utilizes the same
manuscript base as was used by Origen, Eusebius, Jerome
and the Jesuits. To say it plainly, the Westcott and Hort
text is a Roman Catholic text. Since every Bible published
today (except the King James Version) rests on the text and
the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, we cannot but
conclude that THE MODERN VERSIONS ARE
CATHOLIC BIBLES!

This is obvious as we can see that the history of the

modern versions is synonymous with the history of the
Roman Catholic Church. What is the proof of this? The
manuscript evidence supporting the modern versions are
composed of Roman Catholic (Alexandrian tradition)
manuscripts. For further proof, it is evident that the
modern versions are Roman Catholic Bibles is the fact that
they read as Roman Catholic Bibles.

83
 In James 5:16, for example, the modern versions
change “confess your faults” to “confess your sins.” You
may now enter the confessional booth and whisper to the
priest, “Forgive me, father, for I have sinned.” In Matthew
6:7 they change “use not vain repetitions” to “do not keep
on babbling like pagans.” You can now say fifty “Hail
Mary’s” with a clear conscience.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a

perpetual virgin. To help them substantiate this, the
modern versions change “her firstborn son” to “her son”
(Matthew 1:25).

The fact of the matter is that the modern versions

will stand with the Roman Catholic Bibles and against the
King James Bible at every opportunity. As proof of this, I
offer the Catholic readings in the modern versions in Mark
6:11; Luke 2:33; John 17:12; I Corinthians 11:24; Romans
13:9; Galatians 3:1; Titus 2:13; I Peter 4:14; Colossians
1:14; I John 5:7; and Revelations 14:5. “She, ‘the harlot of
Revelation 17,’ is identified as the Roman Catholic Church
and was and perhaps still is the mainstay in watering down
God’s holy Word.”99 Westcott and Hort were men who
sought to destroy the God-honored, God-given Majority
text Bible and replace it with a Christ denying perversion
acceptable to the Roman Catholic Pope. When the Roman
Catholic Church accepts any Bible that should immediately
tell us that this Bible is not for any Bible believing
Christian to use.
Since the text and the textual theories of Westcott
99
Ward, Famine in the Land, Preface.
84
and Hort are the foundations of the modern versions, it is
crucial that we have some understanding of them. If they
are in error, then the modern versions are built on a
foundation of sand.

A theory, whether it is a textual theory or a scientific

theory, is nothing more than a possible explanation of a set
of facts. The theory itself is not a fact nor is it necessarily
valid. It is, if you will, simply an “educated guess.” Note,
however, that a theory is supposed to be built on facts. The
facts are to support the theory and the theory is to explain
the facts.

Westcott and Hort's theory is not based on facts. A

close examination of their theory reveals a total lack of
hard evidence. It is conjecture based on supposition. Even
the terms that they used in their theory (“transcriptional
probability,” “intrinsic probability,” conjectural
emendation,” etc.) reflect their dependence on guesswork
rather than fact. The noted scholar John William Burgon
aptly described their theory as “an excursion in cloud land.”

Westcott and Hort’s textual theory can be viewed by

Bible believing Christians as resting on two ungodly
assumptions:
1. That, sometime around the fourth century A.D.,
Jesus Christ failed in His promise to preserve His
words and the true text was lost. If we accept this
assumption, that the true text was lost and needed to be
“recovered” or “reconstructed,” then we are, in effect,
calling Jesus a liar.

85
 2. That Westcott and Hort could recover this text by
applying a man-made theory to the Word of God. This
second assumption was that they could approach the
Bible in the same manner as any other book. They felt
that Scripture could be judged by the same criteria as the
works of Plato or Shakespeare.

“It is hard to see how God would allow the true text
to sink into virtual oblivion for fifteen hundred years only
to have it brought to light again by two Cambridge
professors who did not even believe it to be verbally
inspired.”100

Notice also what John William Burgon said about

this:
“Above all, did he fancy, and do his followers imagine, that the Holy
Ghost who inspired the New Testament could have let the true text of
it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its life, and that a
deep and wide and full investigation must issue in the proof that under
His care the Word of God has been preserved all through the ages in
due integrity? This admission alone when stripped of its disguise, is
plainly fatal to Dr. Hort’s theory.”101

The problem was, they forgot about God. The

inspired Word of God is not just another book and cannot
be approached as any other book. It claims for itself
supernatural inspiration, powers, authority, and
preservation. It is a supernatural book and to apply man-
made theory to it is to put man’s wisdom above God’s

100
Fuller, op. cit., 149.
101
Burgon, The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels, 93.
86
Word.

Notice what Terence Brown, past secretary of the

Trinitarian Bible Society in an address given in June 1971
had to say:

“What is wrong with the text underlying the modern versions? This
text has been constructed in accordance with a theory that gives too
much weight and authority to a small and unrepresentative group of
ancient documents headed by the Vatican copy known as Codex B
and the Sinai copy known as Codex Sinaiticus or by the first letter of
the Hebrew alphabet - ‘Aleph.’ The theory was developed by
Professors Westcott and Hort and is propounded in their Introduction
to the Greek New Testament. At the age of 22 Hort had expressed his
determination to overthrow ‘that vile Textus Receptus.’ The
publication of the ‘Introduction’ and the Westcott and Hort edition of
the Greek New Testament marked the full extent of his effort in this
direction.

The theories of Westcott and Hort very largely shaped the text
adopted by the 1881 Revisers and influenced practically every
subsequent translation on both sides of the Atlantic. The problem was
how to account for the dominance of the ‘Majority Text’ from the 4th
century onwards. Codex B and Codex Aleph were both written in the
4th century, and if they present the text in its purest form, how was it
that this remained unrecognized until the middle of the nineteenth
century?...

Their theory was that there must have been some kind of deliberate
but misguided editorial revision of the Greek Text, probably in Syria,
possibly in Antioch, perhaps during the latter part of the 4th
century...According to this theory, this edited text was wrongly
permitted to eclipse the ‘pure’ text exhibited by B and Aleph - until
these documents were rehabilitated in the middle of the nineteenth
century....

87
MANY LIBERALS AND EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS ALIKE
EMBRACED THE THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
AND IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD, THROUGH THE
COLLEGES, SCHOOLS, AND PULPITS OF THE ENGLISH-
SPEAKING WORLD, THIS THEORY BECAME EMBEDDED
IN THE MINDS OF MANY, AS IT WERE A PROVED AND
DEMONSTRATED FACT...

The weakness of Westcott and Hort’s theory of a 4th century Syrian

revision which resulted in the substitution of the Majority Text for the
B and Aleph text is that such a revision is unknown to history. The
whole scheme rests upon a supposition for which there is no
historical evidence, and consists largely in making dogmatic
assertions based upon uncertainties.”102

Let us look briefly at the things that made up the

Westcott and Hort theory. The first part of it is known as
the Syrian Recension. We have already discussed the fact
that Westcott and Hort’s textual theory had one primary
objective: “TO RID THE CHURCH OF THAT VILE
TEXT.” The “vile text” in question was, of course, the
King James Version and its underlying Greek text, the
Textus Receptus.

But Westcott and Hort had a problem. The Textus

Receptus was the Greek text and had been since the
Reformation. Prior to that, it had been the text of the Greek
Church and of the early churches. They themselves
admitted that it was the dominant text and that it
enjoyed the support of the vast majority of manuscript
evidence. In order to dethrone the Textus Receptus, they
had to find some way to explain away its dominance and
102
Cloud, op. cit., 31.
88
then create a text to replace it with.

The answer to this problem was to rewrite history.

They proposed a theory that some time between 250 A.D.
and 350 A.D.; the churches became alarmed over the
differences exhibited in the Greek texts. A meeting of the
leaders of the churches was held at Antioch to discuss the
problem. As a result of this meeting, they issued an
“official” revision of the Bible. This revision was itself
revised about 350 A.D. and it became the standard Bible
for churches.

In this matter, Westcott and Hort could show a

reason for the dominance of the Textus Receptus and also
account for its support by the majority of manuscript
evidence. If it was the “official” text, then it obviously
would be the most used text and therefore more copies
would survive of it than of any other text.

Was this what really happened? No! There is no

evidence whatsoever that any such meeting ever took place,
or that such church leaders ever issued an "official" Greek
text. Secular history records no such event. Christian
history records no such event. The writings of the church
fathers that would have attended such a meeting record no
such event. That is because IT NEVER HAPPENED! It is
a figment of the imagination of Westcott and Hort.

This total lack of evidence for what they termed a

“Syrian Recension” did not bother Westcott and Hort in the
least. A theory, however, must have some kind of support.

89
Since they could not support their theory of a Syrian
Recension with facts, they supported it with another theory.

According to our two “scholars,” the internal

evidence of the readings of the existing manuscripts
supports the theory of the Syrian Recension. In order to
understand how this works, we must understand what they
called the “conflate theory” and the “genealogical
method.”

The genealogical method is quite similar to the

“family tree” concept. It purports to show how the text of
the Bible developed through the interrelation of various
text types. If a text has its source two or more text types,
then evidence of its ancestry could be determined by the
presence in it of reading peculiar to those types.

Westcott and Hort divided all existing manuscripts

into four families of text types. They called these the
“Neutral,” “Western,” “Alexandrian,” and “Syrian” types.
The Neutral type was, by implication, the pure text. The
Western and Alexandrian types were variations of the
neutral type and quite close to it. The Syrian type was the
text that supposedly was the product of their imaginary
“Syrian Recension.” It corresponds to the Textus Receptus
upon which the King James Version is based.

According to their theory, the Syrian text was a

“conflation” or combination of the other text types. If they
could prove that the Syrian text contained readings that
were combinations or conflations of readings peculiar to

90
the other text types, then they could show that the Syrian
text was a later and less pure text.

Westcott and Hort’s “genealogical method” is not

valid. Genealogical evidence is nonexistent. Moreover,
many noted scholars have demonstrated that the
genealogical method, as such, has no application to New
Testament textual criticism.

Westcott and Hort’s concept of four textual families

is pure fiction. They do not prove that such a division
existed, and only assert that they did. Likewise, their
“Neutral” text is “pure” only because they have proclaimed
it to be so. It is not possible to establish the “purity” of a
text if the existence of that text has never been established!

What is the proof of Westcott and Hort’s theory?

According to their theory, these two noted critics would be
vindicated if the Syrian text contained readings that were
conflations of the other text types. After spending better
than thirty years searching through the eight thousand
verses of the New Testament, they came up with eight
readings (some of which are single words) that SEEM to be
conflations. These supposed conflations occur in Mark
6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49; Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18, and 24:53.

The “proof” they offer is as fragile as their theories.

In the first place, it can be shown that the other text types
conflate the Syrian. The Western, for example, conflates
the Syrian and the Neutral in John 5:37 and Acts 10:48.
Secondly, papyrus fragments have recently been discovered

91
which contain “Syrian” readings. These fragments date
from a time when such readings would have been
impossible under Westcott and Hort’s theory. Thirdly,
readings peculiar to the Syrian text can be found in the
writings of the church fathers prior to the time of the
imaginary “Syrian Recension.”

Let us look now at the two manuscripts on which the

Greek Text of Westcott and Hort are based. These are
known as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. It
is obvious that Westcott and Hort followed these two texts
which agree with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Alexander
McClure has this to say about these texts:

“There can be no question about the fact that Westcott and Hort
serenely followed the texts of Aleph and Codex B, which agree with
the Vulgate.

Most of the Latin texts (which are pre-Vulgate) have been tampered
with and made to conform to the Vulgate. The Church of Rome has,
for centuries, had scribes whose main business was to make existing
texts conform to a pre-conceived idea.”103

As has been said, the whole purpose of the Westcott

and Hort theory was to dethrone the “villainous” Textus
Receptus and then create a new text to replace it. There
was one particular Greek manuscript that Westcott and
Hort loved with a passion equal to their hatred of the
Textus Receptus. This Greek manuscript was the Codex
Vaticanus. It was, they declared, the purest known example
of a Neutral text and therefore the closest to the apostolic
103
McClure, Translators Revived, 11.
92
writings themselves.

Westcott and Hort had invented the concept of a

neutral text and then declared the Codex Vaticanus to be
the purest known example of that text. How can it be the
“purest” example of a text whose very existence has never
been proven?!?
The Vaticanus was discovered in the Pope’s library
in Rome in 1481, where it had lain forgotten and unused for
no one knows how long. While its history is shrouded in
mystery, it shows evidence of serious tampering. Many of
its readings were known to the editors of the Received Text
and were rejected by those wise men. In fact, no non-
Catholic scholar has ever had free access to the Vaticanus.
It was incomplete, omitting the pastoral epistles, Philemon,
Revelation, and part of Hebrews. It is in nearly perfect
condition. Perhaps this is because for 1,000 years nobody
thought enough of it to pick it up and use it!

Roman Catholic popes refused to allow Bible

scholars to study it until the nineteenth century. In 1867,
Tischendorf was given permission by Cardinal Antonelli to
study the text. He had nearly finished transcribing three
Gospels when it was discovered that he was doing so. The
text was then taken away for several months. In all,
Tischendorf had manuscripts before him a total of forty-
two hours and only three hours at a time. All but a few
hours were spent on the Gospels. However, he was quoted
as saying, “I succeeded in preparing the whole New
Testament for a new reliable edition, so as to obtain every
desired result.” In forty-two hours, every desired result!

93
 The Vaticanus shows extreme scribal carelessness. It
contains numerous places where the scribe has written the
same word or phrase twice in succession. We must
remember that the early scribes were so particular in
copying God’s Word that even if one letter was added or
subtracted, the whole copy was thrown away. Yet here we
see a copy full of errors and are told that it is more accurate
than the King James Text, the Textus Receptus,
Impossible! This copy would have been thrown out and
probably was, and yet someone picked it up and stuck it in
a library.

It is important to note that the Vaticanus was known

by the King James Version translators but was not used by
them. However, it became the very foundation of Westcott
and Hort’s new Greek text. A handful of other manuscripts
were used in support, most notably the Codex Sinaiticus.
This manuscript shows the marks of ten different correctors
down through the centuries.

David Cloud tells us about the Codex Sinaiticus and

how it was discovered:

“The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in an apostate

monastery (St. Catherine’s) at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1859. Even the
benighted monks of that wretched monastery found zero value in this
manuscript and had consigned to burn it. Tischendorf, following his
unscriptural theory that the pure Word of God needed to be recovered,
stumbled upon it in his misguided zeal.

