does bible version matter?

8/9/2019 Does Bible Version Matter?

1/41

E. Arbuthnot, 2005


2/41

- 2 -


3/41

- 3 -

Foreword

This paper was written for the PCC of St. Cuthberts Church, Philbeach Gardens, Earls Court.

The church, which features prominently in Simon JenkinssEnglands Best 1000 Churches,

and is Grade II* Listed, has been described as the Anglo-Catholic Cathedral, for which

purpose it was set up, a heritage to which it has been true in some respects but perhaps not in

all.

A decision taken some 25 years ago to change from the Authorised Version of the Bible to the

Revised Standard Version for readings in public worship may have been made in ignorance of

the facts. Most of the members of the PCC are extremely busy. We are privileged to have ahigh proportion of academics in the church, but that gives us also the responsibility to present

arguments briefly, simply and clearly for those with a wide variety of intellectual capacities

and interests. I therefore aimed initially to present the arguments in two or three pages, hence

the synopsis. But the meat had gone, so, for what it is worth, I offer a more substantial

paper, replete with footnotes and Bibliography. For one who can spare the time, the footnotes

will reward study; they are simply removed from the text for ease of reading and as another

help to those who already have too much to read.

The argument is essentially that the orthodox Anglo-Catholic view is to go with the King

James Version of the Bible, and that all the modern versions are greatly inferior, based on

unsound textual and translational principles, on texts compiled by men who, by their ownadmission, dabbled in the occult. The RSV subtly implies that the Lord Jesus is not divine,

which is of profound importance. Unless the PCC is aware of the dangers, people will be

making another decision blind, so to speak.

In using the RSV as our version of choice we may not only be encouraging people into error,

but setting a profoundly bad example to the nation and I believe that, being the sort of church

we are, we have a responsibility to lead the nation, not to follow the trends. I have argued

elsewhere1that churches, like individuals, are gifted and called to a particular task, to a

particular ministry, which we must find and fulfil. The more I have studied the subject of

Bible versions, the more significant, the more important, I believe it is and the greater our

responsibility to make the right choice.

Elizabeth Arbuthnot,

June 2005.

1The Wobblymans Toycupboard, 1987


4/41

- 4 -

Acknowledgements

Over the decades, I have scribbled notes in my King James Bible, on scraps of paper, and on

sundry computers, and frequently have not recorded the source of the thought. The notes may

have come from sermons, from something heard on the radio, from snippets of conversations

with friends, from a whole variety of sources, and I confess that I have been remiss in not

having sourced them properly. If you are among those to whom I am indebted for a thought

or a comment, please accept my grateful thanks and my apologies for my failure to

acknowledge your contribution.

Naming individuals can become invidious, but I know that it was the Revd. David Smith who,

in the early 1980s, put into my hands a book containing the original letters of Scrivener,

Westcott and Hort, and who gave me a substantive basis for my instinctive commitment to the

Textus Receptus. To him I shall be eternally grateful. Denis Clark had already taught me the

importance of reading the Bible through, from cover to cover, at least once a year. My debt to

him and to his wife, Beth, is inestimable, not for that alone, but for much wise insight, and a

great deal more besides.

I am also very grateful to those who were kind enough to read this paper in draft and to make

constructive suggestions. In particular, John Campbell and Charles Hillman have both been

extremely helpful.


5/41

- 5 -

Does Bible version matter?

Synopsis

Introduction

Bible version only matters if the Bible itself matters. It does. The Bible is fundamental to

our faith, the source of our revelation, inspiration, doctrine and devotion. The question is

whether all translations of the Bible are equally authoritative. If not every version is of equal

validity, it is important to choose a translation as close as possible to the original. Newer

versions of the Bible are based on erroneous texts and therefore not of equal authority to the

King James Version. The translators of the Authorised Version had a scholarship unsurpassed

to this day. They gave us a literal translation, rather than the dynamic equivalence of modern

versions, and they came from a position of doctrinal orthodoxy, while the doctrine in many of

the modern versions is at best questionable. A church which wants to preserve the faith oncedelivered to the saints should therefore value the King James Version very highly indeed.

I Texts

A Old Testament (mainly Hebrew) texts

The traditional Hebrew text from which the KJV was translated is very close, if not identical,

to the original. Its highly-trained scribes are meticulous and reverent in the copying and

recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. Later translations of the Bible use the Biblia Hebraica,

which has about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the Old Testament text.

As well as using an inaccurate basic text, modern translations attempt to correct the Hebrew

Text in many different ways, by rejecting the time-honoured theological approach in favour of

the rationalist, which makes no distinction between the text of the Bible and that of a purely

human book. Changing the Hebrew text means changing the Word of God. The Bible itself

says that that is a very serious thing to do, and that we must not.

