|
Dr.
Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who
has written in the defense of the
Received Text for many years. He is
President of the Dean Burgon Society and
Director of Bible for Today ministries.
He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek
and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in
New Testament Greek Literature and
Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a
Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition;
and he holds both New Jersey and
Pennsylvania teacher certificates in
Greek and Language Arts. He taught
Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and
English for more than 35 years in nine
schools. He has produced more than 700
studies on the Bible and other subjects.
The following study is a summary of
Waite's book Defending the King James
Bible, which is available from Bible for
Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood,
New Jersey 08108. Waite presents a
four-fold superiority of the King James
Bible: (1) SUPERIOR TEXTS (HEBREW AND
GREEK); (2) SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS; (3)
SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE; and (4) SUPERIOR
THEOLOGY.
We
begin with a couple of introductory
thoughts about Bible translations:
Readability
and the King James Bible. Many people
say, "The KING JAMES BIBLE is too
hard for people to read, they can't
understand it." Well, if you
consult the readability index called
"Right Writer" (a computer
program) that is absolutely neutral on
this subject, you will find
readabilities for the portions of the
KING JAMES BIBLE examined as follows:
From
this chart you can see that the KING
JAMES BIBLE is NOT too difficult to
understand--provided that you can read
at a 6th to 10th grade level. Our son,
D. A. Waite, Jr., has written a study he
calls Six Bible Versions Compared on
Readability--A Comparison of the KJB,
NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV. He took
the first chapter of every book in the
Bible, from Genesis through Revelation
and compared the six versions of the
Bible mentioned above. In this sampling,
the KJV, over all, has a "Flesch
Grade Level" of from 6.1 to 8.6.
The NIV, on the other hand, has a "Flesch
Grade Level" of from 6.1 to 11.0!!
The NIV is not only less accurate by
far, but also less readable
than the King James! From this evidence,
we see that it's not too hard to
understand the KING JAMES BIBLE.
I
know hundreds of people whose
intelligence and educational levels have
not reached as high as some of these …
people who say they can't understand
this King James Bible, yet these people
do understand it. How do you figure that
out? Remember 1 Co. 2:14 which states,
`But the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God: for they
are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.' This verse is still true,
regardless of which translation is used.
Some
people say they like a particular
version because they say it's more
readable. Now, readability is one thing,
but does the readability conform to
what's in the original Greek and Hebrew
language? That's the question! You can
have a lot of readability, but if it
doesn't match up with what God has said,
it's of no profit. In the King James
Bible, the words match what God has
said. You may say it's difficult to
read, but study it out. It's hard in the
Hebrew and Greek and, perhaps, even in
the English in the King James Bible. But
to change it around just to make it
simple, or interpreting it, instead of
translating it, is wrong. You've got
lots of interpretation, but we don't
want that in a translation. We want
exactly what God said in the Hebrew and
Greek brought over into English.
Do
we need more "translations" of
the Bible? It can be asked: "Do we
really need more `translations' of the
Bible? Are these new versions really
necessary?"
1.
Complete English Bibles. In the back of
our book, Defending the King James
Bible, there's a chart that lists the
number of "complete English
Bibles" by years. From the 1300's
through the 1900's, there were a total
of 135 "complete English
Bibles." This is taken from a
research that's been done on English
Bibles of all kinds. We notice that, on
the average, there has been one complete
English Bible every 4.4. years. Do you
think we need more Bibles? In the last
604 years (from 1388 through 1991)
complete English Bibles have increased
in frequency. In the 1300's, there were
only three; in the 1400's, there were
none; in the 1800's, there were
forty-five; in the 1900's, there were
fifty-three (averaging one every 9.9
years).
2.
Complete English New Testaments. In the
same book, there is a chart that lists
the number of "complete English New
Testaments" by years. From the
1300's through the 1900's, there were a
total of 293 "complete English New
Testaments." This is, on the
average, one complete English New
Testament every 2.1 years. Do you think
we need more New Testaments? Even if
they were all presently available,
imagine someone reading all of them. In
the last 612 years (from 1380 through
1991) complete English New Testaments
have also increased in frequency. In the
1300's there was only one complete
English New Testament; in the 1400's,
there was none; in the 1800's, there
were ninety; and in the 1900's, there
were 144 (averaging one every .69
years). That's quite a jump--from ninety
to 144!
3.
Complete English Bibles and New
Testaments combined. If you put the
charts together we can see that during
the 612 years, from the 1300's to the
1900's, there were a total of 135
complete English Bibles, and 293
complete English New Testaments. This
totals 428. It means that, on the
average, there was either one complete
English Bible or complete English New
Testament published every 1.4 years. Do
we need more complete English Bibles or
complete English New Testaments? That's
the question. I believe that the major
factor in the production of Bibles and
New Testaments is money. When the
publishers discover that a certain
version no longer brings financial
profit to their treasuries, that version
runs out of print in a hurry! Very few
churches are doing what the Berean
Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana, is
doing--printing Bibles and giving them
out at low cost. In fact, they give many
of them away without charge. To my
knowledge, only those who have the real
truth found in the King James Bible are
doing this. You will find few, if any,
publishers of the many perversions
printing them at low cost or without
charge!
Now
we move to the fourfold superiority of
the King James Bible:
#1:
THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS. The first
reason for defending the KJV is because
it has superior texts, both Hebrew and
Greek. This correctly implies that the
various versions and perversions of the
Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew
and Greek.