The complete Sinai manuscript contained portions of the Old

Testament and the Apocrypha, the complete New Testament, as well
as the spurious Epistle of Barnabas, and a fragment of the spurious
94
Shepherd of Hermas. Tischendorf was so enamored with the Sinai
manuscript that he altered the eighth edition of his Greek text in 3,369
instances, largely in compliance with Sinaitic. Dr. James Qurollo
observes, 'I don’t know which of them had the truer evaluation of its
worth - Tischendorf, who wanted to buy it, or the monks, who wanted
to burn it.'”104

Is it any wonder that such trash wound up in a trash

can? That is where it should have been! Are we to believe
that the Word God promised to preserve ended up in a
wastebasket to be burned? Are we to believe that a German
scholar happened at the right time to pluck it out of the
fire? Those who insist that the Westcott-Hort text is more
accurate than the King James (Textus Receptus) must
believe it. However, I reject it and will stand by the Textus
Receptus.

It is also appropriate to give a description of the

monastery that housed the Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. R.L.
Hymers is quoted as having this to say about his visit to this
monastery:

“I became convinced of the superiority of the Textus Receptus during

a tour of the Sinai Peninsula in the summer of 1987. My wife and I
were part of an expedition that climbed Mount Sinai. After
descending, we toured St.Catherine’s Monastery, which is located at
the foot of the mountain. I was struck by the clear and even satanic
characteristics of this monastery. The skulls of monks from across the
centuries are heaped in a large room. This heap of skulls is seven or
eight feet high. The skeleton of one of the monks is chained to a door
adjacent to this mound of skulls, left there as an ageless guard.
Within the sanctuary of the monastery itself, ostrich eggs hang form

104
Cloud, op. cit., 22,23.
95
the ceiling, lamps dimly illuminate the gloomy atmosphere, and
strange drawings and unscriptural paintings decorate the entire
edifice.

We were guided through the eerie church to the place where the
Sinaiticus scroll had been kept by those monks across the centuries,
until it was discovered by Tischendorf, taken to Germany, and
ultimately sold to Great Britain. As I stood in front of the case where
the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept prior to it being taken by
Tischendorf, I had the distinct impression that nothing in the way of
spiritual light could come from this place.

This impression caused me to reexamine the facts concerning the

Westcott and Hort text, and to come to the conclusion that their use of
the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus scrolls as a basis for the new Greek text
was spurious. I have come to the conclusion that the Westcott and
Hort text is a mutilation, and that the Masoretic Text and Textus
Receptus, which are the basis of the King James Version, are far
superior. Therefore, I strongly defend the King James Version as the
most reliable translation of the Scriptures in the English language.”105

John William Burgon had this to say about the

Codex Sinaiticus:

“I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise of

preservation has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much
of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact had to be picked by a
German critic out of a waste paper basket in the convent in St.
Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodeled after the
pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during
fifteen centuries, and had probably owned their survival to their
neglect; while hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and
had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.”106
105
Ibid, 24.
106
Burgon, op. cit., 12.
96
 Those who accept these manuscripts believe them to
be two of the fifty that Constantine had prepared by
Eusebius shortly after Constantine became emperor of
Rome in 312 A.D. Both codices are written on vellum in
classical Greek. Both of these Bibles belong to the corrupt
line of the ascension. Let us refresh our minds on the
theology and purpose behind those fifty copies.

Eusebius was a disciple of Origen and embraced his

ideas. This included Gnosticism, the denial of the deity of
Christ, pre-existence of the soul, the allegorical method of
interpretation, etc. These fifty copies were made from the
fifth column of Origen’s Bible, the Hexapla.

So what are the other than King James Bibles, which

include all modern versions, using for a text? They are
using a text that relies upon two manuscripts. One was
found in a wastebasket in a monastery, the other was found
in the Vatican library, and both contained a number of
scribal errors. If they are in fact two of the fifty copies
Eusebius prepared for Constantine, as they would have us
believe, then they are full of Arianism and ecumenism.
This “pure” and authoritative codex throws out the
beginning of the Word of God (Genesis 1:1-46:28), the
middle of the Word of God (Psalms 106-138) and the end
of the Word of God (the entire book of Revelation).

David Cloud has this to say about these manuscripts,

“The pure Word of God, my friends, has not been preserved
in an obscure Egyptian monastery or on the dusty shelf of
the Pope’s library, but in the Bibles and manuscripts which

97
have been valued and used by the common believers
through the centuries.”107

Obviously the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex

Sinaiticus must differ from the Textus Receptus, but to
what extent? In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus omits 2,877
words, adds 536, substitutes 935, transposes 2,098 and
modifies 1,132. Sinaiticus omits 3,455, adds 839,
substitutes 1,114, transposes 2,299 and modifies 1,265.

If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are “pure” texts, then we

should reasonably expect them to agree with each other.
The fact is that they do not! They differ from each other in
over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone without considering
minor errors such as spelling. Now one or the other has to
be wrong 3,000 times.

Despite the fact that the Codex Vaticanus is

demonstrably corrupt, despite the fact that 95% of all
manuscript evidence stands in opposition to it, despite the
fact that it adds to, takes from and changes the Word of
God, despite the fact that it is a Roman Catholic
manuscript, despite the fact that it was ignored by God and
man for over 1,000 years, the Codex Vaticanus became, by
the simple declaration of Westcott and Hort, the purest,
most authoritative manuscript in existence. Modern
versions are perversions of the Word of God because they
are based upon a Greek text that is false to the truth and
improper in every way. Their foundation is faulty. The
forerunners of the NEW VERSIONS are nothing more than
107
Cloud, op cit., 23.
98
the tools of Satan.

When one sees the number of differences between

the Textus Receptus and Westcott and Hort’s Greek text it
is easy to see why there are so many changes in our modern
versions. It is also obvious that two things this different
cannot be the same. We can see this comparison in the
following chart.

The New Testament Greek Textual Battleground

Textus Receptus Westcott-Hort
Changes in the T.R.
Has 140,521 Greek words. Changes made 5,604
places in the
New Testament.
Has 647 pages in Greek text. Changes include
9,970 Greek words.
Has 217 Greek words per page. Changes 15.4 Greek
words per page.
Has 100% of the Greek words. Changes 7% of the
Greek words.
Has all 647 pages unchanged. Changes total 45.9
pages in Greek text.

“From the above chart, you can see the real Greek
Textual Battleground between the Westcott and Hort
Greek Text and the Textus Receptus text of the New
Testament. You can see that the additions, subtractions,
or changes include almost 10,000 Greek words.

To get a picture of just how many words are involved

99
(if they were together in one place) consider what 10,000
English words would amount to. It would be the
equivalent of either (1) the entire book of Romans (9,447
words); or (2) the entire book of I Corinthians (9,489
words); or (3) the books of II Corinthians and Galatians
(9,190 words); or (4) the books of Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, and I Thessalonians (9,096 words); or (5) the
books of James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John,
and Jude (10,088 words); or (6) the books of Colossians, I
Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, II Timothy, Philemon, II
Peter, II John, III John, and Jude (9,819 words).

This represents the total number Received Text Greek

words that have been either added to God’s words,
subtracted from God’s words, or changed from God’s
words by the Westcott and Hort Greek text. I think you
will agree with me that there is much at stake in this
BATTLE for our Bible! Isn’t it time to CONTEND for
the BOOK?!”108

How many words of God have to be taken out of

your Bible before it is no longer 100% God’s words? Just
one? That would be good enough for me. But when you
have over 5,000 changes involving almost 10,000 words,
you have serious trouble. David Otis Fuller had this to say
about the Bible:

"The Bible should more probably be compared to a living organism.

Touch a part and you spoil it all. To cut a vital artery in a man might
be touching a very small point, but death could come as truly as if he

108
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, xii.
100
were blown to pieces.

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

David Cloud had said, “There are exceptions, but

those who criticize King James Bible defenders commonly
strain at gnats and swallow camels; they focus on the
exceptions and ignore the rules; they discover grains of
error among mountains of truth. They had a strong
inclination to ‘cling to all sorts of small details, which they
use as arguments against the clear and decisive evidence.”110

It has been truly said, “When a man tamely consents

to place his conscience in the keeping of his fellow, and to
bow down his understanding to the opinions of men, he is
meek, modest, and liberal, but let him reverently bow to the
authority of the Holy Scriptures, and he will be looked
upon as self-confident, dogmatic, and narrow minded.”111

Let me sum up this section on Westcott and Hort by

saying this. Their theory was depraved and their evidence
corrupt. Beyond this, we find that their scholarship was
dishonest. After elevating the Codex Vaticanus to a

109
Fuller, Which Bible?, 301.
110
Cloud, op. cit., 13
111
God’s Miracle Book: The King James Bible (Halifax, NS: The
People’s Gospel Hour, n.d.), 4.
101
position of preeminence, one would expect that the new
Greek text of Westcott and Hort would slavishly follow it.
For the most part, it does. However, when it suited their
own purposes, Westcott and Hort would abandon it.

The reason that the heretics took out some things in

the Bible but not all of them is because they want the Bible
to agree with them. Jack Hyles said, “Think what could
have happened if all the hours that have been spent
changing the Bible had been spent preaching the Bible
and spreading its message.”112 Contrary to what some
people may say, these changes in the text also brought with
them serious doctrinal changes as well. We will look at
this matter in detail later.

Let me say here though that I have always found it

interesting that the same ones who use the argument that
changes don’t matter because the doctrine is found
elsewhere in the same translation, rail against the New
World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses which
alters words that affect doctrine. Yet those same altered
doctrines can be found elsewhere in the apostate cult’s
translation of the Bible. It would seem that a double
standard is in full force when they promote the N.I.V. or the
N.A.S.V., but reject the New World Translation, all of
which were also translated from the SAME FAMILY of so-
called BETTER MANUSCRIPTS. The next time that you
confront a Jehovah’s Witness about doctrine missing in
their Bible beware, unless you use the King James Version,
it may not be found there in YOUR Bible either.
112
Grady, Final Authority, iii.
102
 We have seen that the Textus Receptus is superior
because the churches accepted it. It is traditional in that the
people who knew what they were talking about have
handed it down. We can also see that it is superior in that
the evidence attests it. We find this evidence by way of
manuscripts, ancient versions, and church fathers. It has
been accepted ever since it was written down.113

It is also important to note the Revision Committee

of 1881 and their relation to the new Greek text of Westcott
and Hort. David Otis Fuller has this to say about them:

“In view of the facts it seems clear that, not until after the Committee
had disbanded, and their work had come under scrutiny of able
scholars and faithful men, were they themselves aware that they had
seemingly given their official sanction of the “New Greek Text” of
Westcott and Hort. The Westcott and Hort text had not yet been
published, and hence had never been subjected to scrutiny and
criticism; nor had the principles upon which it was constructed been
investigated. Only after it was too late were the facts realized, even
by the Revisers themselves.
The mischief has thus been traced back to those two scholars, and to a
text that had not yet seen the light of day and been subjected to the
scrutiny of other scholars. And we know that not until the R.V. of the
New Testament had been published was it known that the Westcott
and Hort text had been quietly imposed upon the Revisers, and that it
was confirmed to two old Codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.”114

It is important for us to note that the text used today

in most colleges, universities, and seminaries is the

113
Waite, op. cit., 40.
114
David Otis Fuller, True or False (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids
International Publications, 1973), 91.
103
Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament, 26th Edition. It has
gone through 26 editions thus far. Nestle began his critical
Greek edition in 1898, following the basic edition of
Westcott and Hort and three others of his day. The 26th
edition came out in 1979. From 1898 to 1979 is eighty-one
years. If you divide eighty-one by twenty-six, you see that
they came out, on the average, with one new, updated,
changed, different edition of the Greek New Testament
every 3.1 years. What does that tell you as to the certainty
theses editors have in God’s preservation of His New
Testament words? It tells you these men don’t really know
what the Greek New Testament is. This Nestle/Aland
Greek text is named for Eberhard Nestle, a German, and
Kurt Aland, also a German. It was made up by a committee
consisting of Kurt Aland (who is an unbeliever), Matthew
Black (an unbeliever), Carlo M. Martini (a Cardinal of the
Roman Catholic Church), Bruce Metzger (who is from
Princeton, a man who demonstrated his apostasy as editor
of the Reader’s Digest Bible), and Alan Wigren (from
Chicago, an apostate also). All these were editors of the
26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament
Text. This Greek New Testament text, or one like it, is the
basic text that underlies the modern versions.115

115
Waite, op. cit., 38,39.
104
The Translators Are Superior

There is no doubt about the fact that the translation

of the Bible into any language is an event of the highest
importance to the people by which that language is spoken.
It is the bringing of the words of Almighty God into the
language that they speak. No book ever published in the
English language has had a greater influence on civilization
that the Authorized, King James Version.

It is important to note that all things were at a peak in

the seventeenth century for the printing of the Word of God
in English. There has never been a committee of translators
whose scholastic ability has exceeded that of the translators
of the King James Version. Not only was education at a
peak but language was as well. Notice what Alexander
McClure says regarding this:

“As for the capability of those men, we may say again, that, by the
good providence of God, their work was done at a fortunate time. Not
only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened
to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental
tongues, and of rabbinical lore, had then been carried to a greater
extent in England than before or since.”116

“Work on the King James Version began in 1604. In

that year, a group of Puritans under the leadership of Dr.
John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, suggested to King James I that a new translation of
the Bible be undertaken. This suggestion appealed to
James, who was himself a student of theology and the
116
McClure, Translators Revived, 63.
105
Scriptures, and he immediately began the necessary
arrangements for carrying it out.”117

Alexander McClure tells us the story behind the

beginning of the King James Version.