B New Testament (Greek) texts

The Greek text underlying the Authorized Version New Testament is the Textus Receptus.

The text underlying modern versions is based upon two inferior manuscripts, described as

corrupt and contradictory. The text used for the RSV is edited by Drs. Westcott and Hort,

two of the founding members of an occult society named The Ghostly Guild, the object of

which was to classify authenticated instances of what are now called psychic phenomena.

Their orthodoxy is seriously in doubt. Hort found the doctrine of substitutionary atonement

most unacceptable to the extent that he said, I do not see how Gods justice can be

satisfied without every mans suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins. He

denied the doctrine of eternal punishment of the unbeliever. He described Negro slaves as an

immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more, their religion frothy and sensuous, their

highest virtues those of a good Newfoundland dog. They both prided themselves on treating

the text of the New Testament as they would that of any other book, making little or nothing of

inspiration and providence.


6/41

- 6 -

Antiquity alone does not determine authenticity. Heretical texts were in circulation even

during the New Testament period, causing severe confusion in some case. Indeed, some of

the epistles were written precisely to counter the arguments of the Gnostics and others. At no

time in the history of the Church has there been a lack of those bold enough to tamper with the

true text.

II Translators

A Authorised Version Translators

The men who translated the Authorised Version of the Bible were scholars of an order not

found in the last or the present centuries. They based their translation of the Hebrew text on

insights developed by Rabbi David Kimchi.

B Revised Standard Version Translators

Some of the translators of the RSV do not acknowledge fundamental Bible doctrines, such asthe Deity of Christ, His Pre-existence, His Virgin Birth, His Atoning Sacrifice and present

intercession in Heaven. At least one of them would not claim to be a Christian at all.

III Technique

Most modern Bible translations are not translations in the literal sense of the word, but

dynamic equivalents. Unlike many of todays translators, the authorized KJV translators let

us know which words they had to add in translating in order to give the full meaning of the

original text.

IV Theology

The theology of all the new translations is questionable. The RSVs modernism and Unitarian

bias appear throughout.

V Language

The unique linguistic beauty of the Authorised Version of the Bible is self-evident. Its

language was self-explanatory, not the English of the early 17th century, not a type of English

ever spoken anywhere. Biblical English has never been used on ordinary occasions, even by

the translators who produced the King James Version. The King James Bible contains

hundreds more words than modern versions, yet nobody could call it verbose. In language aswell as text, the King James Version is still far superior to any other English translation of the

Bible, which is why it is normally accepted in preference to all other translations. It is still the

easiest to read of all the translations available.

VI Our national heritage

The Authorised Version of the Bible has been formative in our national culture. Without a

knowledge of the Authorised Version of the Bible, much of our modern idiom is unintelligible.

Even where the sense is self-evident, a knowledge of the context enriches and enhances. Even

in the limited context of our own congregation, most of us are cradle Christians, brought up

on the Authorised Version of the Bible. It is the version we learned by heart in childhood, the

version with which we feel most comfortable.


7/41

- 7 -

VII Signs of the Times

If, indeed, we are living in the last days, if, indeed, a one-world religion is on the horizon, we

can expect times of persecution, times when it is essential that we know our God, that we know

what He wants of us, that we have effective tools to recognise and to stand against the wiles of

the devil.

VIII Some side-effects of using a modern translation

Three negative effects of using a modern translation are:

(1)the life-style of those who go to churches which use one;

(2)the absence of true spiritual revival associated with any modern translation;

(3)the unfortunate impression given to those outside the faith.

IX Conclusion

Of the United Kingdoms four most popular Bible translations, the King James Version has

stood the test of centuries. It is self-explanatory, and has power, the power of the Holy Spirit

of the Living God, power to change us, power to live by. Its superiority over all other English

translations is manifest, the texts from which it was translated are authoritative, and it is the

closest a non-Hebrew speaker or non-Greek speaker will find to the original. It has the power

to bring people into a meaningful relationship with their Maker, to keep us from error, and to

use as a sword in the days to come. Its undoubted linguistic beauty, its place in our national

heritage, its cultural significance, are self-evident.

Modern versions are untrustworthy, and can lead Christians astray. Those who prefer aversion based on the Critical Text maintain that there is no final, absolute, written authority of

God anywhere on earth, but faith in an inerrant and preserved Bible is a mark of true Christian

faith. Preference for modern translations, based on inferior texts, is often regarded as sectarian

in orthodox circles.