THE
KJV HAS A SUPERIOR O.T. HEBREW TEXT.
There are two basic texts in existence
in Hebrew, the inaccurate one, edited by
Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by
Ben Chayyim. The Ben Asher is exhibited
in Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHK)
(1937) with all of his suggested
footnote changes, as well as in the
Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHS)
(1967-77) with all of their suggested
footnote changes. The true text of Ben
Chayyim on which our KJV is based is
also available. It is called the Daniel
Bomberg edition or the Second Great
Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). We carry this
Hebrew Bible in the Bible for Today
ministry. It is the Letteris text,
printed in 1866. It has the Masoretic
Hebrew text in the center and the King
James Bible in the margins. This Ben
Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the
fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his first two
editions of 1906 and 1912, used that
texts and substituted the spurious and
inferior text which uses the Leningrad
Manuscript (B19a or "L"). He
used this because he claimed it was the
oldest single Hebrew manuscript, dating
from about 1008 A.D.
Both
of these inaccurate Biblia Hebraica (BHK
& BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their
footnotes about fifteen to twenty
suggested changes per page. This adds up
to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the
entire Hebrew Old Testament text. One or
the other of these false Hebrew texts,
either BHK or BHS, are used as the basis
for the O.T. in all modern versions, as
can be shown by reading their
introductory pages. How many of these
changes in the Hebrew text are you ready
to accept? Do you want to accept 30,000?
How about 20,000? 10,000? How about
5,000? How about 1,000? How many of you
would like to accept 500 changes?
If
you do not start with an absolute, where
there is no doubt, you're going to
continue to move and to accept more and
more changes. Where can you stop, once
you have begun to slide? Doubts will
arise in your mind. We don't want to
move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our
KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My
personal belief is that the Traditional
Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the
KJV is not only the "closest to the
original autographs," but that it
is IDENTICAL to those original
autographs. I can't prove that to
anybody, but I accept it as a matter of
personal faith. I believe we have the
very Words that God has preserved
through the years. I believe every Word
in the Hebrew text is God's Word,
preserved because He told us He would
preserve it for the next 20,000 to
30,000 years--to a "thousand
generations."
The
New Versions attempt to
"CORRECT" The Hebrew Text in
at Least 19 different ways. The NIV uses
all nineteen of these, by the way.
In
effect, the new version
"translators/paraphrasers"
might say, "Oh, I don't want to
take this Hebrew word here. I want to
take the Septuagint (LXX) reading
instead." But the Septuagint (LXX)
version for the most part is worse than
a Living Version. It is the Old
Testament written in Greek. Its text is
corrupt. Even the ISBE article, (the
International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia) on the Septuagint (LXX)
states that it has a very tattered and
inferior Greek text. Remember, the ISBE
is no friend of the King James Bible's
text. The use of the Septuagint (LXX) by
these new versions instead of using the
Hebrew text is a serious error.
Another
one of the nineteen methods is when they
have no textual proof at all. It is pure
conjecture. They might say, "I
don't have any proof, but I think it
sounds better this way." When this
is done, they often print in the
footnote an "L" which stands
for "legendum," meaning in
Latin, "which read." I
remember Dr. Merrill F. Unger, my Hebrew
teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary.
He has written many books, including
Unger's Bible Dictionary. He was an apt
and humble man, though he reminded me of
an "absent-minded professor"
at times. He taught us Isaiah in our
second year Hebrew class. On one
occasion, he read a verse in a way that
differed from the Hebrew text. I raised
my hand and said, "Why did you read
it that way? It doesn't read that way in
the Hebrew text?" Dr. Unger
replied, "Well, I just thought it
sounded better that way, so I changed
it." Dr. Unger went to the Johns
Hopkins University for his Ph.D. work.
He was taught by Dr. Albright who was
far from sound in his theology. Perhaps
Dr. Unger learned this doubt of the
Hebrew text from his professor. What was
Dr. Unger doing? He was
"CORRECTING" the Hebrew text
by conjecture.
Some
"CORRECT" the Hebrew with the
Syriac Version. Some "CORRECT"
the Hebrew with just "a few Hebrew
manuscripts" rather than the entire
Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text. Some
"CORRECT" the Hebrew with the
Latin Vulgate. Some "CORRECT"
the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
With the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are a
few problems. Problem #1: How do you
know which Hebrew manuscripts this
heretical cult (called the Essenes) took
with them when they left the temple of
Jerusalem and went to the area of the
Qumran caves? Problem #2: How do you
know the methods they used and the
accuracy with which they copied and
recopied those manuscripts? It just so
happens that the Dead Sea Scrolls,
probably 99% of the time, did concur
with the Hebrew text that underlies the
King James Bible. But, in the places
where they don't, we should stick to the
Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.
Some
(like the NIV), use "quotations
from Jerome" to "CORRECT"
the Hebrew text. Some use Josephus, an
unsaved Jewish man, to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use a "variant Hebrew Reading
in the margin" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use "words in the consonantal
text divided differently" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, or Symmachus
to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use the Hebrew Targums, Theodotion,
or the "Juxta Hebraica of Jerome
for the Psalms" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Why
are they taking Jerome as a substitute
for the Hebrew Word of God? Was he
there?