“The conference at Hampton Court took place in January of 1604 and

by the summer of that same year there were 54 men assigned to the
task of beginning the revision which came to be known as the King
James Version of the Bible. These men were instructed to use the
Bishop’s Bible as a basis, but to also consult Tyndale, Matthew,
Coverdale, Whit-church and the Geneva Bible. If the reader had noted
the progress down to this point, it will be remembered that Tyndale’s
influence is to be found in every one of the works to be consulted.
Add to that the influence of Thomas Beza, and you will find Erasmus
of Rotterdam hiding behind virtually every page. We must remember
that Miles Coverdale is represented here also, but it was the absolute
genius of William Tyndale that breathed life into our English
Bible.”118

Alexander McClure goes on to tell us how the king

went about appointing people for the translation process.
He says:

“The King was for appointing fifty-four learned men to this great and
good work; but the number actually employed upon it, in the first
instance, was forty-seven. Order was also taken, that the bishops, in
their several dioceses, should find what men of learning there were,
who might be able to assist; and the bishops were to write to them,
earnestly charging them, at the king’s desire, to send in their
suggestions and critical observations, that so, as his Majesty remarks,
‘our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all
117
Hills, The King James Version Defended, 215.
118
Ibid, 30.
106
learned men within this our kingdom.’”119

Before we go any further into the character of the

translators of the King James Version, it is important that
we look at King James. Many people try to put down the
King James Bible by putting down the character of King
James. Some will say that he was not much of a person,
while others will even go so far as to say that King James
was a homosexual. First of all, before we deal with these
accusations, we should carefully note what D.A. Waite has
to say about this:

“King James had nothing to do with the translation itself other than
making the rules. There is no reason whatsoever to try and defend
King James. A lot of men take great delight in pointing out alleged
defects in King James. He wasn’t a perfect man in many ways. But
he had nothing to do with the translating. He was not one of the forty-
seven who did the work. He just commissioned it because he agreed
that is ought to be done.

Dr. John Reynolds had asked King James to permit the King James
Bible to be undertaken, to have men to do it, and to provide for the
funds to take care of it. James had an interest in the translation,
having a knowledge of many languages himself. He just happened to
be the king at the time the translation was made. It’s a foolish
argument people use, trying to drag in something that isn’t
relevant.”120

As you can see to charge King James with such

things just to seek to discredit the King James Version is
really of no value to their argument. In spite of that, it is

119
Ibid, 66.
120
Waite, op. cit., 85,86.
107
fitting to mention that no such charges were made against
him while he was living. Notice how Stephen Coston
brings this out:

“In all the time that King James lived and reigned in Scotland there
was never a charge made concerning immorality or lack of character.
Nor was there any lack in the king’s own prowess, he was fluent in
Greek, Latin, and French and even wrote a tract condemning the use
of tobacco called a ‘Counterblast to Tobacco.’”121

If all this is true than how did all these false stories
about King James get started. Rather than telling the story,
I will give you a direct quote from Samuel Gipp:

King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now

famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the
greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of

Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland
to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches in England possessed the Bibles in

English, King James’ desire was that the common people should have
the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54
of history’s most learned men together to accomplish a great task. At
a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in
spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift
that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in
English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in

Stephen A. Coston, King James Unjustly Accused (St. Peterburg,

121

FL: KonigsWort Inc., 1996), xxix.

108
Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled ‘Counterblast to
Tobacco’, which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in
England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony
Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore
vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death
of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling
James a homosexual. Obviously, James being dead was in no
condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people
alive who knew this wasn’t true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until
recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying
King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that
Christians would turn away from God’s book to a more ‘modern’
translation.

It seems though, that Weldon’s false account is being once again

largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of
those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.

It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was
so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English
people that it attempted to kill King James and all of parliament in
1605.

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the

direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in
the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder
which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament.
After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-
establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who
resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been
one of the plot’s victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other
conspirators were caught and hanged. (Is it any wonder that when they

109
failed at this that they came up with modern versions.)

It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of

King James join an unholy lot.”122

Not only do we see that King James was a man of

character, but so were the men that he called upon to do the
translation of this Bible. Few indeed are the living names
worthy to be enrolled with those mighty men. “The men
who translated the King James Bible were superior in every
way to any men who lived before or who live today.”123 Not
only were they very educated men, but they were men who
were godly men and had a very reverential attitude towards
the Word of God. Notice what Norman Ward says about
the attitude of these men:

“The attitude that these men brought with them to their work stands in
stark contrast to the attitudes displayed by the modern critics. They
worshiped neither scholarships nor themselves but rather Christ.
Miles Smith, in the Translator’s Preface to the Reader noted, ‘There
are many chosen that were greater in other men’s eyes than they were
in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.’
They were not merely Bible scholars but also Bible believers to whom
the Scriptures were ‘God’s sacred truth.’ With the bloody
Reformation still fresh in the mind’s eye, the translators of the
Authorized Version were fully cognizant of the inestimable value of
the Word of God.”124

Alexander McClure says, “There are two things we

should look at when examining any version: the nature of

122
Gipp, The Answer Book, 9,10.
123
Waite, op. cit., 17.
124
Ward, Famine in the Land, 41.
110
the translation, and the character of the men who
participated in the actual work of translation. There are
numbers of books which have ‘BIBLE’ printed on the
cover, but what is inside may often be as far from the truth
as the east is from the west.”125

The King James translators used the Received Text

as the text for their work. The Received Text consists of the
Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the
Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. It is
important to note that not only did God inspire the
Scriptures but that he also superintended the translation of
those Scriptures into other languages so that they might
have the Word of God. Notice what Jack Moorman says:

“In approaching this and other versions, we begin on the premise that
God was actively superintending the translation of His Word into the
other languages. Inspiration deals with the Hebrew and Greek. But in
that eventually so few could speak those languages, God’s promise of
preservation has no practical meaning unless He superintends the
translation process.”126

Before we go any further, it is important for us to see

the spiritual qualifications and insight of the King James
translators. In order to do this, let me quote from THE
TRANSLATOR TO THE READER, this is the introductory
remarks in the original 1611 King James Bible. Let me
quote them on four things in this introduction. First of all,
the King James Bible translators believed people needed to
read the Bible. Here is what they said on The Need for
125
McClure, Translators Revived, v.
126
Moorman, Forever Settled, 135.
111
Reading the Scriptures:
“But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth)
without the Word of God? What Word of God (whereof we may be
sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to
search (John 5:39; Isaiah 8:20). They are commended that searched
and studied them (Acts 17:11 and 8:28-29). They are reproved that
are unskillful in them, or slow to believe them (Matthew 22:29; Luke
24:25). They can make us wise unto salvation (II Timothy 3:15). If
we are ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will being
us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort
us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, enflame us. Tolle, lege, tolle, lege.
Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures...” (p.10)

They were also clear on what the Scriptures are

and what they can do. They had insight as to what the
Bible is. They wrote:

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

112
The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author
being God, not man; the inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the
Apostles or Prophets; the penmen, such as were sanctified from the
womb, and endued with a principal portion of God’s Spirit; the
matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God’s word, God’s
testimony, God’s oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation,
etc.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion,
repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in
the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and the reward of the study thereof,
fellowship in the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition
of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that shall not fade away:
Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scriptures, and thrice happy
that meditateth in it day and night.” (pp.11-12)

The King James Bible translators also saw The Need

for Proper Translation of the Scriptures. They wrote:

“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that

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

The King James translators also saw The Urgency of

Reading and Heeding the Scriptures. They closed their
notes to “TO THE READER” by writing:

“It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his
grace, which is able to do further than we can ask or think. He

113
removeth the scales from our eyes, the vail from our hearts, opening
our wits that we may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea,
correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver,
yea, that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountains of
living water which ye digged not (Genesis 16:15 and Jeremiah 1:13);
do not cast earth into them, with the Philistines, neither prefer broken
pits before them, with the wicked Jews. Others have labored, and you
may enter into their labors. O receive not so great things in vain: O
despise not so great salvation. Be not like swine to tread upon
precious things, neither yet like dogs to tear and abuse holy things.
Say not to our Saviour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts
(Matthew 8:34); neither yet like Esau sell your birthright for a mess of
pottage (Hebrews 12:16). If light be come into the world, love not
darkness more than light; if food, if clothing, be offered, go not naked,
starve not yourselves... It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the
living God (Hebrews 10:31); but a blessed thing it is, and will bring
us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us,
to hearken; when he setteth his word upon us, to read it; when he
stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are
to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscious in us to
know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Holy Ghost, be
all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.”

Certainly it must be agreed that these men who

translated the King James Bible has spiritual insight and
depths. They were far from cold intellectuals without a
heart for the Word of the Lord and the Lord of the Word.”127

Let us now look at the groupings and locations of the

King James translators. There were a total of three
companies. They met in the cities of Cambridge, Oxford,
and Westminster. The translators began their work in 1604,

127
Waite, op. cit., 63-66.
114
and finished it in 1611, a total of seven years. They had an
Old Testament and a New Testament company at
Westminster. In Oxford they had a company for the Old
Testament and one for the New Testament. In Cambridge
they had a company for the Old Testament and one for the
Apocrypha. Though they translated the Apocrypha in the
original King James Bible, the translators did NOT believe
that it was inspired. They translated these books only as
history between the Old and New Testament. We will look
at this in greater detail later.

There were up to fifty-seven men altogether that

worked in six companies or groups. Not all men were
present at all times during the translation. On an average,
there were about seven or eight men per group. Some of
the men died before the translation was finished.

Due to the space that we have, we will look at just

four of the Old Testament translators and two of the New
Testament translators. These men will give you an idea of
the character and the knowledge of the men who were
chosen as translators.

The first Old Testament translator to be considered is

Lancelot Andrews. He was the president or director of the
Westminster group that translated twelve books all
together, Genesis - II Kings. He was called the “star of
preachers.” He ever bore the character of a right godly man
and a tremendous student.

He acquired most of the modern languages of Europe

115
at the University of Cambridge. He gave himself chiefly to
Oriental tongues and to divinity.128 Someone has said,
“Such was his skill on all languages, especially the
Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of Babel,
he might have served as interpreter-general.” In his funeral
sermon by Dr. Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said
that Dr. Andrews was conversant in FIFTEEN
LANGUAGES.129 As you can see, he was a respected and
superior translator. I don’t know of any of these modern
translators of the American Standard Version, New
American Standard Version, New International Version,
New King James Version, etc., who are conversant with as
many as fifteen languages.

“Mr. Andrews spent many hours each day in private

and family devotions. Lancelot Andrews’ manual for his
private devotions, prepared by himself, is wholly in the
Greek language. You can see this man was accomplished.
Many Christians today don’t even have private daily
devotions. Of those who do, how many do you know who
have made up private devotional manuals, how many do
you know who have written them wholly in the Greek
language? This most certainly indicates a linguistic
superiority.”130

The second Old Testament translator that I would

like us to look at is William Bedwell. He was also in
Company One, the Westminster group translating the books
128
McClure, op. cit., 78.
129
Ibid, 87.
130
Ibid, 86.
116
of Genesis through II Kings from the Hebrew to English.

Some of the notable things about him are he was

justly reputed to be an eminent Oriental scholar. Also, his
fame for Arabic learning was so great that scholars sought
him for assistance. To him belongs, as McClure stated, “the
honor of being the first who considerably promoted and
revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in
Europe.” He also left many Arabic manuscripts in the
University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font
of types for printing them. For many years he was engaged
in compiling an Arabic lexicon in three volumes. He also
began a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop
Laud’s manuscripts still preserved in the Bodleian Library
at Oxford. In Antwerp, in 1612, he published in quarto an
edition of the Epistles of John with a Latin version. Now, I
don’t know anything much about Arabic, but to have an
edition of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John with Latin and Arabic
would take a tremendously capable scholar.

McClure wrote: “Some modern scholars have fancied

we have an advantage in our times over the translators of
the King James days of 1611 by reason of the greater
attention which is supposed to be at present to what are
called the ‘COGNATE’ and ‘Shemitic’ languages,
especially the Arabic, by which much light is thought to be
reflected on Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident,
however, that Mr. Bedwell and his others among his fellow
laborers, were THOROUGHLY CONVERSANT in this
part of the broad field of sacred criticism.”131
131
Ibid, 101,102
117
 D.A. Waite had this to say regarding the Cognate and
Shemitic languages and the capabilities of Mr. Bedwell:

“This William Bedwell, with his Arabic, Persian, and other Oriental
languages, was greatly superior to our modern translators. Many
modern ‘translators’ come up to a word, and in a footnote somewhere,
or in an index at the bottom of the page, they’ll say the meaning of the
Hebrew word is uncertain, so they have some other rendition of it.
Well, the meaning of it is uncertain, perhaps, to these men living in
1960, when the New American Standard Version came out, in 1969,
when the New International Version came out or in 1979, when the
New King James Version came out; but these men who translated the
King James Version knew their cognate languages well. They
understood these references and there was no question in their minds
what these words meant. It is a strange thing; yet, people doubt and
question the authenticity, superiority, and the knowledge of the King
James translators. Cognate languages are simply the sister languages
related to the Hebrew like Arabic, Persian, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic,
and so on. They are related like brother and sister.

A word may be clear, or maybe the word is what they call a

hapaxlegomenon. Hapax means ‘once’ and legomenon means ‘spoken
or written.’ This particular word was used only once in all the New
Testament Greek or Old Testament Hebrew. So it is difficult to tell
sometimes what these hapaxlegomenon mean. They go to other
sources to try and understand the meaning. The translators of the
King James, who knew Arabic, Persian, Aramaic, Coptic, and the
various cognate languages, could go to these languages and
understand very clearly. But the men living today, because they don’t
know these cognate languages as well, just throw up their hands and
say that the meaning of the Hebrew is not certain.”132

The next Old Testament translator that we will look

at is Miles Smith. He was in Company Three, the Oxford
132
Waite, op. cit., 6.
118
Group. That group translated a total of seventeen books,
from Isaiah through Malachi. Here is some background on
Dr. Smith. He was one of the twelve translators selected to
revise the work after it was referred to them for the final
examination. He was also employed to write that most
learned and eloquent preface to the King James Bible.

He went through the Greek and Latin Fathers,

making his annotations on them all. There were 100 church
fathers that wrote extensively from 100 to 300 A.D. There
were 200 more who wrote from 300 to 600 A.D. He read
through all of them in Greek and Latin and made his own
comments on each of them.