For all these reasons, when choosing a Bible to be read either in church or in private study, the

Authorized King James Version is the right one, the only authoritative one, the only one in

which we can be sure to find truth and safety. Other versions are useful to glean the story line,

to read on the tube/metro/subway, but not for instruction in righteousness, not for our daily

meditations, not for those who may have no habitual daily access to a Bible in their own

homes. No modern version can be said to be the Word of the Lord, as we are required to sayin our liturgy.

Appendix:

A sample of Westcott and Horts omissions from the Gospels of the Textus Receptus


8/41

- 8 -


9/41

- 9 -

Does Bible version matter?

Contents:

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Synopsis

Introduction

I Texts



II Translators


B Revised Standard Version Translators

III Technique

IV Theology

V Language

VI Our national heritage

VII Signs of the Times

VIII Some side-effects of using a modern translation

IX Conclusion

Appendix

Selected Bibliography


10/41

- 10 -


11/41


12/41

- 12 -

The Old Testament authors want us to know that the LORD is God, which will result from our

telling our children of the miracles in Egypt16; that the LORD puts a difference between the

Egyptians and Israel17; that the LORD is the One Who sanctifies us18; the way by which we

must go19; that there is a judgment20; that the LORD is our Creator God21; that His words

shall surely stand for evil against those who burn incense to the

queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her22, and

finally, to know the righteousness of the LORD23.

Most, if not all, of these things we can only know by dint of

exploring the written word of the Living God. He has given us

His Word as a manual, similar to the manufacturers handbook

we receive with a new car or kitchen appliance. We know

how we were built to operate by virtue of His Word. If our

salvation depends on our trusting the Lord Jesus Christ, then

surely God must have left us an infallible record telling us Who Jesus Christ is, and how we

may believe in Him.

Facts are the temporal truths which God, the eternal Truth, establishes by His works of creation

and providence. In the facts of nature, God reveals Himself as the almighty Creator God, in

the facts of Scripture God reveals Himself as the faithful Covenant God, and in the facts of the

Gospel God reveals Himself as the triune Saviour God. Certainty is our clear perception of

the revealed facts. Probability is our dimmer perception of the less clearly revealed facts.

Error is at best a misunderstanding, or at worst, rejection of the facts, especially of Gods

revelation of Himself in and through those facts.

Facts are never neutral. We choose which facts to consider, which to accept, and the basis on

which to make that choice. All facts are temporal truths, which God establishes by His works

of creation and providence. We must not attempt to force the facts into an allegedly neutralframework, but should interpret them in accordance with the divine Truth, Gods revelation of

Himself in the pages of Holy Scripture. When we do this, the consistency of believing thought

and the inconsistency of unbelieving thought become evident in the realm of Bible textual

criticism.

Some maintain that new findings of ancient documents make it necessary to update the basic

texts. On the other hand, if we believed that true readings of the Biblical text have been

hiding in papyri for centuries, enclosed in pots, waiting for discovery, our faith would always

be wavering24. God has not preserved the Biblical text in secret25, but publicly in the usage of

His Church and in the Traditional Text and the Textus Receptus which reflect this usage.

The question at issue is whether all translations of the Bible are equally authoritative for

revelation, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness26. If not all

16Ex. 10:2; Ezek. 20:20

17Ex 11:7

18Ex 31:13

19Josh 3:4

20Job 19:29

21Is 43:10

22Jer 44:25-29

23Micah 6:5

24Jas. 1:6-825

Deut. 29:2926

II Tim. 3:16


13/41

- 13 -

versions are equally valid, it is surely important to choose a translation as close as possible to

the original. This paper will demonstrate that the newer versions of the Bible are based on

erroneous texts and therefore not of authority equal to the King James Version. The

translators of the Authorised Version had a scholarship unsurpassed to this day, vastly superior

to the skills of later translators. They gave us a literal translation, rather than the dynamic

equivalence of modern versions, and they came from a position of doctrinal orthodoxy, while

the doctrine in many of the modern versions is at best questionable. For all these reasons, a

church which wants to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints27should value the King

James Version very highly indeed. No other version can be said to be the Word of the Lord

in the same way, as even the Jewish people acknowledge.

I Texts


The Hebrew people were given the task of being custodians of

the Bible28. From earliest times, they have always taken this

task extremely seriously29. Asepher torah, the hand-written

parchment30scroll from which the Bible portion is read in

synagogue each week, takes about a year to complete, and costs

between 30,000 and 40,000. The scribe who writes it is very

highly trained, and has to obey strict Talmudic rules in

copying31, so that the text is exact, not simply word for word but

letter for letter, in exactly the same place on the page and in the

line as that which he is copying.32 The scribes are meticulous

and reverent in the copying and recopying of our Hebrewmanuscripts; they bathe before and afterwards, dress in full

Jewish garb, and if they make a mistake they take the rest of the

day off (and, depending on the nature of the mistake, can start

that section of the parchment all over again).