Still
others use a "different set of
Hebrew Vowels" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use "an ancient Hebrew scribal
tradition" to "CORRECT"
the Hebrew. Some use the BIBLIA HEBRAICA
of Kittel or Stuttgartensia to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew. These
are 19 of the different methods that
other English versions have used to
"CORRECT" the Masoretic
Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text,
thus changing the very Words of God!
God
authorized the Jews to be the exclusive
guardians of His Words. The Jews were to
be the guardians of the O.T. Hebrew
text. God did not give that privilege
and responsibility to any other race or
people. "What advantage then hath
the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision? Much every way: chiefly,
because that unto them were committed
the oracles of God" (Ro. 3:1,2).
It
was the Hebrew O.T. text that God
preserved, not some text in Greek,
Latin, or Syriac, or any of these other
documents. It must be Hebrew. There were
eight or more important, strict rules
that were followed by the Hebrew scribes
who copied and recopied the Masoretic
Hebrew O.T. text. These rules were to
insure that each letter, word, and
sentence of the Hebrew text was
preserved exactly. The Jews were
meticulous and reverent in the copying
and recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts.
That's why I believe that we should not
change any of the Hebrew Words of God
that underlie the KJV.
The
Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament Text is
available today. I hope that the
American Bible Society and the British
and Foreign Bible Society keep printing
and circulating this Letteris Hebrew
text. That's what they call it, the
Letteris text of 1866. This came out
before Kittel decided to scrap it for
his false Ben Asher text. These same
Bible Societies print the false Hebrew
texts, too. If they stop printing the
true Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament
text, by God's grace, we will do every
thing in our power to see that it's
reprinted page by page and get it back
into circulation. We'll preserve the
very O.T. Hebrew Words of God ourselves,
if that becomes necessary. Sometimes
this Hebrew Bible has gone out of stock
at the American Bible Society, but it
has always come back in stock by a
shipment from England.
THE
KING JAMES BIBLE HAS A SUPERIOR NEW
TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. There is a simple
table in our book which speaks volumes
concerning the New Testament Greek text
debate. Here it is:
The
Greek Text that underlies the KJV. If
you examine this table carefully, you
will learn much about the debate that is
raging concerning the Greek N.T. On the
left of the table are some facts about
the Textus Receptus that underlies the
KJv. The Trinitarian Bible Society has
published this text and made it
available to anyone. The TBS took this
text from that of Dr. Frederick
Scrivener who was commissioned in about
1885, by the Cambridge University Press,
to come up with the exact Greek text
that underlies the King James Bible.
Scrivener set down all of the Greek
words used by the KJV, but he did
something else as well. He put in bold
face type all of the alterations made by
editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881
English Revised Version. He inserted the
exact alterations in the footnotes.
These consisted of either additions of
Greek words, subtractions of Greek
words, or changes of Greek words in some
other way. This Greek text edition has
been reprinted by the Bible for Today.
It is a very useful tool. Scrivener's
Greek text is also available on the
LOGOS Computer Program which enables the
student to study more carefully. Dr.
Jack Moorman counted 140,521 Greek words
in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener's
Greek edition has 647 pages which would
average 217 Greek words per page. That's
what the Textus Receptus has.
2.
The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort that
underlies the Modern Versions. Though
there were some scattered opposition to
the Received Text in years before, the
concerted effort against the Received
Text came in 1881, and after. In 1881,
two theological heretics (posing as
conservatives) from the Anglican Church,
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published
their Greek text that rejected the TR in
5,604 places by my actual count. This
included 9,970 Greek words that were
either added, subtracted, or changed
from the TR. This involves, on the
average, 15.4 words per page of the
Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in
all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521
words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a
radically new Greek text. Westcott and
Hort concocted a new Greek text and
changed the TR that had been used in the
Church from the beginning of the writing
of the N.T.
You
might rightfully ask, "How did you
come up with this number of
changes?" That's a valid question.
I took a copy of the original
Scrivener's Greek N.T. to a summer Bible
Conference where I was preaching. During
the afternoon, when there were no
meetings, I studied that volume
carefully, making notations on it as I
read. When I indicate that there are
5,604 places in the Greek N.T. where
Westcott and Hort actually altered the
Greek Textus Receptus used by the KING
JAMES BIBLE translators, it is because I
actually counted that many places. I
have the data in my copy of Scrivener's
Greek New Testament. These 5,604 places
involve a total of 9,970 Greek words.
How do I know that? Again, I counted
them. I saw from the footnotes exactly
how many Greek words each of the 5,604
places involved. As you might know, some
of the places involve twelve entire
verses (Mk. 16:9-20 and John 7:53--
8:11). In each of the 5,604 places,
compared to the Textus Receptus that
underlies the KJV, Westcott and Hort
either added Greek words, subtracted
Greek words, or changed the Greek words
in some other way. You can see that the
Westcott and Hort alterations amount to
just thirty words short of 10,000 Greek
words. This means that there are almost
10,000 Greek words that are different in
the Westcott and Hort Greek New
Testament (and probably about the same
or more in the Nestle/Aland 26th edition
Greek text) as compared to the Greek
text that underlies our KJV.
This
inaccurate Greek text, with its
approximate 10,000 alterations, was the
basis for virtually all of the modern
English versions and perversions,
including the ERV, ASV, NIV, NASV, NKJV,
RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV, LV and the
rest.