He was well acquainted with the rabbinical glosses

and comments, they are marginal comments in the Hebrew
language. He was also so expert in the Chaldee (which is
related to the Hebrew), the Syriac and the Arabic, that they
were almost as familiar as his native tongue. Hebrew, he
had at his finger’s ends. He was an extremely proficient
man, and certainly superior in his qualifications to translate
our King James Bible.133

John Reynolds was in Company Three, the Oxford

Group. “Those who knew him held him to be the most
learned man in England, pious, courteous, modest, kind,
and wholly honest, with a vast memory that made him ‘a
living library, a third university.’”134 “Determined to explore
the whole fields, and make himself master of the subject, he
133
McClure, op. cit., 141-143.
134
Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, 22.
119
devoted to the study of the Scriptures in the original
tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin Fathers, and all
the ancient records of the church.”135

It was by his means that the good work of translating

the King James Version was undertaken. “At the entreaty of
Dr. Rainolds, the king consented that there should be a new
and more accurate translation, prepared under the royal
sanction. The next year, Dr. Rainolds was put on the list of
translators, on account of his well known skill in Greek and
Hebrew.”136

McClure had this to say about the character of John

Rainolds, “And as to virtue, integrity, piety, and sanctity of
life, he was so eminent and conspicuous, that to name
Rainolds was to command virtue of itself... He alone was a
well-furnished library, full of faculties, all studies, and all
learning. The memory and reading of that man was near to
a miracle.”137

Now let us look at two of the New Testament

translators and how they were superior. Sir Henry Savile
was in Company Four, the Oxford Group. They had the
task of translating the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Here
is some of the background on Henry Savile.

He became famous for his Greek and mathematical

learning very early in life. He became tutor in Greek and

135
McClure, op. cit., 122.
136
Ibid, 131.
137
Ibid, 133.
120
mathematics to Queen Elizabeth. He also translated the
histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published some of his
notes. Tacitus was a Latin historian, and Savile translated
his work into English.

Henry Savile published, from the manuscripts, the

writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of
English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections of the
Elements of Euclid. Euclid was concerned with geometry
and wrote in Greek. Savile translated that, and other
learned works into English and Latin. He certainly had to
have tremendous skill in order to do so. Some of the works
in Greek are most difficult.

He is chiefly known for being the first to edit the

complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the
Greek Fathers. John Chrysostom had many pages that he
wrote to the people to whom he ministered, and Savile was
the first to completely edit his work. His edition of 1,000
copies was made in 1613, and makes eight immense folios.
A folio is the size of a large dictionary or encyclopedia.
That was a monumental work. I don’t know of any of the
translators of the modern versions who come anywhere
near the superiority and skill of this man.

He was one of the most profound, exact, and critical

scholars of his age and meet and ripe to take part in the
preparation of the incomparable version.138

John Bois was in Company Six, the Cambridge

138
Waite, op. cit, 70,71.
121
group, which translated all the books of the Apocrypha.
Please note that we do not accept the Apocrypha as
Scripture nor did any of the King James translators. It is
not inspired. They simply translated it as history between
the Old and New Testaments.

Here is some background on John Bois. His father

carefully taught him. At the age of five he had read the
Bible - in Hebrew. By the time he was six years old he not
only wrote Hebrew legibly but in a fair and elegant
character. He soon distinguished himself by his great skill
in Greek, writing letters in that language to the Master and
Senior fellows of his college. If you know anything about
the Greek language, you know that you don’t usually write
letters in Greek. It’s difficult enough to translate from the
Greek into the English without composing letters, or
talking in New Testament, or Koine Greek. This man was a
skilled man, not only in the Hebrew but also in the Greek.139
He was equally distinguished for his skill in Greek and
Hebrew.

In the chambers of Dr. Downe, the chief university

lecturer in Greek language, Bois read with him twelve
Greek authors in prose - the hardest that could be found
both for dialect and phrase. It was a common practice for
this young man to read and study in the University Library
at 4:00 AM and stay without intermission until 8:00 PM, a
total of eighteen hours straight.140

139
McClure, op. cit., 200.
140
Ibid, 201.
122
 John Bois’ library contained one of the most
complete and costly collections of Greek literature that had
ever been made. So, he was not only highly skilled as to
his ability, but also had an extensive library to go with it.141

As far as the translation goes, he was one of the

twelve translators who were sent, two from each company,
to make final revision at Stationer’s Hall in London. This
lasted nine months. If there were a problem in Hebrew or
Greek, he had the answers. He also took notes of all the
proceedings of this committee. He was the secretary. His
notes are some of the only evidences that we have today
telling how they went about things.142

He left at his death as many leaves of manuscript as

he had days in his life. He left over 30,000 pages of
writing. He was a voluminous writer, scholar, reader, and
worker. He was so familiar with the Greek Testament that
he could, at any time, turn to any word that it contained.143

The list could go on and on of the character and

ability of the men who translated the King James Bible. All
of them were masters when it came to language and other
areas as well. These men were very capable of performing
the task that was before them. We need never be ashamed
of the men who gave us the King James Bible. They knew
English, Greek, Hebrew, and the cognate sister languages.
They applied their skills and did the job in a superior

141
Ibid, 203.
142
Ibid, 204.
143
Ibid, 206
123
fashion.

Let us close off this section with what McClure said

in regards to the superiority of the King James Bible
translators and their product compared to the inferiority of
those who try to compete with the King James Bible
translators. Keep in mind that McClure gave this final
assessment to them after carefully researching the character
and superior abilities of these translators:

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

McClure also has some interesting comments on

those who might attempt to compete with the work of the
King James translators. He wrote:

“And what has not been done by the most able and the most qualified

144
Ibid, 63,64.
124
divines, is not likely to be done by oscure pedagogues, broken down
parsons, and sectaries of a single idea, and that a wrong one - who,
from different quarters, are talking big and loud of their ‘amended,’
‘improved,’ and ‘only correct’ and reliable re-translations, and getting
up ‘American and Foreign Bible Unions’ to print their sophomorical
performances. How do such adventurers appear along side of the
venerable men whose lives have been briefly sketched out in these
foregoing pages! The newly risen versionists, with all their ambitious
and pretentious vaunts are not worthy to ‘carry satchels’ after those
masters of ancient learning. Imagine our greenish contemporaries
shut up with an Andrews, a Reynolds, a Ward, a Bois, comparing
notes on the meaning of the original Scriptures! ...Let tinkers stock to
their baser-metals; and heaven forefend that they should clout the
golden vessels of the sanctuary with their clumsy patches...”145

Samuel Gipp has this to say about today’s scholars

and education:

“It would be foolish and contradictory to believe that today’s scholars

could ever equal or surpass those of the Authorized Version.

Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals
have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611.
Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that
our education has gotten better? Only a worshipper of education
could pretend to believe such a fairytale. Education has degenerated
along with the entire world system and could never produce a scholar
equal to those of nearly four hundred years ago.”146

McClure says this on the superiority of the product

of the King James translators:

‘The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James

145
Ibid, 233,234.
146
Gipp, The Answer Book, 63.
125
the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if
accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be
supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all
versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every
sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and every point,
seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed,
either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision, Paganinus
himself is hardly more literal; and it was well marked by Robertson,
above a hundred years ago, that it may serve as a Lexicon of the
Hebrew language, as well as for a translation.”147

Many of the men who translated the King James

Version never lived long enough after it was published to
see the great impact that this Bible would have. Alexander
McClure tells us of this:

“The translators little foresaw the vast results and immeasurable

influence of what they had thus done, not only for time but for
eternity. Venerated men! Their very names are now hardly known to
more than a few persons; yet, in the providence of God, the fruit of
their labors have spread distant climes; have laid broad and deep the
foundations of mighty empires; have afforded to multitudes strength
to endure adversity, and grace to resist the temptations of prosperity;
and only the revelations of the judgment day can disclose how many
millions and millions, through the instrumentality of their labors, have
been made wise unto salvation.”148

There is no doubt that the best fruits of Christianity

have come from the seeds that the King James Version has
scattered. In connection with this it is interesting to note
that there has never been a revival associated with any
modern version. Churches in North America are being
147
McClure, op. cit., 238,239.
148
Ibid, 72,73.
126
flooded with contradictory and conflicting bibles that are
producing dry and withered fruit in the lives of the people
who use them. This generation is a testament to the fruit of
the modern versions149.

149
Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 16.
127
The Technique Is Superior

It is important to know that the King James Bible

was translated differently from the other versions that are
being sold today, such as the New American Standard
Version, the New International Version, the New English
Version, the New King James Version, and the other
modern versions. D.A. Waite says, “It is different from
other versions. They haven’t used the same techniques.”150
There are two ways that the technique used for the
translation of the King James Version is superior to that of
the modern versions. They are the superior team technique
and the superior translation technique.

As we look at the superior team technique it is

important to realize that all the books were assigned to each
translator to translate on his own. Each one had to translate
every book that their group was responsible for the
translation of. That is not being done today by the modern
version translators. They have a few men who are skilled
in some books and a few men who are skilled in others.
Many others on the committee are bystanders as far as any
actual translation or paraphrasing is concerned. They don’t
do anything except, perhaps, check other versions, or
smooth out some of the English style. There is a relatively
small group of people on these translating committees who
actually do the “translating.” There are only a few who are
the “brains” of the committee. That was not the case when
the King James Bible was translated. Every man on the
six companies, some fifty-seven of them in all, had to be so
150
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 17.
128
skilled in the Hebrew books or the Greek books that were
assigned to him that he had to translate all of them by
himself. They had to know the languages because they had
to come in with the translation of those books from the
Hebrew or Greek in their own handwriting. This is one of
the rules they followed, as we will see in a little bit.

Let us look now at the three groups and the two

sections that made up each group. Company One, the
Westminster Group, Old Testament section had to
translate the twelve books from Genesis through II Kings.
If you know anything about translating from Hebrew into
English you know that it could be months before a person
would even be close to completing Genesis. As a matter of
fact, it would take some people years, unless they knew
Hebrew as well as they knew English. Each man in the
group had to personally translate Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I
Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, and II Kings - every book.
They could not have done this in the time that they had
unless they had known the Hebrew language very well.
They had to write it out, bring it in, and then defend what
they had written. The people that were in this group were:
Lancelot Andrews (chairman), William Bedwell, Francis
Burleigh, Richard Clarke, Jeffrey King, John Layfield, John
Oberall, Hadrain Saravia, Robert Tigue and Richard
Thompson. Every one of these men would have to translate
these twelve books of the Old Testament on their own.

The Westminster Company two, in the New

Testament section, had Romans through Jude - twenty-one

129
books. Each one of them had to translate each book on his
own. The members of this team were: William Barlow
(chairman), William Dakins, Roger Fenton, Ralph
Hutchinson, Michael Rabbett; Thomas Sanderson and John
Spenser. In addition, Thomas Bilson was the editor for this
company.

The Oxford Group, Old Testament section had to

translate seventeen books from the Old Testament, from
Isaiah through to the end of Malachi. There were eight
men on this committee and each one of them had to
translate all the books by himself. The men on this
committee were: John Harding (chairman), Richard Brett,
Daniel Featley, Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, John
Reynolds (he was the man that initiated the King James
Bible), Miles Smith and William Thorne.

In the Oxford Group, New Testament section, they

had to translate six books: the four Gospels, Acts and
Revelation. The translators were: George Abbot
(chairman), John Aglionby, John Harmer, Leonard Hutton,
John Perin, Thomas Ravis, Henry Savile and Giles
Thomson.

The Cambridge Group, Old Testament section had

to translate ten books, from I Chronicles to Ecclesiastes.
All eight men had to bring their own translation. The
translators were: Edward Lively (chairman), Roger
Andrews, Andrew Bing, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis
Dillingham, Thomas Harrison, John Richardson and Robert
Spalding.

130
 The Apocrypha section from the Cambridge group
translated the entire Apocrypha. The translators were: John
Duport (chairman), John Bois, William Braithwaite,
Andrew Downes, Jeremy Radcliffe, Samuel Ward and
Robert Ward.

These forty-eight names are listed in the British

museum. To these should be added (49) William Thorne,
(50) Richard Edes, (51) George Ryves, (52) William Eyre,
(53) James Montague, (54) Arthur Lake, (55) Nicholas
Love, (56) Ralph Ravens, and (57) Thomas Sparke whose
names appear listed as having worked on the King James
Bible. This makes fifty-seven translators in all.151

It is important that we take time here to see how

these translators viewed the Apocrypha. Early editions of
the King James Bible (as well as many Reformation Bibles)
contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included
for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon
of Scripture. Alexander McClure says, “...the Apocryphal
books in those times were more read and accounted than
now, though by no means placed on a level with the
canonical books of Scripture.”152

Bruce Cummons has this to say about the

Apocrypha:

“Granted, again, we knew this, that in the first edition of the King
James Version of 1611, the Apocrypha was included, but not as part
of the text, or of the Word of God. In fact, the translators of the KJV
151
Ibid, 83-85.
152
McClure, op. cit., 185.
131
explained that the books of the Apocrypha were writings or
statements of doubtful authorship, authenticity, or authority, and were
known to be spurious, non-canonical books. These were the books
outside the Hebrew Bible, and were fictitious and false. They were
not printed to be accepted as part of our text, or of the Bible.”153

In the days when the King James Bible was

translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading on its
historical value, though it was not accepted by anyone
outside of the Catholic Church as Scripture. This is why
the King James translators placed it between the Old and
New Testament, for its historical benefit to its readers.
They did not mix it into the Old Testament text as do the
corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
Samuel Gipp had this to say about the Apocrypha
and the King James translators:

“That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is obvious by the seven

reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They
are as follows:
1. None of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by
the historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scripture by the
Jewish church, and therefore were not sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books during the
first four centuries of the Christian church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict
not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two
Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three
different deaths in as many places.
6. It includes doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for

Taken from the booklet God’s Miracle Book: the King James Bible
153

published by People’s Gospel Hour, Halifax, NS, n.d., 11.

132
the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination
and magical incantation.”154

Dick Cimino goes on to say, “It is from the

Apocryphal books that the Roman Catholic Church get
some of her outlandish, soul-damning, unscriptural,
unspiritual doctrines, such as: justification for suicide,
purgatory, salvation by donations, cruelty to slaves, and
reincarnation. These things are contrary to the Word of
God and are found ONLY in these apocryphal books.155

The word “apocrypha” means “hidden,” that is, not

suitable for viewing, these books contain teachings that are
in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Although
the Roman Catholic Church has put its seal of approval on
these books, Protestants and Baptists have never viewed
them as being inspired of God.

In the first four centuries A.D., every cataloguing

after Christ excluded them. Josephus, the historian, not
only ignored them and excluded them from his catalogue,
but also took the time to explain that these books had tried
to infiltrate the canon but were erroneous. There are no
quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
Jesus Christ set the canon of Old Testament Scripture in
Matthew 23:25 and excludes the Apocrypha. You can see
very plainly from this that the translators of the King James
Version did not view the Apocrypha as inspired, but
included it for its historical value only.
154
Gipp, op. cit., 99,100.
155
Cimino, The Book, 33.
133
 The six companies of translators had before them at
all times fifteen rules that were to govern their work. Here
is a brief overview of those rules.