27Jude 3

28Rom. 3:1,2; Ps. 147:19

29Deut. 31:24-26

30The word parchment comes from the name Pergamum, the Biblical city in Asia Minor. The skins of sheep,

goats, antelope and other animals were at one time shaved and scraped there in preparation for use as a durable

writing material (FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)31

Only the skins of clean animals were to be used; each skin must contain the same number of columns; there

were to be no fewer than forty-eight and no more than sixty lines; black ink was to be prepared according to a

particular recipe; no word or letter was to be written from memory, but the scribe must first look at the codex

from which he is copying; between each consonant there must be the space of a hair or a thread; between each

parashah(the section read each week) there must be a space of nine consonants; if so much as a letter was

omitted, or wrongly inserted, or even if one letter touched another, the sheet had to be destroyed; three mistakes

on a page meant the whole manuscript was condemned and had to be buried; and revision of the copy had to take

place within 30 days, otherwise it had to be rejected. A manuscript surviving this process could hardly be

anything but amazingly accurate. (Samuel Davidson, in The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, says that a

condemned manuscript could be burned if not buried, but this is not right; Orthodox Jews, and even observant

Reform Jews, will never burn or otherwise destroy any document, even a piece of paper, on which is written the

Tetragrammaton. All such pieces of paper have to be given a funeral service. In order to avoid this, a number of

euphemisms are used for the Holy Name in everyday life, even inserting extraneous characters when writing it.)32

Since the texts were first written they have been copied in the same way, and the method continues to this day.


14/41

- 14 -

The traditional Masoretic Hebrew text from which the KJV was translated is certainly very

close, if not identical, to the original text. The Letteris text, printed in 1866, has the

Masoretic Hebrew text in the centre and the King James Bible in the margins, thus in

presentation resembling Talmud to some extent. Later translations of the Bible do not use this

text, but use the Biblia Hebraica, which has between fifteen and twenty suggested changes per

page, adding up to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text.

I do not propose to present all the arguments for what used to be called higher criticism of the

Old Testament texts. Suffice it to say that were its contentions true, the authors of

Deuteronomy and some of the other foundational books would have been guilty of fraud,

which a holy God could never sanction. Archaeological discoveries of the last century have

shown that many of the premises of the schools of higher criticism were false33. The Lord

Jesus Himself named Moses explicitly as the author of the Pentateuch34. However, the

editors of the texts underlying the modern translations held a different view. History

demonstrates that the logic of naturalistic textual criticism leads to complete modernism, hence

to a sceptical approach to the Christian faith.

As well as using an inaccurate basic text, modern translations attempt to correct the Hebrew

Text in at least nineteen different ways35. The principle on which they made these changes

was by rejecting the time-honoured theological approach in favour of the rationalist, which

makes no distinction between the text of the Bible and that of a purely human book36.

Denying the common faith and Gods special providence by which the texts had been

preserved through the ages, they handled the Biblical text in a secular, humanistic way,

thinking of the scribes who copied the manuscripts rather than of the original inspired authors.

By noticing all the various ways in which these scribes could have made mistakes, they

thought they could detect false readings and thereby arrive at the true reading by a process of

elimination. The Bible tells us that without faith it isimpossible to please him: for he that

cometh to God must believe that he is, and thathe is a rewarder of them that diligently seekhim.37 It is crucial, therefore, to take as our base-line a version of the Bible which uses a

faith-based, authoritative original text.

33in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the nineteenth

century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority (Kenyon, The

Bible and Archaeology)34

Matt. 8:4; 19:8; 23:2; Mk. 1:44; 7:10; 10:3,4; 12:26; Lk. 5:14; 16:29-31; 20:37; 24:27,44; Jn. 1:17;

3:14; 5:45,46; 6:32; 7:19-2335

Sometimes they take Origens Septuagint (LXX) reading instead, although it is acknowledged that the LXX is

an inferior Greek translation of the original Hebrew. (The Original Preface to the Authorized Version of 1611

says, The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for

perspicuity, gravity, majesty ) When they have no textual proof at all, sometimes the translators use

conjecture. When this is done, they often print in the footnote an L which stands for legendum. Some

correct the Hebrew with the Syriac Version; some with just a few Hebrew manuscripts rather than the entire

Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text; some with the Dead Sea Scrolls; some use quotations from Jerome to

correct the Hebrew text; some use Josephus, a non-Christian Jew, to correct the Hebrew; some use a variant

Hebrew Reading in the margin; some use words in the consonantal text divided differently; some use

quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Symmachus, the Hebrew Targums, Theodotion, the

Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms to correct the Hebrew text; 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.36

Josh McDowell has demonstrated the uniqueness of the Bible in its subject-matter, its continuity, its circulation,

the number of its translations, its survival, its historicity, its prophecies, its personalities, its teachings and its

influence on literature (Evidence that Demands a Verdict). It was even the first book to be taken into outer

space (on microfilm). It is like no other, and should not be treated like any other.37

Heb. 11:6


15/41

- 15 -

Changing the Hebrew text means changing the Word of God. The Bible itself says that that is

a very serious thing to do, and that we must not38.