Hort's
own three estimates on the extent of the
Greek textual problems between his text
and the Textus Receptus. In 1882, Hort
wrote an Introduction to the so-called
Westcott and Hort Greek Text of 1881. In
his Introduction to the New Testament in
the Original Greek--The Text Revised by
Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton
John Anthony Hort, D.D., Hort made an
estimate of the differences between
various Greek texts. His estimate had
three parts. Let me quote each of the
parts:
(1)
Hort's estimate of the proportion of the
Greek New Testament that was virtually
accepted by everyone. He wrote:
"With regard to the great bulk of
the words of the New Testament, as of
most other ancient writings, there is NO
VARIATION or other ground of doubt, and
therefore no room for textual criticism;
. . . The proportion of words virtually
accepted on all hands as raised above
doubt is VERY GREAT, not less, on a
rough computation, than SEVEN EIGHTHS OF
THE WHOLE. The REMAINING EIGHTH
therefore, formed in great part by
changes of order and other comparative
trivialities, constitutes the whole area
of criticism" (Hort, p. 2).
Since
the "whole" in numbers of
Greek words and pages in the Greek N.T.
as seen in our table, is 140,521 Greek
words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 7/8ths of
the Greek New Testament virtually agreed
to by all would be 122,956 Greek words
(87.5%=566 pages). Hort's 1/8th of the
Greek N.T. that he claimed was in
dispute would be 17,565 Greek words
(12.5%=81 pages). In point of fact, as
seen in the above table, the area of
dispute between the Westcott and Hort
Greek text as opposed to the Textus
Receptus that underlies the KJV is only
9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). So
Hort's estimate in this area is
incorrect.
(2)
Hort's estimate of the proportion of the
Greek New Testament that would still be
in doubt if his principles were
followed. He wrote: "If the
principles followed in the present
edition are sound, this area may be very
greatly reduced. Recognising to the full
the duty of abstinence from peremptory
decision in cases where the evidence
leaves the judgement in suspense between
two or more readings, we find that,
setting aside differences of
orthography, the words in our opinion
still subject to doubt only make up
about ONE SIXTIETH of the whole New
Testament" (Hort, loc. cit.).
Since
the "whole" in numbers of
Greek words and pages in the Greek New
Testament, as seen in the table above,
is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages),
Hort's 1/60th of the Greek New Testament
still subject to doubt if his principles
were followed, would be 2,342 Greek
words. This represents 1.76% of the
Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek
New Testament if put all in one place.
But we don't follow Hort's
"principles" at all. Because
of this, we who hold to the Greek text
that underlies the KJV are still
disputing 9,970 Greek words (rather than
only 2,342 Greek words). This represents
7% of the Greek words (rather than only
1.76%), or 45.9 pages in a Greek New
Testament if the words were put in one
place (rather than only 11.4 pages). So
Hort's estimate in this area is
incorrect again. We still maintain that
the of Greek words in dispute are vastly
more in number than Hort has stated.
(3)
Hort's estimate of the proportion of the
Greek New Testament that contains
"SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION." He
wrote: "In this second estimate the
proportion of comparatively trivial
variations is beyond measure larger than
in the former; so that the amount of
what can in any sense be called
SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION is but a small
fraction of the whole residuary
variation, and can hardly form more than
A THOUSANDTH PART of the entire
text" (Hort, loc. cit.).
Since
the "whole" in numbers of
Greek words and pages in the Greek New
Testament, as seen in the table above,
is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages),
Hort's 1/1000th of the Greek New
Testament that he thought could be
called "SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION"
would be 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647
pages). This would be a little over one
half a page in the Greek N.T. This is
extremely wide of the mark of truth!
Since we don't follow Hort's
"principles" at all, we who
hold to the Greek text that underlies
the KJV are still disputing, either in
"SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION" or
otherwise, a total of 9,970 Greek words
(7%=45.9 pages). It is Hort's last
estimate that has been seized by his
modern day puppets and grossly distorted
in order to fool people into thinking
that the problem is very tiny, when in
reality, it is much, much larger!
The
misquotation of Hort by his followers on
the extent of the Greek textual problems
between his text and the Textus Receptus.
Modern disciples of this false Westcott
and Hort Greek text have enlarged upon
Hort's estimates. They say, in effect:
"If all of the variant readings
between the Westcott and Hort-type text
and the Textus Receptus-type text were
assembled together in one place, they
would amount to a little over one half a
page in the Greek New Testament."
Hort's
pupils are either knowingly or
unknowingly misquoting their teacher.
They want to make the DIFFERENCES in the
Greek texts very, very slight so as to
minimize the arguments against the false
Westcott and Hort-types Greek text. From
the above quotations from Hort's
Introduction, his differences in Greek
texts would be either 81 pages (1/8th),
or 11.4 pages (1/60th), or .647 pages
(1/1000th). Rather than merely "a
little over one half a page,"
Hort's 1/8th of total differences would
amount to 81 pages. In reality, we are
faced with faced with 45.9 pages of
difference!
@PARABEFORE2
= A current illustration of this
practice of distorting the facts in this
area is found in a tape-recorded message
given by Dr. Kenneth Barker, the
chairman of the translation committee
responsible for the New International
Version. Dr. Barker spoke in the Sunday
evening service, September 12, 1993, at
the Southside Baptist Church in
Greenville, South Carolina. A friend
recorded the message and gave me a copy.
Dr. Barker stated:
@BODY
TEXT2 = "There are over 5,000 Greek
manuscripts, and all of them are AGREED
98% of the time. So all of this debate
that Carson refers to in The King James
Version Debate, all of this debate, all
of the hullabaloo is over less than 2%
of the entire text of the New Testament.