The first rule instructed them to make the “Bishop’s

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

134
company, according to the number of the members, there
would be from seven to ten carefully labored revisions, the
whole to be compared, and digested into one copy of the
portion of the Bible assigned to that particular company.
Here is the exact wording of rule eight:

“Every particular man of every company is to undertake the same

chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally
by himself where he thinketh good, all to meet together to confer
when they have done, and agree for their parts what they shall
stand.”156

D.A. Waite says, “So, if I take Company one that has

to translate from Genesis through II Kings and an average
of seven men on that committee, each had to translate every
book, every chapter, every verse himself. That was seven
different times the portions were looked over. Then they
had to meet together and go over it once more - that is the
eighth time.”157

The ninth rule says that as soon as any company

shall, in this matter, complete any one of the sacred books,
it is to be sent to each of the other companies, to be
critically reviewed by them all. Gustavus Paine gives us
the exact wording of this rule:

“As any one company has dispatched any book in this manner they
shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously,
for His Majesty is very careful in this point.”158

156
Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, 71.
157
Waite, op. cit., 86.
158
Paine, op. cit., 71.
135
 D.A. Waite goes on to say, “So when the men looked
at it, and then altogether, making eight times, then the first
company send it to Companies 2,3,4,5,6. This makes five
more times. They interchanged their work. Here you have
the material gone over thirteen times; and then at the end
they have a final joint meeting of two men from each of the
six companies; twelve men. This makes fourteen times the
Bible from Genesis to Revelation was translated, analyzed,
and corrected. This is a team technique that is unequaled
by any modern translators.”159

The tenth rule says, that if any company, upon

reviewing a book so sent to them, find any thing doubtful
or unsatisfactory, they are to note the places, and their
reasons for their objections, and send it back to the
company from which it came. If that company should not
concur in the suggestions made, the matter was to be finally
settled at a general meeting of the chief companies at the
end of the work. Thus every part of the Bible would be
fully considered, first, separately, by each member of the
company to which it was originally assigned; secondly, by
the whole company in concert; thirdly, by the other five
companies severally; and fourthly, by the general
committee of revision. At the end, the final company,
including John Bois, that expert who read the Hebrew Bible
all the way through when he was five would take care of
any problems. Following this pattern, each part of the
translation would be carefully scrutinized at least fourteen
times. Here is the exact wording of rule ten as given to us
by Gustavus Paine:
159
Waite, op. cit., 86.
136
“If any person upon review of the book so sent doubt or differ upon
any place, to send them word thereof with the place and withal send
the reasons; to which if they consent not the difference be
compounded at the general meeting which is to be of the chief persons
of each company at the end of the work.”160

The eleventh rule provides that in case of any

difficulty or obscurity, letters shall be issued by authority of
any learned men in the land, calling for his judgment
thereon. This made use of any other “learned men” who
were not on the translating committees. This was an
excellent team technique.

The twelfth rule requires every bishop to notify the

clergy of his diocese as to the work in hand, and to “move
and charge as many as, being skilled in the tongues, have
taken pains in that kind, to send his peculiar observations”
to some one of the companies.

The thirteenth rule appoints the directors of the

different companies. The fourteenth rule names five other
translations to be used, “when they agree better with the
text than the Bishop’s Bible.” These are Tyndale’s,
Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible and the Geneva
Bible. The object of this regulation was to avoid, as far as
possible, the suspicious stamp of novelty. To the careful
observance of these rules, which, with the exception of the
first five, are highly judicious, is to be ascribed much of the
excellence of the completed translation.

To these rules, which have been delivered to the

160
Paine, op. cit., 71.
137
translators, there appears to have been added another,
providing that, besides the directors of these six companies,
“three or four of the most ancient and grave divines in
either of the Universities, not employed in translating,,” be
designated by Vice-chancellors and Heads of Colleges, “to
be overseers of the Translation, as well as Hebrew and
Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule.”161

The translators were a team and they worked as a

team, after they had first of all worked individually. They
were superior translators. They had to be in order to do this
translation. We ought to praise God for them and the
technique they used which was different from and superior
to that used by the translators of the modern versions. Let
us look at the words of David Otis Fuller as he sums up
what we have just looked at and compares it with the
Revisers of 1881:

“Thus, when one company had come together, and had agreed on
what should stand, after having compared their work, as soon as they
had completed one of the sacred books, they sent it to each of the
other companies to be critically reviewed. If a later company, upon
reviewing the book, found anything, doubtful or unsatisfactory, they
noted such places, with their reasons, and sent it back to the company
whence it came. If there should be any disagreement, the matter was
finally arranged at a general meeting of the chief persons of all
companies at the end of the work. It can be seen by this method that
each part of the work was carefully gone over at least fourteen times.

It was further understood that if there was any special difficulty or

obscurity, all the learned men of the land could be called upon by
letter for their judgment. And finally each bishop kept the clergy of
161
McClure, Translators Revived, 67-70.
138
the diocese notified concerning the progress of the work, so that if any
one felt constrained to send any particular observations, he was
notified to do so.

How astonishingly different is this from the method employed by the

Revisers of 1881! The Old Testament committee met together and sat
as one body secretly for ten years. The New Testament committee
did the same. The arrangement left the committee at the mercy of a
determined triumvirate to lead the weak and to dominate the rest. All
reports indicate that an iron rule of silence was imposed upon these
Revisers during the whole time. The public was kept in suspense, all
the long, weary ten years, and only after elaborate plans had been
made to throw the Revised Version all at once upon the market to
effect a tremendous sale, did the world know what had gone on.”162

As we think about the superior translation

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

“We believe, and the King James translators believed, that what God

162
Fuller, Which Bible?, 257,258.
139
wants is for His people to have His Words and to “desire the sincere
milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby.” WE NEED GOD’S
WORDS. In our Bibles, we don’t need man’s words in place of
God’s Word for the translation. Commentaries, preachers, and
teachers are helpful, but primarily, we need the pure, sincere milk of
the Word of God so we will grow up in Christ. Peter also says,
“Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The
method of growth is by the use of the Word of God so it is very
important for us to know what God’s Words are, to grab on to them,
to believe them, to let them sink into us, to practice them, to live by
them so we can be mature, grown up, able to witness to do God’s
Will.

Now the problem with all these other versions (including the NIV,
NASV, NKJV, and the rest) is that they have purposefully
selected a non-verbal equivalence type of translation, a non-
formal equivalence type of translation, and a non-literal
equivalence type of translation. Instead, to a greater or lesser
extent, they have purposefully adopted a dynamic equivalence type of
translation. “Dynamic” implies “change” or “movement.” These
various versions take a sort of idiomatic rendering from Hebrew or
Greek to English. It is idiomatic in that they didn’t take a word-for-
word method (even when it made good sense), trying to make the
words in the Hebrew or Greek equal to the words in English. Instead,
they added to what was there, changed what was there and/or
subtracted from what was there. If it was a question they might
make it a statement, left out words, and so on. They didn’t care,
Paraphrase is another word for it.”163

John William Burgon said, “The text of the Holy

Scripture does not vary with the weathercock according to
the changing winds of individual or general opinion or
caprice.”164 This Satanic interference is at the root of all the
163
Waite, op. cit., 89,90.
164
Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 67.
140
corruption in the modern versions. Satan has always
sought ways in which he may diminish the authority of the
Bible in the mind and heart of the believer. Satan is still as
much involved in attacking God’s Word as he was back in
the Garden of Eden. We can see this through the diabolical
principle of dynamic equivalence used in the translation of
the modern versions. It is diabolical because Satan is at the
root of it. God is very clear about the way He wants His
Words to be believed by us. “Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth
of God.”

Let us take a few moments to see how Satan began

dynamic equivalence in the Garden of Eden. This is not a
new concept; it is as old as the Garden of Eden. In Genesis
three, Satan used the dynamic equivalence method of
understanding and translating the Word of God. That is, he
made a loose paraphrase of what God’s Words were to
Adam and Eve.

Notice first of all, the diabolical principle of

subtraction. Let us compare what God said with what
Satan said: notice how Satan subtracts from the Word of
God:

Genesis 3:1 - “Now the serpent was more subtil than any
beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto
the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the
garden?”
Satan, through the serpent, asked: “Yea, hath God
said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Now if
you take that as it is, it would mean, “Isn’t it true that God
141
said you could eat of every tree of the garden?” He
subtracted something from the Word of God because that
wasn’t what God had said at all. In Genesis 2:16,17 you
will find what God said to Adam:

Genesis 2:16,17 - “And the LORD God commanded the man,

saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Notice how Satan subtracted from the Word of God.

Dynamic equivalence is diabolical because it follows the
Devils’ method of subtracting from the words of God.165

It is also important that we note the diabolical

principle of change. In Genesis 3:4, Satan clearly denies
what God has very clearly said. It is a direct denial of
God’s Words. Notice what Satan says in Genesis 3:4:

Genesis 3:4 - “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall
not surely die:”
Notice what God had said in Genesis 2:17:
Genesis 2:17 - “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Would you not agree with me that this is a change to

the Word of God? Now, Satan is changing the Word of
God. He is denying what God has very clearly said. He is
calling God a liar. This is dynamic equivalence. It is
diabolical because it not only subtracts from, but
165
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 91.
142
changes the Word of God.166

We should note also the diabolical principle of

addition. Note how Satan adds to the Word of God in
Genesis 3:5 when he is talking to Eve.

Genesis 3:5 - “For God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil.”

Did God say anything about their eyes being opened?

He didn’t say a word about that in Genesis 2:17. He just
said, “...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die.”

Notice also in Genesis 3:2,3:

Genesis 3:2,3 - “And the woman said unto the serpent, We

may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit
of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said,
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Adam could have built a tree house in the tree. He

could have eaten a picnic under it. He could have leaned
up against it and had a nap. God did not say anything about
them touching it.

In these verses we find that Eve added to the Word of

God (“neither shall ye touch it”), she changed the Word
of God (“lest ye die”); God said, “Thou shalt surely die,”
She also misinterpreted the Word of God when she said
166
Ibid, 92.
143
that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the midst
of the garden. The Bible tells us that it was the tree of life
that was in the midst of the garden (Genesis 2:9) and God
never gave them any instructions that they could not eat
from the tree of life before they fell. Eve is a good example
of dynamic equivalence and the dangers of it.

These three things: subtracting, changing, and

adding to the Word of God, are the essence and heart of
dynamic equivalency in its approach to translation. It’s not
translation, but changing the Word of God. It is pure
paraphrase.167

Essentially, with dynamic equivalency any textual

base will do. “If you take a dynamic equivalence approach
to translation as a technique instead of verbal equivalence
or formal equivalence - that is, the forms and words being
rendered from Hebrew or Greek into English as closely as
possible - if you take the position that it really doesn’t
matter what the words are, what difference does it make
what text you use? What difference does the Hebrew or
Greek text make? You can change it anytime you wish. If
you can add to it anytime you wish, subtract from it
anytime you wish, and change it any time you wish, who
cares about what text you start with, whether it’s the proper
one or not? Who cares about the quality of the translators
and their ability and credentials to translate properly from
Hebrew or Greek to English? You don’t need any degrees
or education to add, subtract, or change the Word of God
as the devil did in the Garden of Eden. If Satan could do it,
167
Ibid, 93.
144
anybody could do it. So who cares about the proper text?
Who cares about the proper translators if they use this
dynamic equivalence technique of translation? They can
change it at will.168

This is exactly what has happened in the modern

versions. In the New King James Version there are over
2,000 examples of dynamic equivalence (additions,
subtractions, and changes to the Word of God). In the
New American Standard Version there are over 4,000
examples of dynamic equivalence. There are over 6,653
examples of dynamic equivalence in the New International
Version. It is high time that we recognize the danger of
these modern versions.

Since dynamic equivalence is so common in the

modern versions, it would be fitting for us to ask the
question, “What does God think about dynamic
equivalence?” Does the Bible have anything to say about
this? Let us look very briefly at some Bible passages
against dynamic equivalence.

Here are a few verses that forbid “adding to” the

Words of God. In these verses God has given us a warning:
Don’t TOUCH that Bible!

Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command you, observe to

168
Ibid, 98.
145
do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6 - Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words
of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Here are some verses that forbid any “taking away”

from the words of God:

Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command you, observe to

do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Jeremiah 26:2 - Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the
LORD’S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to
worship in the LORD’S house, all the words that I command thee to
speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Revelation 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book.

Here are a few verses that forbid any “changing” of

the words of God by turning to the “right hand” or to the
“left hand.”
Deuteronomy 5:32,33 - Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD
your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right

146
hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath
commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you,
and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 - And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the

throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a
book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of
his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the
words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn
not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to
the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his
children, in the midst of Israel.

Deuteronomy 28:13,14 - And the LORD shall make thee the head,
and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be
beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD
thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I
command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after
other gods to serve them.

Joshua 1:7, 8 - Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou
mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my
servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the
left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou
shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do
according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy
way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

II Kings 22:2 - And he did that which was right in the sight of the
LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not
aside to the right hand or to the left.

147
 Words are what God wants to get into our heads and
our hearts - not just ideas, concepts, or thoughts as the
dynamic equivalence people say. Their technique is to
forget about the words, just bringing the thought, the
concept, or the idea over into English. God places a great
importance on His words as the following verses teach.
Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 8:3 - And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger,

and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy
fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by
bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the
LORD doth man live.

Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God.

Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away.

Romans 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the

word of God.