Since the 18th century, the New Testament documents have been divided into families,

according to the type of text which they contain. The most significant are the Western family,

the Alexandrian family, and the Traditional (Byzantine) family. The Western family consists

of those New Testament documents which contain that form of text quoted by some of the

Western Church Fathers, especially Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian39. The Alexandrian

family consists of those New Testament documents which contain that form of text which was

used by Origen in some of his writings40, and also by other Church Fathers who, like Origen,

lived at Alexandria.41 The Traditional (Byzantine) family includes all those New Testament

documents which contain the Traditional (Byzantine) text. This

text-type is associated with the city of Antioch in Syria. After

Stephens death, Christians from Jerusalem fled to this city and

began to preach the Gospel to the Greeks there

42

. A strongchurch came into being, largely through the ministries of

Barnabas and Paul43. From this church the apostle started on

each of his missionary journeys44. Other apostles visited the

place, including the apostle Peter45, so that Antioch soon became

the mother city of Gentile churches. After the fall of Jerusalem

in 70 AD, it became the undisputed centre of Christianity. A

text from Antioch would be the text approved by the apostles

and the early Christian Church. Not surprisingly,

approximately 90% of the Greek New Testament manuscripts

belong to this family. The New Testament quotations of

Chrysostom and the other Fathers of Antioch and Asia Minor46

seem generally to agree with the Traditional text.

38e.g. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18,19; Prov. 30:6; Mk. 8:38; I Cor. 2:13; II Cor. 2:17

39Sir Frederic Kenyon described it as a type of text characterised by very free departures from the true tradition.

Paucity of manuscript support, along with a multitude of distinctive readings, renders this text-type at best

questionable, at worst wholly unreliable.40

It was Origen who said, for instance, that Christ was a created God (New Standard Encyclopaedia, p. 154)41

Until the late 1800s, the Alexandrian texts were utterly rejected by orthodox Christians (Samuel Gipp ThD,An

Understandable History of the Bible,p.69) We have no indication that there was ever an apostolic presence in

Alexandria, but church history reveals that many notorious heretics, including such Gnostics as Basilides, Isidore,

and Valentinus, lived and taught there. Even in New Testament times, the apostles experienced trouble from the

Alexandrians (Acts 6:9), and those born there who wanted to grow in God would leave and go elsewhere (e.g.

Acts 18:24).42

Acts 11:19,2043

Acts 11:22-2644

Acts 13:1-3; 15:35,36; 18:22,2345

Gal. 2:11,1246

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (130-200 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), Tertullian (160-

220 AD), Hippolytus (170-236 AD), and even Origen (185-254 AD) quote repeatedly from the Byzantine text.

(The saint depicted will easily be recognized as St. Chrysostom.) The Anglo-Catholic Prebendary Edward

Miller, after classifying the citations in the Greek and Latin Fathers who died before 400 AD, found that their

quotations supported the Byzantine text 2,630 times and other texts only 1,753 times. He concluded that The

original predominance of the Traditional Text is shown in the list of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that

in their writings, and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the

pure waters generally prevailed ... The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers who

succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is continuous. (Edward Miller in The Antiquity of


16/41

- 16 -

The Greek text underlying the Authorized Version New Testament is the Textus Receptus47,

first printed in 1516 under the editorship of Erasmus48, possibly the most learned scholar of his

generation, who dedicated it to Pope Leo X. He even refused a cardinals hat in order to carry

on this important work. In his day, it was commonly believed by well-informed Christians

that the original New Testament text had been preserved by God in the current New Testament

text, primarily in the current Greek text. If God has inspired the Holy Scriptures infallibly (as

indeed He has49), He would not have left their survival to chance, but would have preserved

them in a public way in the usage of His Church through the centuries.

Erasmus, familiar from his portrait (left), was influenced by this

common faith, and probably shared it. Through his study of the

writings of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers, he was very well

informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text.

Almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today

were known to Erasmus, and discussed in the notes which he placed

after the text. His edition of the text is the only form in which theTraditional Text, found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts, has

circulated in print. It reliably represents their readings. This was the

text accepted in the nineteenth century by Dean J. W. Burgon,

Prebendary F.H.A. Scrivener, and Prebendary Edward Miller. These

conservative New Testament textual critics were Anglo-Catholics.