And in that less than 2%, you can select
any reading that you wish among the
manuscripts, (that's not our approach,
but you can) and it won't change
Christian doctrine one bit."
@PARAAFTER2
= Dr. Barker is wrong on TWO COUNTS! (1)
His "less than 2%" difference
between any of the Greek manuscripts
would be 2,810 Greek words (12.9 pages).
The truth of the matter is that there is
a 7% difference between the Westcott and
Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus
that underlies the KJV. This would be
9,970 Greek words (45.9 pages). This is
a most serious error. It is a blatant
falsehood that is being promulgated by
the chairman of the NIV translation
committee. It would give false
confidence to the pastor and members of
this church that had just recently given
up the KJV in favor of Dr. Barker's NIV.
(2) The second serious error is Dr.
Barker's statement relative to the fact
that variations in manuscripts
"won't change Christian doctrine
one bit." In our book, we specify
158 such passages. Dr. Jack Moorman
lists 356 such passages. These two
falsehoods, from someone who should know
better, are the major ones used to lull
Bible believing Christians into deep
slumber concerning the Bible version
controversy that has been raging.
The
King James Bible's Greek text is worth
fighting for! The Greek Text of the New
Testament is truly a BATTLEGROUND!
Someone might say to you that there is
really very little difference in the two
Greek texts. They may tell you that you
shouldn't be fighting about these
differences. It seems to me that almost
46 pages of the Greek N.T. ARE worth
fighting about. 9,970 Greek words are
worth fighting about. 7% of the Greek
N.T. is worth fighting about. This is a
BATTLEGROUND! We must not retreat. We
must do battle for the Lord's Words! We
must stand fast. If we lose in this
battle between truth and error, there's
no stopping the onrush of more error. In
the tug of war with truth and error,
there is no middle ground. Those of us
who believe in standing up for the Lord
Jesus Christ should remember His Words:
"Whosoever therefore shall be
ashamed of Me and of My Words in this
adulterous and sinful generation; of him
also shall the Son of man be ashamed,
when He cometh in the glory of his
Father with the holy angels" (Mk.
8:38).
THE
KING JAMES BIBLE'S GREEK TEXT IS
ATTESTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Here is a
table that is printed on page
fifty-seven of Defending the King James
Bible. It gives us a summary of the
manuscript evidence that is available to
us today.
As
of 1967, Kurt Aland, of Munster,
Germany, counted a total of 5,255 Greek
manuscripts still in existence. Though
there are a few others since 1967, I use
these figures which are still very
close. Aland is the lead editor of the
26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek
New Testament which is being used as the
critical text of today. I am using
Aland's 1967 figures.
As
you can see from the table, there are 81
(now 88) papyrus fragments. There are
267 uncial manuscripts. These are large,
capital letter documents. There are
2,764 cursives manuscripts. These are
the flowing hand manuscripts. There are
2,143 lectionary manuscripts. These are
portions of Scripture that were read on
certain days of the church year. This
totals at least 5,255 Greek manuscripts
of the N.T. that have been preserved and
are available for us today.
The
table gives the approximate number and
percent of each type of Greek manuscript
that supports the Westcott-Hort (WH)
Greek text, as well as the number and
percent of each class that supports the
Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text. These
approximations are taken from the
careful research of Dr. Jack Moorman in
his book Forever Settled (see
Bibliography). The WH figures are given
first and those for the TR second. For
the papyrus fragments the score is 13 to
75 (15% to 85%). For the uncial
manuscripts the score is 9 to 258 (3% to
97%). For the cursive manuscripts the
score is 23 to 2,741 (1% to 99%). For
the lectionary manuscripts the score is
0 to 2,143 (0% to 100%). For the totals
for all classes of manuscripts the score
is 45 to 5,210. This is a ratio of less
than 1% to more than 99%!
THE
KING JAMES BIBLE'S GREEK TEXT HAS BEEN
PRESERVED BY GOD. Which of the two kinds
of Greek text has God preserved? How do
you define preservation? The Scripture
says:
"The
Words of the Lord are pure Words: as
silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
Them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve Them
from this generation for ever" (Ps.
12:6,7).
Obviously
God has "KEPT" and
"PRESERVED" His Words in the
99% of the evidence, rather than in the
1%. By very definition, this is
"PRESERVATION." Suppose I had
100 million dollars to begin with and a
thief stole it from me. Suppose I
reported this to the police; and after
long investigation, they were able to
recover 99 million dollars out of the
100 million dollars. The thief would
keep one million dollars. Which of the
two parties could most accurately be
described as having
"PRESERVED" the 100 million
dollars: the thief who had the one
million dollars, or the police who
recovered the 99 million dollars? The
one million would be a
"PRESERVATION" of practically
nothing (1%) compared to the 99 million
(99%). And so it is with the Greek
manuscripts of the N.T. The fulfillment
of God's promise to "KEEP" and
"PRESERVE" His Words is to be
found in the more than 99% of the
manuscripts we have today. And these
support the Greek Text that underlies
the KJV, and NOT the Greek text that
underlies the modern versions and
perversions!