These are just a few of the verses among many that

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

148
The Theology Is Superior

As we look at the theology of the modern versions,

we are going to focus mainly on the New International
Version and the New King James Version, as these are the
two most commonly used versions today. Many of the
other versions have already passed into nonexistence or are
going in that direction. This tells me automatically that
these versions were not the Word of God for God tells us
that His Word will not pass away.169

It is a fact that in the 1881 Revision, and every

Revision since that time, there have been serious intrusions
into a number of places where fundamental doctrines are
challenged. The sad truth of it is, “Many have gone over to
the new Bibles without realizing that an awfully lot more is
involved than the question of Modern English. The entire
fabric has been affected! The underlying text is
substantially different. The philosophy and methodology
of the translators is in marked contrast to that of the
Authorized Version. The English of the new versions is
assumed at first to be ‘easier,’ but whether it is actually
more readable, authoritative, and conducive to meditation,
study, and memorization is quite another matter.”170

The very translations these men claim will clear up

any unclearness are causing more damage than they realize.
169
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away. See also Psalm 12:6,7; Isaiah 40:8 and I Peter
1:23-25.
170
Moorman, Missing in Modern Versions - Is the Full Story Being
Told?, 1
149
For every verse or word “clarified” in these new
translations, two new problems are created. I am more
convinced than ever before that God gave us the King
James Bible - and that it would be far better for us to
expand our vocabulary in order to understand its
terminology than to attempt to continually re-write the
Bible to suit those who will not be able to understand it
anyway apart from the new birth or for Christians who are
too lazy to study. It is true that some English words have
changed their meaning and others are no longer in common
usage. But it is amazing to find that in these days of
progress when children are supposed to be more intelligent
than their parents that they are having a problem when it
comes to understanding the King James Bible - the very
same Bible our grandparents used as a reading primer.

“A fresh experience with the Lord of the Emmaus

Road will open the Scriptures to the weary disciple better
than any new translation. You will be able to say with the
Psalmist; ‘Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold
wondrous things out of thy law.’ (Psalm 119:8). Then we
can say one to another, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us,
while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to
us the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:32). He cannot talk with us by
the way unless we have ‘esteemed the words of his mouth
more than my necessary food’ (Job 23:12), and ‘searched
the Scriptures’ (Acts 17:11), and our ‘delight is in the law
of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night’
(Psalm 1:2). Then we will be able to say with David, ‘I
have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy law

150
hath been my meditation’ (Psalm 119:99).”171

Is the King James Version really harder to

understand? It is not according to studies that people have
done. In fact, “the King James Version is the easiest to
read of all the translations available. According to the
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator the King James Bible
is rated for reading at a 5.8 grade level. The New
International Versions is at an 8.4 grade level. The New
American Standard Version is at a 6.1 grade level. Today’s
English Version is at a 7.2 grade level and the New King
James at a 6.9 grade level.”172 Mentally handicapped
children from the Shepherd’s Home in their Christmas
program memorized all their Bible verses from the King
James Bible. Why can’t the rest of us understand it that go
to elementary school, high school, graduate school and/or
seminary. I Corinthians 2:14 states, “But the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.”

The truth of the matter is “there are only 618 words

in the King James Bible out of 791,328 that have changed
their meaning since 1611.”173 Finally, our selection of a
Bible should not be decided upon by how easy it is to read
and understand, or by how much “scholarship” was
involved in its development, or whether or not it is
recommended by popular religious leaders. The primary
171
Cimino, op. cit., 140.
172
Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Shelbyville, TN: Bible
and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1993), 196.
173
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 1.
151
question should be, “Is this the Word of God?” There is no
doubt that the authority of the Scriptures has been eroded in
the hearts and minds of people. “Whosoever attempts to
shake the confidence of the common people in the common
version (King James Version), puts their faith in imminent
peril of shipwreck.”174
Not only is the King James Version easier to read but
it is also purer in its teachings of theology as we shall see in
this section. Not only are the new versions weak in
theology but they also belittle the person and work of
Christ. Notice what Dick Cimino says in relation to this:

“Whenever these translators and revisers have a choice of two words:

one that will glorify the Person and Work of Christ, and the other one
low-rating Him, by some strange quirk, they ALWAYS choose the
‘low-rating’ word. Yet in the prefaces they glow with all sweetness
and light. Butter would not melt in their mouths. You would think
they were ready to fly off to glory. Then it is that we realize that ‘with
their tongues they have used deceit’ (Romans 3:13).”175

“Some people may say that they can find the

fundamentals in other bibles. Therefore, how can they be
bad? What we need to realize is that any fundamental
found in any version is found purer and more frequently in
the King James Bible thus making the King James the best
of the field.

Many people who claim that they can find the

fundamentals in other versions forget that the very

174
McClure, Translators Revived, 249.
175
Cimino, op. cit., 125.
152
fundamentals which they claim to be able to find were
originally taught them from a King James Bible.

Following are just a few of the doctrines that can be

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

176
Gipp, The Answer Book, 93,94.
153
 “Many Christians try to evade the issue of whether or
not there really is a perfect Bible by piously hiding behind
the statement, ‘I don’t make an issue of Bible translations.’
It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as
long as you are consistent in your stand...or lack of it.
In other words, if the issue if a perfect Bible is a
‘non-issue’ with you, then to be consistent, neither should
ANY of the following:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ - Isaiah 7:14.
2. The deity of Jesus Christ - I John 5:5.
3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus
Christ - Romans 5:8.
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ - I
Corinthians 15:4.
5. Salvation by grace alone without works -
Ephesians 2:8,9.
6. The pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ - I
Thessalonians 4.
7. The existence of a literal heaven - John 3:13.
8. The existence of a literal hell - Mark 9:42-44.
9. The acceptance of creation over the theory of
evolution - Genesis 1:1.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of

convictions held by those who call themselves
‘fundamentalists.’ Yet every one is taken from the Bible.
How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue
or have a conviction on something that they have taken out
of the Bible, but see ‘no issue’ concerning the perfection of
the Book on which they base their very issue? If the Bible
has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure it is correct in

154
those passages on which we base our convictions?
Some may say, ‘I accept the Bible where it is
accurately translated.’ Fine! THAT is the statement of
faith of every Mormon in the world! Furthermore, WHO
is the judge just where the Bible is ‘accurately translated?’
No, it is impossible to make ‘any issue’ over even
one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an
‘issue’ over the Bible itself.”177

“Would it make any difference if you knew that the

New Testament in your modern version did not have First
and Second Peter? Yet if the total number of missing
words were added up, this is how much shorter the modern
versions are than the King James Version. Is it a cause for
concern if the names of Christ are missing 176 times (in the
New Testament alone), or if the word ‘hell’ is not found in
the Old Testament, or if key doctrinal passages have been
diminished?”178 We will see that this is exactly what has
happened as we look at the following pages.

“The following whole verses have been omitted from

the New International Version text: Matthew 17:21; 18:11;
23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36;
23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24 and
I John 5:7.

There are 147 other verses that have considerable

portions of them removed in the NIV. They are as follows:
Matthew 5:44; 6:13; 15:6,8; 19:9; 20:7,16,22,23; 25:13;
177
Ibid, 141,142
178
Moorman, op. cit.,1.
155
27:35; 28:9; Mark 1:42; 6:11,33; 7:8; 8:26; 9:38,45,49;
10:21,24; 11:8,10,23; 12:23,29,30,33; 13:14;
14:19,27,68,70; Luke 1:28; 4:4,8,18; 5:38; 7:31;
8:43,45,48,54; 9:54,55,56; 11:2,4,11,44,54; 17:9; 18:24;
19:45; 20:23,30; 22:64,68; 23:23,28; 24:1,42; John 1:27;
3:13,15; 5:3,16; 6:11,22;47; 8:9,10, 59; 10:26; 11:41; 12:1;
16:16; 17:12; 19:16; Acts 2:30; 7:37; 9:5,6; 10:6,21,32;
13:42; 15:18,24; 18:21; 20:15; 21:8,22,25; 23:9; 24:6,8,26;
26:30; 28:16; Romans 8:1; 9:28; 10:15; 11:6; 13:9;
14:6,21; 15:24; I Corinthians 6:20; 10:28; 11:24; Galatians
3:1; Ephesians 3:14; 5:30; Philippians 3:16; Colossians
1:2,14; 3:6; I Thessalonians 1:1; I Timothy 3:3; 6:5,7;
Hebrews 2:7; 3:6; 7:21; 8:12; 10:30; 11:11,13; 12:20; I
Peter 4:14; I John 4:3; 5:13; Revelation 1:8,11; 5:14;
11:1,17; 14:5; 15:2; 21:24.

Having limited this survey to the New Testament

alone, the cited passages constitute a total omission of
1,284 words. The imagery of the Zondervan ad would
consign these words of the Living God to unquenchable
fire. The day is surely coming when the NIV Committee,
Zondervan’s cooperating bookstores and their customers
will give an accounting for their actions in light of
Revelation 22:19, 179And if any man shall take away from
the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy
city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

There are also many other things that are either

wrong or missing in the NIV. For example, any child who
179
Grady, Final Authority, 288.
156
has attended Sunday School knows who killed Goliath, the
giant of Gath180. The NIV committee did not know the
answer to this however. In II Samuel 21:19 it say that
Jaareororegim, the Bethlehemite killed Goliath. Also, did
you know that there is no longer a “mercy seat” in the NIV”
It seems that they all have an allergy problem with such
truths as heaven, deity, the virgin birth, hell, as well as
other things. Here are some other things that appear in the
King James Bible but are absent from the NIV:

Words in KJB

Times in NIV Times in theKJV

advocate
0 1
chaste/chasten
0 3
concupiscence
0 3
sodomite/sodomites
0 3
carnal/carnally
0 14
impute/imputed/imputeth
0 13
fornicator(s)/ fornication(s)
0 40
abide/abideth/abiding
0181 114
180
Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 17.
181
Waite, op. cit., 129.
157
 It is interesting to note how the NIV translators
viewed sodomy. See Deuteronomy 23:17; I Kings 14:24;
15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7 and I Corinthians 6:9. I
wonder if this attitude would have anything to do with the
fact that they had homosexuals and sodomites on their
translating committee.182 This is a reference to Dr. Marten
Woudstra (Chairman of the NIV Old Testament committee)
and Virginia Mollenkott (a stylist and consultant for the
NIV). They call homosexuals and sodomites shrine
prostitutes instead. Can somebody please tell me what a
shrine prostitute is? There are no shrine prostitutes that I
know of in Canada, but our country is full of sodomites.
Now let us look at some of the other doctrines that are
affected in the modern versions. Please note that this is not
a complete listing of verses, but rather a listing that shows
that every doctrine has been affected in the modern
versions. Some of my notes will be talking about the
removal of the text through the footnote. Putting a footnote
at the bottom of the page or in the margin is doing the same
thing that Satan did in Genesis 3:1 - casting doubt on the
Word of God183.

Theology Proper (The Doctrine of the Godhead)

I John 5:7,8 - “For there are three that bear record in

heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness
in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these
three agree in one.”
182
Schönhaar, op. cit., 119.
183
Ibid, 9.
158
 “The italicized portion is eliminated in the following
English versions: New International Version, New
American Standard Version, New King James Version
footnotes, and the New Berkley Version.”184

Ecclesiology (The Doctrine of the Church)

Revelation 2:15 - “So hast thou also them that hold

the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”
The italicized portion is eliminated from the
following English versions: New International Version,
New American Standard Version, New King James Version
footnotes, and the New Berkley Version.

“The fact that Jesus Christ ‘HATES’ this practice is

theologically important. The Nicolaitans were ‘conquerors
of the people’ and held a form of church government such
as the Roman Catholic system where the clergy makes the
decisions leaving the congregation little or no authority.”185

Angelology (The Doctrine of Angels)

Luke 22:43 - “And there appeared an angel unto

him from heaven, strengthening him.”
The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
King James Version footnotes. This verse shows the
strengthening, heavenly angel assisting the Lord Jesus.

Satanology (The Doctrine of Satan)

184
Waite, op. cit., 138.
185
Ibid.
159
 Luke 4:8 - “And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
“This italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
New King James Version footnote, and the New Berkley
Version. This passage clearly shows the power of Christ to
order and command Satan to obey Him.”186

Bibliology (The Doctrine of the Bible)

1. The Denial of Mark 16:9-20.

If you look at Mark 16:15, which is the Great

Commission, in the New American Standard Version it
comes in a section that has brackets around it and says:
“Some of the oldest manuscripts omit verses 9
through 20.”
Casting doubt, they take out the Great Commission
in Mark 16:15. This is a doctrinal deviation and change.

What do they do in the New International Version?

Again it comes in a section which has been separated from
the first eight verses by a black line. As far as the New
Testament translators are concerned, Mark 16 ends at verse
8. Then they print verses nine though twenty and there is a
footnote:
“The most reliable early manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.”
In other words, Mark 16:15 doesn’t even exist as far
186
Ibid, 139.
160
as the “most reliable” manuscripts are concerned.

The question then is: Are these verses the Word of

God or not? If they are not the Word of God, then why did
God permit them to stand in the Bible for nineteen
centuries? On the other hand, if they are the Word of God,
then who is trying to eliminate them and why?

The “oldest manuscripts” that are referred to in these

notes is Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The fact
that every uncial manuscript (except Codex Vaticanus and
Codex Sinaiticus) contains this passage as do over 600
cursive manuscripts. To say that “most” manuscripts omit
this is a blatant lie! Both of these manuscripts pulled off a
neat trick in this spot. Here are the words of Dick Cimino
as he tells us about it:

“The Vatican copy stops short at the end of verse eight. BUT THE
COPYIST LEFT A BLANK SPACE SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMADATE THE MISSING VERSES. It seems that the copyist
knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. In the
Sinai copy the double page containing the end of Mark and beginning
of Luke was REMOVED AT AN EARLY DATE and replaced with
the four sides rewritten to EXCLUDE MARK 16:9-20! By slightly
increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to
extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke
1. He filled in the remainder of the last line with an ornamental
flourish to make sure that no addition could be made without being
immediately evident. Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinai copy,
alleged that these pages were written by THE COPYIST OF THE
VATICAN MANUSCRIPT! Here it is right from the horse’s
mouth!”187

187
Cimino, The Book, 134,135.
161
 2. The Denial of John 7:53-8:11.

“The New International Version, the New American

Standard Version, and the New King James Version either
bracket these verses or set them apart in some way from the
text. Their footnotes question or doubt outright their
authenticity. There are many doctrines mentioned in these
verses, all of which are doubted in this place.”188

3. The Denial of the Historicity and Prophetic Role

of Daniel.