Being high Anglicans, they recognized only three ecclesiastical bodies as true Christian

churches, namely, the Greek Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican

Church, in which they themselves officiated. Only these three communions had the apostolic

succession. All other denominations these high Anglicans dismissed as mere sects.50

The text underlying modern versions is a text based upon two greatly inferior manuscripts, ofthe Alexandrian family, Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph), described as corrupt and

contradictory.51 The evidence shows that the Alexandrian text was never dominant, even in

the Traditional Text, in John William Burgon,The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and

Established,p.121.)47

The term itself was first used to refer to the edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevirs more

than a century later, in 1633. The preface to this edition, written by Daniel Heinsius, includes the Latin phrasetextum ... receptum. This term has been expanded to include numerous editions of the Greek New Testament

which come from the same Byzantine textual family representing the majority of the handwritten Greek

manuscripts before the 16th century. Approximately thirty distinct editions of the Textus Receptus were made

over the years, each differing slightly from the others although not significantly; the variations seldom affect the

sense of the text. One of the most important editions of the Textus Receptus is the Beza edition of 1598. This

edition, in addition to the Stephens 1550 and 1551 editions, was used as the Greek basis of the Authorised

Version of 1611. Beza collated and used numerous Greek manuscripts and printed editions in his work, and

incorporated Jeromes Latin Vulgate and his own Latin and Greek text along with textual annotations.48

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469?-1536), described as the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever at

work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing,

writing and publishing. 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. He

classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers. (Quoted inIs the King James Version Nearest to the

Original Autographs?by David Otis Fuller)49

II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19-21; I Cor. 14:37; Lk. 24:27,4450

Samuel Gipp ThD, The King James Version Defended51

When examined by Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, Codex Aleph was described as roughly written and full of gross

transcriptural blunders such as leaving out whole lines of the original. Codex B, although less faulty, was

found to be liable to err, committing errors of the most palpable character. (F.H.A. Scrivener,Six Lectures on

the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 41,43.) These and other documents were


17/41

- 17 -

Egypt where heresies were rampant in the early years of the Church52. Clement never used it;

Origen used it only some of the time. Clearly it is wrong to suppose that the Alexandrian text

enjoyed an official status that would keep it pure53.

The text used for the RSV is edited by Drs. Westcott54and Hort55. These two supposedly

conservative Anglicans were founding members of an occult society named The Ghostly

Guild,56the object of which was to classify authenticated instances of what are now called

psychic phenomena57. Hort, brought up in an evangelical home, was also a member of a

society called The Mysterious Company of the Apostles ... He remained always a grateful and

loyal member of the secret club ... He was mainly responsible for the wording of the oath that

binds the members to a conspiracy of silence. Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a

sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world, before we deal with matters likely

to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text [referring to the Westcott & Hort text Ed.]issued

by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have

great difficulty in finding its way into regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and

whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.58On 23rdDecember 1846

Westcott had written: My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we mustbelieve; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.59 Two years

later, he wrote, I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its

improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.60 On Advent Sunday

that year, he wrote, All stigmatise him [a Dr. Hampden Ed.] as a heretic,...I thought

myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his

writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very

strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If

he be condemned, what will become of me?61 He also denied the future bodily resurrection

of the saints.62

The orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort must be seriously in doubt, to judge by their ownwritings. In a letter to Lightfoot in 1860, Westcott said, If you make a decided conviction of

produced at a time when the most dangerous heresies prevailed in the Church with regard to the Person of Christ

and His relationship to the Father, but proved especially attractive to those modern scholars who were disposed to

adopt very similar erroneous views themselves.52

If a score or two manuscripts have a single ancestor, it implies that a score or two copyists believed that

ancestor to be faithful to the autographs. But if a manuscript has not a numerous progeny, as is the case with Bsancestor, one may suspect that the early scribes doubted its value. Possibly the early orthodox Christians knew

that B was corrupt. (Gordon H. Clark,Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, p.15). Bauer (Rechtglaubigheit

Und Ketzerei Im Altesten Christentum, pp. 49,63) and van Unnik (Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings,SCM,

p.44) have pointed out that later Egyptian Christians seem to have been ashamed of the heretical past of their

country53

A significant number of heretical readings can be found in the Alexandrian text, for instance in Mk. 1:1; 9:29;