THE
FALSE GREEK TEXTS OF "B" AND
"ALEPH" CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER
IN OVER 3,000 PLACES IN THE GOSPELS
ALONE. In the total numbers of
manuscripts, you'll notice that the
Westcott- Hort type has only 45
manuscripts that go along with it as
over against 5,210 that go along with
the TR that underlies the KJV. This 45
includes "B" (Vatican) and
"Aleph" (Sinai) and forty-
three of their little heretical puppets
that follow them. The theory behind the
acceptance of these less than 1% is that
"The oldest are the best." The
oldest are not necessarily the best,
especially if they have been tampered
with by heretics!
Both
Dr. Frederick Scrivener and Dean John
William Burgon agreed that the greatest
pollution of the stream of pure
manuscripts was accomplished in the
first 100 years after the New Testament
was written! So the oldest are not
necessarily the best! This is especially
true since the heretics had their knives
out "correcting" the Greek N.T.
almost as soon as it was written. The
Egyptian scribes and editors of
"B" (Vatican) and
"Aleph" (Sinai) were some of
the most vicious "correctors"
of God's Words; yet these two Greek
texts form the very bedrock of the new
versions and perversions of our day.
"B" and "Aleph"
contradict each other, as Herman Hoskier
has so accurately pointed out in his two
volume work entitled Codex B and Its
Allies, in over 3,000 places in the four
Gospels alone! So, they are not good
witnesses. They are false witnesses
indeed!
#2:
THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR
TRANSLATORS. The second reason for
defending the KJV is because it has
superior translators. This correctly
implies that the various versions and
perversions of the Bible have inferior
translators.
Let's
take a brief look at the superior
translators of the KJV. Why do I say
that the KJV translators are superior? I
say they are superior because they ARE
superior! I think that there is no
question about the expertise and ability
of the translators who gave us our KJV.
The new version people often say that
the KJV translators were rather ignorant
and didn't know as much about
translating as the "translators/paraphrasers"
of today. This is not only prideful, but
completely false. Their linguistic
qualifications are unequaled!
The
accomplishments of Lancelot Andrews.
Let's mention Dr. Lancelot Andrews. He
was certainly a superior KJV translator.
He had mastered fifteen languages.
Someone said that if Dr. Andrews had
been present at the confusion of tongues
at the tower of Babel, he could have
served as interpreter general. I don't
know any of the modern "translator/paraphrasers"
who have mastered fifteen languages, do
you? Send me their names, if you have
proof of this.
The
acumen of William Bedwell. How about Dr.
William Bedwell? He was famed in Arabic
learning. I don't know how many of these
new men who are
"translating/paraphrasing" for
these modern versions and perversions
who have studied as much of the Arabic
language as he had. In fact, he
published in quarto, an edition of the
Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a
Latin version. I don't know how many men
today could do that. Dr. Bedwell left
many Arabic manuscripts in the
University of Cambridge, with numerous
notes and a font of types for printing
them. In fact, he wrote an Arabic
lexicon, or dictionary, in three
volumes. He also began a Persian
dictionary which is among Archbishop
Laud's manuscripts, still preserved in
the Bodleian Library at Oxford today. I
don't think anyone among our modern
"translators/paraphrasers" of
today has done this or could do this! Do
you know any of these men who have
written an Arabic dictionary and begun a
Persian dictionary, or done anything
similar in the scholarly world that will
even come close to the accomplishments
of William Bedwell? If so, send me their
names and the proof. In our day, many
people watch too much television. They
attend too many football games, baseball
games. and basketball games. We are
ignoramuses today compared to the
scholars who gave us our KJV!
The
acceptability of Miles Smith. Look at
the acceptability of Dr. Miles Smith. He
was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in
Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost
as familiar to him as his native tongue.
Dr. Smith went through both the Greek
and Latin church Fathers, making
annotations on them all.
The
activities of Henry Savile. Sir Henry
Saville was proficient in both Greek and
mathematics. He became tutor in these
two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. I don't
know how many queens or kings our modern
"translators/paraphrasers"
have tutored, do you? Saville translated
the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and
published the same with notes. He
published, from the manuscripts, the
writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius,
the Writers of English History
Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on
the Elements of Euclid. He was the first
to edit the complete works of Chrysostom,
the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He
was a profound, and exact scholar.
The
academics of John Bois. John Bois was
expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. He
studied at his father's knee. In fact,
at the age of five, he had read the
whole Bible IN HEBREW!! At the age of
six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew
in a clear and elegant style. If you
know anything about the Hebrew letters,
it's difficult to write in an elegant
style, or in any style, for that matter.
Much more could be said about John Bois.
The
superior translators in general. Have
you ever heard of Gulliver's Travels? It
tells of Gulliver's adventures with the
inhabitants of Lilliput. Do you remember
what the Lilliputians did to poor
Gulliver? They were tiny, tiny people,
and Gulliver was like a giant to them.
While he was asleep, they tied up
Gulliver with tiny cords so he couldn't
move. I liken the KJV translators to the
giant Gulliver and the
"translators/paraphrasers" of
today to tiny Lilliputians. It states in
Ge. 6:4: "There were GIANTS in the
earth in those days…" It was true
also from 1604 to 1611, when these
profound scholars gave us our
incomparable King James Bible! They had
mastered English as well as the
Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. They also knew
the cognate or brother-sister- cousin
related languages that shed light on the
Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek such as the
Aramaic, the Arabic, the Persian, the
Coptic, the Syriac, and the others. When
the modern "translators/paraphrasers"
come upon a word they don't understand,
they throw up their hands in dismay. The
KJV translators did not meet with such
difficulty because they knew the cognate
languages so well that they could unlock
such mysteries. Our modern
"translators/paraphrasers" are
linguistically illiterate when compared
to the men who gave us our KJV. They
truly were "GIANTS"!!