Mark 13:14 - “But when ye shall see the abomination

of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing
where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then
let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley
Version. The removal of these words denies that Daniel
was the author of the book of Daniel. It also denies that
Daniel was a ‘prophet,’ lending credence to the heresy of
the modernists, liberals, and apostates who claim Daniel is
merely post-written history rather than pre-written
prophecy.”189

4. The Denial of the Value of Bible Words.

Luke 4:4 - “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is

188
Waite, op. cit., 141.
189
Ibid.
162
written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word of God.”
“This italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. The Lord
Jesus Christ is exalting ‘EVERY WORD OF GOD’ to the
Devil. The omission of these words changes the whole
teaching of the verse.”190

Eschatology (The Doctrine of Last Things or Prophecy)

1. The Denial of the Return of Christ

Matthew 25:13 - “Watch therefore, for ye know

neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man
cometh.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. With these
words gone, the clear reference to the return of Christ is
gone from the verse. This is a serious omission!”191
2. The Denial of the Resurrection of People.

Mark 12:23 - “In the resurrection therefore, when

they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the
seven had her to wife.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version and the New American Standard
Version. These words clarify the sort of ‘resurrection’ that
190
Ibid, 142.
191
Ibid, 145.
163
is referred to. It is one where people will ‘rise’ in a literal
and bodily sense.”192

3. The Denial of Degrees in Future Punishment.

Mark 6:11 - “And whosoever shall not receive you,

nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust
under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say
unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and
Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. These words
have always been used by sound Bible teachers to indicate
that there will be ‘degrees’ of punishment in hell, based on
the light received by the unbelievers in their lifetime.”193

4. The Denial of the Recipients of Future Judgment.

Colossians 3:6 - “For which things’ sake the wrath of

God cometh on the children of disobedience:”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version and the New American Standard
Version. This verse indicates clearly the exact recipients of
God’s wrath and judgment. It also indicates that God
considers some to be ‘children of disobedience.’”194

5. The Denial that the Earth Will Be Burned Up.

192
Ibid, 146.
193
Ibid.
194
Ibid, 147.
164
 II Peter 3:10 - “But the day of the Lord will come as
a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up.”
The italicized portion is altered in the New
International Version and the New King James Version
footnotes. Instead of the words ‘burned up,’ the words
‘laid bare’ are used. There is a big difference between
‘burned up’ and ‘laid bare.’195

6. The Denial that Christ Will Be Judge.

Romans 14:10 - “But why dost thou judge thy

brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
“The italicized portion is altered in the New
International Version, the New American Standard
Version, the New King James Version footnotes, and the
New Berkley Version. Instead of the words ‘judgment seat
of Christ,’ the words ‘judgment seat of God’ or ‘God’s
judgment’ are used. Since the context concerns ‘brethren,’
it must be the ‘judgment seat of Christ.’ ‘God’s judgment’
refers to the judgment of ‘the great white throne’ which is
for unsaved people.”196

The Denial of Hell

1. The Denial of the Reality of Perishing in Hell.

195
loc. cit.
196
Ibid, 148.
165
 John 3:15 - “That whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have eternal life.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. By the
removal of ‘should not perish,’ the very reality of hell has
been taken away from the verse.”197

2. The Denial of Literal Fire in Hell.

Mark 9:44,46 - “Where their worm dieth not, and the

fire is not quenched.”
The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. Both these
verses are omitted in their entirety. Both these verses teach
clearly that hell is a place of unquenchable, literal fire.198

Some simply translate sheol as “death’ or “grave.”

The Jehovah’s Witness “Bible” does this and so does the
New International Version. The New King James Version
translates “grave” as “hades” I Corinthians 15:55, thus
making the grave and hell the same thing. This is exactly
what many of the cults teach. In fact, the same rendering is
found in the New World Translation (the Jehovah’s
Witness bible). Hell is completely taken out of the Old
Testament in the NIV. In the New Testament hell is found
22 times in the King James Version and 13 times in the

197
loc. cit.
198
loc. cit.
166
NIV. Modern versions may be trying to water down hell,
but it is still as hot as it ever was.

3. The Denial of the Everlasting Nature of Hell.

Mark 3:29 - “But he that shall blaspheme against the

Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of
eternal damnation:”
“The italicized word is altered in the New
International Version, the New American Standard
Version, and the New Berkley Version. They have ‘sin’
instead of ‘damnation.’ As you can see, the two terms are
quite different.”199

II Peter 2:17 - “These are wells without water, clouds

that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of
darkness is reserved for ever.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated in the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley
Version. To eliminate the words ‘for ever’ is to eliminate
also the eternality of eternal judgment in hell.”200

The Denial of a Literal Heaven

Luke 11:2 - “And he said unto them, When ye pray,

say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven,
so in earth.”
199
Ibid, 149.
200
loc. cit.
167
 “The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley
Version. To take away the word ‘heaven’ in two separate
places in this verse certainly reveals a theological
perversion of the above texts and versions.”201

Hebrews 10:34 - “For ye had compassion of me in

my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods,
knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and
an enduring substance.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
New King James footnotes, and the New Berkley Version.
To take away the words ‘in heaven’ takes away the reality
of the place.202

Revelation 16:17 - “And the seventh angel poured

out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of
the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New Berkley Version. By removing the words, ‘of
heaven,’ you take away the location of the temple.”203

Soteriology (The Doctrine of Salvation)

1. The Denial that Salvation Is By Faith Rather Than

201
loc. cit.
202
Ibid, 150.
203
Ibid, 151.
168
By Growth.

I Peter 2:2 - “As newborn babes, desire the sincere

milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:”
“The italicized portion is changed in the New
International Version, the New American Standard
Version, New King James Version footnotes, and the New
Berkley Version. They change the words ‘grow thereby’ to
something like ‘grow into salvation.’ This clearly teaches
salvation by growth which is false.”204

2. The Denial of Christ’s Substitutionary, Vicarious

Atonement.

I Corinthians 5:7 - “Purge out therefore the old

leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:”
“The italicized portion is changed in the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley
Version. They leave off ‘for us’ which teaches Christ’s
substitutionary, vicarious atonement.

3. The Denial of Redemption by the Blood.

Colossians 1:14 - “In whom we have redemption

through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
“The italicized portion is eliminated in the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. The omission
204
Ibid, 152.
169
of ‘through his blood’ removes the source of God’s
redemption and gives aid and comfort to the host of
liberals, modernists, and apostates who have despised that
blood down through the centuries.”205

4. The Denial of Salvation and Redemption Only in

Christ.

John 6:47 - “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that

believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
“The italicized portion is eliminated in the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
and the New King James Version footnotes. This is
perhaps, one of the CLEAREST theological errors in these
three versions. To make salvation only a matter of
‘believing’ rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse,
‘believing on me,’ is truly ‘ANOTHER GOSPEL!” If you
were trying to lead someone to Christ with one of these
three versions, using this verse, they could ‘believe’ in
anything and still have ‘everlasting life’ -whether in Santa
Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, in Rudolph the red-
nosed reindeer, or in any of the false world religions. This
is SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION!”206

Romans 1:16 - “For I am not ashamed of the gospel

of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every
one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
“This italicized portion is eliminated from the New
International Version, New American Standard Version,
205
Ibid, 154.
206
Ibid, 155,156.
170
New King James Version footnotes, and the New Berkley
Version. It is not merely the ‘gospel’ that Paul was
unashamed of, but it was the ‘gospel of Christ.” There
were (and are) many false ‘gospels.’”207

Christology (The Doctrine of Christ)

1. The Denial That “God” Was Manifest in the

Flesh.

I Timothy 3:16 - “And without controversy great is

the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
In the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION they say,
“Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness
is great: He appeared in a body,”
Where is the word “God”? Who is “He?” To whom
are they referring? They have taken the Greek word
“theos” (God and changed it to “hos” which is a relative
pronoun which means “HE WHO” or “THE ONE WHO.”)
The miracle of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ
is: GOD was manifested in the flesh. “He appeared in a
body” doesn’t say anything about the incarnation. Every
one of us has appeared in a body. We’re not “GOD”
appearing in a body, manifest in a body. Theologically
there is error in the New International Version.
What does it say in the New American Standard
Version? Again, this is a textual change, but also a deadly
theological change.
207
Ibid, 156.
171
 “Great is the mystery of godliness: HE who
was revealed in the flesh...”
Not “GOD” - God is gone from the New American
Standard Version and the New International Version
here. With the omission of the word “God” the passage
become almost meaningless.
Of some 254 manuscripts that contain I Timothy
3:16, 252 read “God was manifest in the flesh.” The
weight of the evidence (252 to 2) supports the reading of
the KJV.
Micah 5:2 in the NIV states that Jesus Christ has an
origin which is a lie. The blood is removed from the NIV
in Acts 17:26 and Colossians 1:14.
The deity of Christ is weakened in Mark 1:1; John
6:69; Acts 8:37; 20:28; Romans 9:5; I Corinthians 15:47; I
Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 1:8.208

2. The Denial of the Bodily Ascension of Christ.

Luke 24:51 - “And it came to pass, while he blessed

them, he was parted from them, and carried up into
heaven.”
Now the New American Standard Version has:
“And it came to pass while he was blessing
them he parted from them.”
Is that what your Bible has? The phrase “carried up
into heaven” is missing. As far as the New American
Standard Version is concerned, the ascension is gone here.
Christ has not ascended into heaven. They may have other
verses that teach that He has, but not this one.
208
Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 55-57.
172
 3. The Denial of the Virgin Birth of Christ.
Luke 2:33 - “And Joseph and his mother marvelled
at those things which were spoken of him.”
The New American Standard Version says,
“and His FATHER and mother.”
Joseph is indicated as being Jesus’ “FATHER.” The
virgin birth is denied by this rendering of the New
American Standard Version. Joseph wasn’t Jesus’
“FATHER”; the Holy Spirit was His father. In the New
International Version it reads,
“the child’s FATHER and mother.”
“JOSEPH” is in the Greek text, “JOSEPH” is
correct.

The NIV and all modern versions contain extremely

few texts that declare that Jesus is God, mainly because
they corrupt the texts that do. When the rulers attacked
Jesus’ virgin birth (John 8:41), Jesus said, “Ye are of your
father the devil (John 8:44).

4. The Modern Versions Make Jesus a Sinner.

“Some of the modern versions take out “without a

cause” in Matthew 5:22, which if true, makes Jesus Christ,
the sinless, spotless, Lamb of God, guilty of SIN, for He
was angry on two occasions (Mark 3:5; John 2:15-17). In
the first instance, Jesus was angry with the hardness of the
hearts of the Pharisees. In the second instance, he was
angry with those who turned God’s house of prayer into a
den of thieves. Now, if you leave out “without a cause”

173
Jesus is a sinner and therefore cannot be the Savior.”209

“Alas, this is what most proponents of the modern

versions do. They lightly dismiss the charge that the
critical text is theologically corrupt. They lightly dismiss
the vast differences between the critical text and the
Received Text. The omission and questioning of four
dozen entire verses means little or nothing to modern
version proponents. The omission of thousands of words
appears to mean almost nothing.”210

There are other verses that could be looked at, but I

believe that this is sufficient to prove that the modern
versions are Christ-denying perversions of the Word of
God. One would have to have his head in the sand to miss
the extent of satanic interference. The Sword of the Spirit
has been placed on the shelf and replaced by the butter
knife of the flesh, which has been used to spread the peanut
butter and jelly gospel on the lives of needy people211. Is it
any wonder that people are not seeing their need of Christ!

The Trinitarian Bible Society publication The Bible a

Sure Foundation concludes with this observation: “The
spate of modern versions with their numerous omissions
and startling innovations breeds confusion, doubt,
misunderstanding and division, and a great uncertainty as
to which of all the modern versions, if any, sets forth the

209
Cimino, The Book, 72.
210
Cloud, op. cit., 51.
211
Schönhaar, The King James Only Controversy – Answered, 122.
174
Word of God.”212

I am convinced that the mind-boggling multiplicity

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

212
Cloud, op. cit., 59.
175
Conclusion

These versions remind me of the Athenians, “(For all

the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their
time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new
thing.)” (Acts 17:21). I assume that if you are a saved, born
again child of God, you will not get excited about anything
said about those who do not hold a very high opinion of the
Word of God, who consider it a book like any other book.
As we begin to conclude our study, Dick Cimino sums it up
very well,

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter... (Ecclesiastes

12:13). It has been said, “ANY translation or version of the Scriptures
that WEAKENS the wording that Jesus is THE SON OF GOD, that
GOD IS HIS FATHER, and that JESUS IS GOD - and not merely the
SON OF MAN; ANY - and I don’t care WHICH translation it is that
MINIMIZES or PUTS A DOUBT as to WHO JESUS IS - the VERY
SON OF GOD - is a translation produced by UNBELIEVERS and
BIBLE DENIERS in the DEITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST -
and they will “DIE IN THEIR SINS” (John 8:24), for God’s
estimation of HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON is as high as the throne
of God for ‘God hath HIGHLY EXALTED HIM, and given Him a
NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME’ (Philippians 2:9-11).

When Elisha told Namaan to go and dip seven times in the

Jordan River, instead of dramatically performing some hair raising
incantations, he was sizzling under the collar (see II Kings 5:1-18).
He stormed away saying, ‘I thought...’(verse 11). Who cares what
Namaan thought? GOD SAID IT! I like the statement I read awhile
ago, ‘Do not tell me what God’s Word means; tell me what it says.’
Who cares what Namaan thought? What did God, through Elisha,
say? Who cares what the Bible critiques (I mean critics) think about
the miracles, the blood atonement, Jesus ascending to heaven, His

176
deity, His virgin birth, and other precious teachings of the Word of
God. Tell me, what does the Bible say?”213

He also says this,

“With all due respect (Romans 13:6-9) to the NATURAL TALENTS

OF Ellicott, Trench, Lange, Driver, Lightfoot, Alford, Tischendorf,
Greisback, Lachmann, Tregelles, Barnes, and a host of others - a pack
of Amillennial, Post-millennial Bible denying ‘guessers’ - one must
be compelled to say that the King James Version, stands like snow-
capped Mt. Everest above their Bible Tower of Babel, erected by
piling up notes, criticisms, suggestions, interpolations, emendations,
approvals, transpositions, exegesis and expositions, The King James
Version is the Book of books.