Lk. 23:42; Jn. 3:13; 9:35,38,39; 19:5; Acts 10:30; Rom. 14:10; I Tim. 3:16; I Cor.7:5; 11:24. They seem to

be the work of, variously, those unfriendly to the deity of the Lord Jesus, docetists, Gnostics and others who did

not hold to an orthodox Christian position.54

Brooke Foss Westcott (12th

January 1825-27th

July 1901), ordained Anglican priest in 185155

Fenton John Anthony Hort (23rd

April 1828-30th

November 1892) was priested in 1856, having started work on

revising the Greek text of the New Testament early in 1853. Both men spent their careers in academia rather than

in parish work, although Dr. Westcott was consecrated Bishop of Durham (sic)in 189056

Others involved included Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc.57

Life and Letters of FJA Hort, Vol. 1 pp. 172, 21158

Ibid.,p.44559

Westcott, A.,Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, Vol. I, p.4660Ibid., p.5261

Ibid., p.9462

Kirsopp Lake,Immortality & The Modern Mind, pp.39-41


18/41

- 18 -

the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically asine qua nonfor co-operation, I fear I could

not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels.63

The two of them boasted between themselves that they held doctrine that would undoubtedly

be considered dangerous heresy were it known64. For example, Hort found the doctrine of

substitutionary atonement most unacceptable65to the extent that he said, The fact is, I do not

see how Gods justice can be satisfied without every mans suffering in his own person the full

penalty for his sins.66 He also denied the doctrine of eternal punishment of the unbeliever.67

He described Negro slaves as an immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more, their

religion frothy and sensuous, their highest virtues those of a good Newfoundland dog. 68 They

both prided themselves on treating the text of the New Testament as they would that of any

other book, making little or nothing of inspiration and providence. For ourselves, Hort wrote,

we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient

texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity.

They even defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee69. Do we

63Op. cit., Vol. I, p.42064

Op. cit.,p.445. Contrast the teaching of St. Paul. When he wanted to encourage Timothy in his ministry, he

warns him of teachers who would be men of corrupt minds, with hidden motives, reprobate concerning the

faith (II Tim. 3:8). Then he makes a remarkable statement: Thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life,purpose, faith... In other words there was nothing that St. Paul believed or practiced, or hoped to accomplish, that

he was unwilling to have his hearers know. The Lord Jesus Himself was the same: Jesus answered him, I spake

openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in

secret have I said nothing. (Jn. 18:20)65

Hort to F.D. Maurice 16th

November 1849 says, O that Coleridge, while showing the notion of a fictitious

substituted righteousness, of a transferable stock of good actions, obscured the truth of mans restoration in theMan who perfectly acted out the idea of man, had expounded the truth, (for such I am sure, there must be) that

underlies the corresponding heresy, (as it appears to me) of a fictitious substituted penalty Finally, St. Pauls

mysterious words, Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. (But I have laboured so utterly in

vain to apprehend in any measure what this idea is, that I hope you will deepen and widen the hints that you have

already given.) I am quite conscious that I have given but few distinct objections to the common belief,

[Redemption through the Blood of the Lamb Ed.]in what I have written, but so indeed it must be; languagecannot accurately define the twinge of shrinking horror which mixes with my thoughts when I hear the popular

notion asserted (even without the blasphemous adjuncts which too often accompany it).Life and Letters of FJA

Hort, Vol. 1, pp.120,122. Later he writes, I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom

paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which

the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father. (p.

428)Hort to Westcott, 15

th October 1860 says, I entirely agree ... with what you there say on the Atonement, having

for many years believed that the absolute union of the Christian (or rather of man) with Christ Himself, is the

spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit ... Certainly

nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christs bearing our sins and suffering to His death;

but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.Ibid., p.430

Hort to Ellerton, Ascension Day 1876 says, I must say ... that the idea expressed in the hymn, Still ... His

prevailing death He pleads has no apostolic warrant, and cannot even be reconciled with apostolic doctrine.

Hort to Bishop Ely, 8th

November 1871 says, Mr. Maurice has been a dear friend of mine for twenty three years,

and I have been deeply influenced by his books ... but they have led me to doubt whether the Christian faith is

adequately or purely represented in all respects in the accepted doctrines of any living school. Ibid, Vol. 2, p.155.

Maurice, the Unitarian son of a Unitarian minister, had been dismissed from his position as Professor of English

Literature and history, at Kings College London, in 1853, because of his unorthodoxy on the subject of eternal

punishment. Unitarians deny the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet Horts son says, Maurices teaching was the

most powerful element in his religious development.66

Ibid., Volume II, p. 27367

Graham Patrick,Hort, Eminent Victorian, pp. 48-6468

Life & Letters F.J.A. Hort,Vol. 1, page 45869Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcotts suggestion, a

celebration of Holy Communion was held on 22nd

June 1870, before the first meeting of the NT Revision

Company. Dr. Smith communicated, but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and


19/41

- 19 -

really want to accept as authoritative a Bible based on a text compiled by such men? Does

the evidence not suggest that churches which use modern versions of the Bible serve another

Jesus70?