#3:
THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR
TECHNIQUE. The third reason for
defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is
because it has superior technique of
translation. This correctly implies that
the various versions and perversions of
the Bible have inferior technique of
translation.
The
KJV translators used the superior
technique of verbal equivalence and
formal equivalence--not dynamic
equivalence. The modern versions and
perversions have used, to a greater or
lesser degree, the inferior technique of
dynamic equivalence and have disdained
both verbal and formal equivalence.
Alleged
exceptions.
1.
"God Forbid." Some people
allege that the KJB translators used
dynamic equivalence in their expression
"God forbid." Even if it were
the case (and I do not accept that it
is), it is found only fourteen times in
the New Testament: Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15;
7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga.
2:17; 3:21; 6:14. It is a rendering of
"mE genoito" which is
"may it not be" or "let
it not be." This is perfect 1611
parlance for "God forbid." It
was quite literal in 1611. If you don't
believe it, consult the Oxford English
Dictionary which gives you the meaning
of "God forbid" in 1611. It is
found only seven times in the O.T.: Ge.
44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:23;
1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5. It is a rendering
of "chalal" which is "may
it be something profane" or
"may it be far from me."
Again, "God forbid" is a
perfect 1611- parlance for the Hebrew
words used.
2.
"God Save the King." Another
favorite allegation of dynamic
equivalency in the KJV is the expression
"God save the king." Even if
it were the case (and I do not accept
that it is), it is only found four times
in the O.T.: 1 Sa. 10:24; 2 Sa. 16:16; 2
Ki. 11:12; 2 Ch. 23:11. It means
"may the king live long" or
"may the king be preserved or
safe." Well, if the king lives
long, he is "saved" is he not?
[Editor: The term "salvation"
was used in a much broader sense in past
centuries.] So why not let the 1611-
parlance of "God save the
king" alone? The fact is that such
examples are very, very few in the KJV,
whereas they abound in the modern
versions and perversions because in
those, the dynamic equivalent technique
is the rule rather than the exception.
The
King James Bible's verbal and formal
equivalence. The KJV basically uses the
technique of verbal equivalence and
formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence
means that the very words, wherever
possible, are brought over from Hebrew
into English and from Greek into
English. The KJV also uses the technique
of formal equivalence, that is, the
translators brought over, wherever
possible, the very forms of the Hebrew
and Greek words into English. They
didn't transform the grammar. They
didn't take a noun and make a verb out
of it. They brought a verb into a verb
and a noun into a noun wherever
possible. They were skilled craftsmen
who had a proper concept of what
"translation" really is. It
comes from translatus which in turn
comes from two Latin words, trans
("across") and latus which is
the past participle of fero ("to
carry"). It means to "carry
across" from one place to another,
or from one language to another. It does
not seek to CHANGE, or to ADD, or to
SUBTRACT!
Let
me illustrate "translation."
If I have my wife's pocketbook and I
want to translate it from one side of
the church to the other, I would simply
pick it up, take it across the aisle,
and put it on the other side of the
church. I wouldn't leave any of it
behind, even though there may be some
things in it I wouldn't want to take
over. I wouldn't add anything to it, and
I wouldn't drop any of it in the center
aisle. Now that's translation,
translatus. That's what the KJV
translators did. They just simply took
the Hebrew words and put them into
English. They picked up the Greek words
and put them into English. That's
translation. That's the superior
technique.
The
modern versions' use of dynamic
equivalence. I have a computer print-out
research of three of these modern
versions--the New King James, the New
American Standard, and the New
International. When compared to the
Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the
New King James Version had over 2,000
examples of dynamic equivalency, that
is, adding to, subtracting from, or
changing the Words of God. In a similar
study of the New American Standard
Version, I found over 4,000 such
examples. In a similar study of the New
International Version I found over 6,653
such examples.
What
is meant by dynamic equivalency?
"Dynamic" means "moving
or changing."
"Equivalence" means "the
same or unchanging." You can't have
it both ways! It is either changing or
unchanging. Those who use this erroneous
technique in the various
"translations/paraphrases"
think it's a great technique. The bottom
line for such a technique is that it
gives a human being the right to ADD to
God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT
from God's Words (which is sin), or to
CHANGE God's Words (which is sin). God
pronounces the strongest possible CURSE
on anyone who dares to do any of those
three things to God's Words!! Those who
use this false technique are really
paraphrasing rather than translating.
Paraphrase comes from two Greek words,
para ("along side or beside")
and phrasis ("a word or
phrase"). It means to use a word or
phrase that is along side of the real
meaning. It is to state something in
other words. We should seek, as the KJV
translators sought, to put into English
the exact and accurate meaning of the
Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather
than to give something that is
"beside" or "along side
of" the word or phrase.
#4:
THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR
THEOLOGY. The fourth reason for
defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is
because it has superior theology. This
correctly implies that the various
versions and perversions of the Bible
have inferior theology.
Some
denials that theology is affected by
Greek or English versions. It is said by
those who use the new versions and
perversions of the Bible that there is
no difference in any of them when it
comes to theology. It is also said that
there is no difference in any of the
Greek texts in the matter of theology.
This is even said by those who are
looked up to as Bible believing leaders.