All the new versions have an ANTI-CHRISTIAN and PRO-

CATHOLIC prejudice against the Greek text of the Reformation. The
motive of the Revisers - bar none - is NOT for ‘greater accuracy,’
‘clearer language,’ or a ‘better rendering.’ It is to REPLACE the
Greek Received Text of the early New Testament Church with the
Vatican text of the 4th Century, North African Church.”214

Let us end this part of the conclusion with an

excellent quote from Edward F. Hills,

“In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are

behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible
version that pleases them whether it pleases God or not. ‘We want a
Bible version in our own idiom’ they clamor. ‘We want a Bible that
talks to us in the same way that we talk to our friends over the
telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated than
ourselves, with a limited vocabulary, and a taste for modern slang.'
And having thus registered their preference, they go their several
213
Cimino, op. cit., 149,150.
214
Ibid, 122,123.
177
ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or
the N.E.B. Others compromise by using the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V.
Most of them, however, go all out for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible.
And they do not stop there. More and more in ‘evangelical’ circles
the trend is to do without the Scriptures altogether and to rely on
gospel music, Christian films, tapes, counseling and psychology to do
the work that only the Bible can do.

But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and the Bible version
which you use is not a matter for you to decide according to your
whims and prejudices. It has already been decided for you by the
workings of God’s special providence. If you ignore this providence
and choose to adopt one of these modern versions, you will be taking
the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you
must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which
unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If you adopt one of
these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New
Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. This naturalistic
textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament in the same
way in which we study the texts of secular books which have not been
preserved by God’s special providence. In other words, naturalistic
textual criticism regards the special, providential preservation of the
Scriptures as of no importance for the study of the New Testament
text. But if we conclude this, then it follows that the infallible
inspiration of the Scriptures is likewise unimportant. For why is it
important that God would infallibly inspire the Scriptures, if it is not
important that He should preserve them by His special providence?
And this leads to the conclusion that the Gospel is not important. For
why is the Gospel important, if it is not important that the Bible which
contains the Gospel should be infallibly inspired and providentially
preserved? Are you not willfully blind, then, dear brother, if you
refuse to admit that the use of modern versions leads to modernism?

How then do we find the Bible version that pleases God? By

reversing the naturalistic reasoning, by beginning with Christ and the
Gospel and proceeding according to the logic of faith. Since the

178
Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel is infallibly
inspired. And since the Bible is infallibly inspired, it has been
preserved down through the ages by God’s special providence, not
secretly in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves, but
publicly in the usage of the God’s churches, the Old Testament
through the Old Testament priesthood and the New Testament
through the New Testament priesthood, namely the universal
priesthood of believers. Moreover, the providential preservation of
the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing, for why
would God preserve the sacred text at one time and not at another
time? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided,
and this text is therefore a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely
inspired original text. And so is the King James Version and all
faithful versions of the Textus Receptus. Hence today and for the
foreseeable future the King James Version is the Bible in English that
truly pleases God.

Taking our stand, therefore, on this true Bible text, we make God and
His revelation of Himself in holy Scripture the starting point of all our
thinking and all our actions. In the realm of Biblical textual criticism,
Biblical introduction, apologetics, theology, philosophy, science, and
politics we proclaim our Christian faith to all the world not as a
probability but as a certainty. It is only in this way that we can do our
duty to God and to our country. It is only in this way that we can
demonstrate our loyalty to Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of
Lords.”215

Scripture has given to us a test by which we can

judge the various versions. We are told by the Lord Jesus
Christ that “BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW
THEM” (Matthew 7:20). With this in mind let us look at
the fruit of the modern versions in comparison with the
fruit of the King James Version.
Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines, IA: The
215

Christian Research Press, 1967), 226-228.

179
 The Textus Receptus (the Greek text which underlies
the King James Version) was the text of the early churches.
By it, the Good News of Jesus Christ was spread. It is the
text of generations of Bible-believing Christians; many of
them were persecuted and martyred in its defense.

While God was conquering the world with the

Textus Receptus, the Codex Vaticanus was rotting away on
a shelf. Westcott and Hort would have us believe that the
Word of God was preserved in only two manuscripts, one
of which was hidden away, unused by God or man, and the
other of which was picked out of a trash can! Which text
did God use? Which text did God honor?

For almost four centuries, the King James Version

has been recognized as the God-honored, life changing,
Christ-exalting, time-tested, fruit bearing Word of the Lord
God Almighty. Many people have read, memorized, used
and believed this book more than any other book in the
world. It is responsible for great revivals, great missionary
work and the salvation of untold millions.

What is the fruit of the modern versions? How is it

that with dozens of them on the market (and each one
claiming to be a better Bible) that they cannot produce a
fraction of the fruit of the God-honored King James
Version? Does God honor them? Would God permit His
Word to go bankrupt (A.S.V.)? Does God need a Madison
Square “hype” job to promote His Word (see the ad
campaigns for the N.I.V., N.A.S.V., etc.)?

180
 The Revised Version (1881) was replaced by the
American Standard Version (1901), which was replaced by
the Revised Standard Version (1952), which was replaced
by the New International Version (1973). Each of these
versions was supposedly more “readable” and more
“accurate” than the King James Version. Yet, as a whole
they have been toppling over like dominoes while the
“archaic,” “inaccurate” King James Version continues to
stand. It has borne God the fruit of generations of soul-
winning believers. Norman Ward had this to say about the
fruit of these versions,

“The average life of these versions is less than a generation. That is,
within one generation the church has rejected them. During the same
period, the old A.V. 1611 has continued to outsell every other Bible
on the market. The body of Christ might be tempted to investigate a
modern version, but the consistent witness of history is that the church
will reject that version within one generation. The only Bible which
has been in continuous use in the Protestant church is the A.V.
1611.”216 I will add that it has been the only Bible used by
Baptists as well.

What is the fruit of the modern versions? Their

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

The modern versions are the evil fruit of a corrupt

216
Ward, Famine in the Land, 50.
181
tree. Their fruits are the ungodly theories and perverted
text of two unsaved men who did not believe the Bible to
begin with, who denied the work of the Holy Spirit and
who held the truth in unrighteousness. They have denied
the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the miracles and the
deity of Christ among other things. Their seed is apostasy,
confusion and doubt, which they got from their father, the
Devil (see Genesis 3).

“It should be of deep concern to all of us that more

Biblical illiteracy exists even among the people of God
than we wish to admit.”217 God’s desire for us is found in I
Corinthians 2:12, “Now we have received, not the spirit of
the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
“A great number of people are casting aside the King
James Bible for the new ‘easy reading’ bibles. If the new
versions are successful in their attempt to become as
popular as the King James Version, we can expect certain
things.

We will find a weaning of the doctrine of separation

as the promoters are trying to sell a Bible that will please
everybody. We will see little memorization of God’s Word
since the versions do not agree word for word. We can
expect a casual attitude taken by shallow Christians toward
certain texts. After all, if the “learned” men can take out
what they want, how do we know what’s left is of any

James F. Holmes, From the Mind of God To the Minds of Men

217

(Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1987), 83.

182
truth.”218

The promotion and use of so many different Bible

versions has caused untold confusion. Why don’t more
pastors and Christian leaders see this? Congregational
reading in unison is virtually impossible, Bible
memorization is most difficult. Concordances are obsolete.
And just think of the uncertainty that results when some
verses of the Bible are changed, some are in with brackets
around them, and some are missing completely. And many
verses, whether in text or in the footnotes, have their
validity challenged.

“Under inspiration James emphasizes that it is sin if

one knows the truth and fails to practice that truth in his life
(James 4:17). Happy is the person who is practicing in his
life what he has learned from the Word of God (John
13:17).”219 On the flip side of things, will not God hold us
responsible for light and knowledge concerning His Word?
Can we escape His condemnation, if we choose to exalt any
version containing proved corruptions? As a wise man has
said, “No man is more blind than he who will not see.”

Hopefully when you sing “Standing on the

Promises,” those promises will be in your Bible. Hopefully
when you say that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, was
both fully man and fully God and shed His blood for your
sins, your Bible will back you up. Hopefully, when you
raise your Bible aloft and proclaim it to be the “Word of
218
Winter, The Bible: The King James Version on Trial, 53.
219
Holmes, op. cit., 84,85.
183
God,” it will be. Alexander McClure said in 1858, “If
someone doesn’t bring a halt to this tampering with
Biblical texts, then future generations will be completely
cut off from an authoritative Bible, hence no salvation.”220
That was before the days of Westcott and Hort, if McClure
were alive today what would he say about the mess that we
are in with Bible versions. The Psalmist wrote: “Thou hast
magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psalm 138:2). It
is a sad day when humanity lightly esteems what God has
magnified - the Bible.

As a result of what we have looked at, what should

we do? What should our response be to these truths?
Listen to what Jack Moorman has to say in regard to this:

“Take out the old “sword of the Spirit” that makes hippies blush
when it appears on a street corner, that makes college professors
nervous when it is brought into the classroom, that disturbed Westcott
and Hort so badly they devoted a lifetime to getting rid of it; get back
that battered old Book that was corrupted by Origen, hated by
Eusebius, despised by Constantine, ignored by Augustine, that was
ridiculed by the R.S.V. and the A.S.V. committees; that razor sharp
blade which pierced Mel Trottier, Adoniram Judson, Dwight L.
Moody, and B.H. Carroll to the soul and made Christians out of them,
which pierced Charles Darwin, Huxley, Hobbes, Hume and Bernard
Shaw to the soul and infuriated them, that Word which was preached
to the heathen in every corner of the earth, that Word which has been
used by the Spirit of God for nineteen centuries to make fools out of
scientists, educators and philosophers, to overthrow Popes and
kingdoms, to inspire men to die at the stake and in the arena; that
infallible, everlasting BOOK which angels desire to look into, and
before which devils tremble when they see their future, and if you

220
McClure, Translators Revived, 20.
184
don’t know it by now, what BOOK that it is we are talking about, you
never will.”221

Let me encourage those who stand for the King

James Bible with a powerful quote from David Cloud,

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

For those who have been deceived by the modern

versions I encourage you to use the Bible which God has
blessed. God has chosen to preserve His Word for us in the
English language in the King James Bible. Furthermore, it
only makes sense that He expects us to use and honor that
Bible. Let us close with a quote from Edward Hills that we
looked at earlier:

“...the Bible version which you use...has already been decided for
you by the workings of God’s special providence. If you ignore
221
Moorman, Forever Settled, 251,252.
222
Cloud, For the Love of the Bible, 7.
185
this providence and choose to adopt one of the modern versions,
you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the
arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same
arguments unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If
you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the
naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. The
naturalistic textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament
text in the same way in which we study the texts of secular books
which have not been preserved by God’s special providence.”223

“Remember - this is a heart matter, not a head matter.

Your final acceptance will rely on whether you can find it
in yourself to humble yourself and accept God’s Book as
perfect. It will be a high-pressure decision, but will depend
on which you choose to be more loyal to. Your Saviour
and God, or your friends and school.”224

223
Hills, op. cit., 226,227.
224
Gipp, The Answer Book, 161.
186
 Appendix A

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

187
 Bibliography

Burgon, John W. The Causes of Corruption of the

Traditional Text.
Collingswood, NJ: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998.

__________. The Revision Revised. Forth Worth, TX:

A.G. Hobbs
Publications, 1883.

__________. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.

Collingswood, NJ:
Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998.

__________. Unholy Hands on the Bible. Lafayette, IN:

Sovereign Grace
Trust Fund, 1990.

Burton, Barry. Let’s Weigh the Evidence. Chino, CA:

Chick Publications,
1993.

Cimino, Dick. The Book. Harlingen, TX: Wonderful

Word Publishers,
1975.

Cloud, David. For the Love of the Bible. Oak Harbor,

WA: Way of Life
Literature, 1995.

__________. The Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library.

188
 Oak Harbor, WA:
Way of Life Literature, 2000.

__________. The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible

and Christianity. Second Edition. Oak Harbor, WA:
Way of Life Literature, 1993.

Coston, Stephen A. King James Unjustly Accused. St.

Peterburg, FL:
KonigsWort Incorporated, 1996.

Cummons, Bruce D. The Foundation and Authority of the

Word of God.
Massillon, OH: n.p., n.d.

Fuller, David O. Counterfeit or Genuine. Grand Rapids,

MI: Grand Rapids
International Publications, 1975.

__________. True or False? Grand Rapids, MI: Grand

Rapids International
Publications, 1973.

__________. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI: Grand

Rapids International
Publications, 1970.

Gipp, Samuel C. The Answer Book. Shelbyville, TN:

Bible and Literature
Missionary Foundation, 1989.

189
Grady, William P. Final Authority. Schererville, IN:
Grady Publications,
1993.

Hills, Edward F. Believing Bible Study. Des Moines, IA:

The Christian
Research Press, 1967.

__________. The King James Version Defended. Des

Moines, IA: The
Christian Research Press, 1956.

Holmes, James F. From the Mind of God to the Minds of

Men. Texarkana,
TX: Bogard Press, 1987.

La More, Gary E. Erasmus of Rotterdam. Toronto, ON:

Historic Baptist
Press, 1999.

McClure, Alexander. Translators Revived. Mobile, AL: R

E Publications,
1858.

Melton, James L. Fighting Back. Sharon, TN: Bible

Baptist Church, 1997.

Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled. Collingswood, NJ: The

Dean Burgon
Society Press, 1999.

__________. Missing in Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story

190
 Being Told?
Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1989.

Paine, Gustavus S. The Men Behind the King James Bible.

Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1977.

Riplinger, Gail A. The Language of the King James Bible.

Ararat, VA: A.V.
Publications, 1998.

__________. New Age Bible Versions. Shelbyville, TN:

Bible and
Literature Missionary Foundation, 1993.

Sargent, Robert. Is the New King James Bible the Word of

God. Halifax,
NS: The People’s Gospel Hour, n.d.

__________. Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript

Evidence. Oak
Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications,
1989.

Schönhaar, Hugo W.K. The King James Only Controversy

– Answered. n.p., n.d.

Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible.

Collingswood, NJ: The Bible
For Today, 1992.

191
__________. Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort.
Collingswood, NJ:
The Bible For Today, 1998.

Ward, Norman. Famine in the Land. Grand Rapids, MI:

Which Bible?
Society, Inc., n.d.

__________. Perfected or Perverted. Grand Rapids, MI:

Which Bible?
Society, Inc., n.d.

Winter, Mickey. The Bible: The King James Version on

Trial. Russell
Springs, KY: Godby’s Printing, n.d.

Yarnell, Ralph. A Fresh Look at the King James Bible.

Marietta, OH; n.p.,
1983.

God’s Miracle Book: the King James Bible. Halifax, NS:

The People’s
Gospel Hour, n.d.

192