There are two phases of their
theological denial:
(1)
These men believe that the Greek textual
variants between the two basic Greek
texts do not affect theology or
doctrine. They believe that the false
Westcott and Hort Greek text (when
compared to the Greek text of the KJV)
contains nothing that is theologically
deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This
is false.
(2)
These men also believe that the modern
English versions do not contain changes
from the KJV that affect theology or
doctrine. They believe that you can take
any modern English version you wish and
when you compare it to the KJV, that
version does not have anything in it
that is theologically deficient or
doctrinally incorrect. This is also
false.
Dr.
John R. Rice stated: "The
differences in the translations are so
minor, so insignificant, that we can be
sure not a single doctrine, not a single
statement of fact, not a single command
or exhoratation, has been missed in our
translations." (meaning the English
Revised Version of 1881 or the American
Standard Ver- sion of 1901)
This
statement is clearly false. It is not
true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote:
"The rare parts about which there
is still uncertainty do not effect [sic]
in any way any doctrine." This is
false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert
L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in
his California Seminary, wrote: "No
major doctrine of scripture is affected
by a variant reading." False,
again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: "No
doctrine is affected." False again.
Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a
few outstanding problems remain, and
these do not affect doctrine or divine
command to us." False again. Dr.
Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important
differences of textual readings are
relatively few and almost none would
affect any major Christian
doctrine." False again!
Some
examples of theology that is affected by
Greek and English versions. I have given
158 examples of the theological
superiority of the KJV in my book. I
selected these from Dr. Jack Moorman's
compilation of a total of 356 doctrinal
passages that have been changed in the
Egyptian heretical Greek texts of
"B" (Vatican),
"Aleph" (Sinai), and others.
I'll give you some examples of doctrines
that are affected by these false Greek
texts and new versions.
1.
John 3:15. "That whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but
have eternal life."
2. Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example
is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are
gone: "Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched".
Because
"B" (Vatican) and
"Aleph" (Sinai) remove both
verses, so does the NKJV in the
footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting
them in brackets); and so does the NIV.
So do the other modern versions and
perversions. In so doing, they take away
the fires of hell. Is this not a major
doctrine? [Editor: While it is true that
verse 48 is retained in this passage in
the modern versions, the power and
authority is weakened by two- thirds.
The God- honored Received Text says
Jesus repeated this statement three
times to emphasize the horrors of going
to hell. The critical text removes two
of these statements, thus weakening the
force of the doctrine.]
When
you take the "literal fire"
out of hell, as many new- evangelicals
and (and even some fundamentalists) have
done, and as all of the apostates have
done, and as Mary Baker Eddy and all
false cults have done, you are in
serious trouble and in grievous
doctrinal error! For centuries, many
have removed the fire out of hell even
though the KJV keeps it in. Now these
false Egyptian Greek texts and the false
English perversions will assist them in
their heresy of a "fireless
hell"!
3.
John 6:47. Let me see if you can
accurately lead a soul to Christ using
exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the
new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV,
where the Lord Jesus declared:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that believeth on me hath everlasting
life."
That
verse is as clear as a bell, on how to
receive "everlasting life."
But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text,
following the "B" (Vatican)
and "Aleph" (Sinai)
manuscripts, takes out those two vital
and precious words, "on me."
Because of their reliance on these false
Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also
removes "on me." So does the
NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes.
So do the other modern versions and
perversions. If you're trying to lead a
soul to Christ with those new versions
and perversions, using Jn. 6:47
exclusively, you'll never lead them to
Christ, because "on me"
(Christ) is gone from that verse in
their perversions! All they say is
something like this: "Whoever
believes has everlasting life."
Believes what? Their verse doesn't say.
Their verse merely says
"believes." According to these
perversions of John 6:47, if I were to
believe in atheism, Christ promises me
everlasting life. The same if I believe
in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or
the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or
in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in
Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism,
Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else!
That's major false doctrine in my
judgement, and it stems directly from
false Greek texts and false English
perversions!
4.
Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the
accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed
of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth; to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek."
The
heretical Greek texts of "B"
(Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai)
remove the two words, "of
Christ" in this verse. Because of
this, the NIV also removes these words.
So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in
the footnotes. So do the other modern
versions and perversions. This certainly
is doctrine. "Gospel" means
"good news" or a "good
announcement." What
"gospel" could be inserted
there instead of the "gospel of
Christ"? Was it the good news about
a pay raise? Was it the good news about
a new car, a new hat, or a new house?
No! It's the gospel or good news about
Christ. That's doctrine! That's
theology!
5.
John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a
liar? If you believe the false Greek
text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and
some of the versions, He was. Note Jn.
7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I
go not up yet unto this feast; for my
time is not yet full come."
According
to the Greek text "Aleph"
(Sinai), the word "yet" must
be removed. The NASV omits it also. So
does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do
some other modern versions and
perversions. Why do I say this removal
of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus
Christ out to be a liar? Because He went
up to the feast in question. If He told
his brethren that He was NOT going up to
the feast, and then later went up to
that feast, He would have told a lie,
would He not? This certainly is a major
theological doctrine. As in all of the
other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV
has superior theology here. The
perversions are inferior in their
theology and doctrine! Stay away from
them!
Concluding
remarks: I believe that in the King
James Bible we have the Word of God kept
intact in English. I believe we should
defend the KJV for four reasons: (1) It
|