Prebendary Dr. Frederick Scrivener, an Anglo-Catholic who resigned from the Committee

which compiled the Revised Version of the Bible because of his difficulties with the others71,

notably Westcott and Hort, was commissioned in about 1885 by the Cambridge University

Press to establish the Greek text used in the King James Version72. He listed all the Greek

words used by the Authorised Version, but he also put in bold face type all the alterations

made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version. He inserted the

exact alterations in the footnotes.

The Greek text published by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort rejected the Textus Receptus in

nearly 6,000 places.73 The Bible plainly tells us74that witnesses who do not agree with each

other are not witnessing truth. If accuracy depended on being nearer to the original writings in

date, we would expect to find the two versions coming closer together, rather than increasingly

at variance. Wisdom dictates that accuracy is more likely to be determined by the number andquality of copyings rather than by the age of the document. Westcott and Hort75had

had not compromised his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almostwrecked the Revision at the outset. Even so, Dr. Smith remained on the Committee.70

II Cor. 11:4; Matt. 7:1671

Dean John W. Burgon (The Revision Revised) said, to construct a new Greek text formed no part of the

instructions which the revisionists received Rather were they warned against venturing on such an

experiment He commented that, It is the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so

grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but the poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Ourrevisers stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having

substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has

rejected with abhorrence; and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most

depraved type. His scholarship cannot be doubted. He wrote to an educated people with Latin and Greek at their

fingertips, and included multi-lingual footnotes and reference to a Greek grammar72

He had already done a prodigious amount of work investigating and cataloguing the New Testamentmanuscripts, papyri, minuscules and lectionaries extant, work begun in 1550 by the scholarly Stephanus and

continued, 100 years later, by Brian Walton. Between 1820-36 J. M. A. Scholz listed 616 manuscripts which had

not previously been known. In the four editions of hisIntroduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,Dr.

Scrivener extended the catalogue to almost 3,000 manuscripts. In the last 200 years, more than 2,000 further

manuscripts, minuscules, lectionaries and fragments have been added to the catalogue. By contrast, our

knowledge of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, including Sophocles,Thucydides, Cicero, Virgil and Caesar, depends on a mere handful of manuscripts (Kenyon, Our Bible and the

Ancient Manuscripts)73

This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus, the

edition produced by Scrivener and published posthumously, in 1894. Scrivener used as his starting point the

Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He

examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made approximately

190 changes to his Greek text. When he finished, he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which

more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus. There are 283 differences

between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance

when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences, many of which are quite substantial, between the

Critical Text (of Westcott and Hort) and the Textus Receptus. This involves, on average, 15.4 words per page of

the Greek N.T., or 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the 140,521 total words in the Textus Receptus Greek N.T.

Someone once asked Sir David Dalrymple whether the New Testament could be collated from the writings of the

Early Church Fathers had the originals been completely destroyed or lost. He searched all the existing works of

the Fathers of the second and third centuries, and found all but eleven verses of the Textus Receptus. (Charles

Leach, Our Bible: How we got it, quoted in Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible)74

Mk. 14:55,5675Not only their orthodoxy but even their scholarship has been called into question by archaeological findings of

the last century. For example, in Acts 16:12 St. Luke refers to Philippi as the chief city of that part of

Macedonia, using the Greek word meris. Hort said that meris refers to a portion, not a district, casting


20/41

- 20 -

concocted a new Greek text, and changed the Textus Receptus that had been used in the

Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T.76 This inaccurate Greek text, with its

almost 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 and

the LV.

Some have alleged that the most ancient papyrus77fragments are hostile to the Received Text,

but the fragments that remain are few in comparison with the many that must have perished

through long and frequent use78. The surviving minority probably survived for the very reason

that they fell into disuse because of their deficiencies. A number of papyri of the 6th to 8th

centuries do not contain a distinctively Byzantine type of text, although it is beyond question

that the Byzantine text was dominant in that period. These papyri appear to be surviving

representatives of a defective and discarded text.

In any case, antiquity alone has never determined authenticity. Heretical texts were in

circulation even during the New Testament period itself, causing severe confusion in some

cases

79

; indeed, some of the epistles were written precisely to counter the arguments of theGnostics and others. At no time in the history of the Church has there been a lack of those

bold enough to tamper with the true text.80

II Translators


Fifty-four eminent scholars, including High Churchmen and Puritans, the greatest Hebrew and

Greek scholars of the age, formed six companies to undertake the task of translating theAuthorised Version of the Bible. Using their Greek sources and the best commentaries of

European scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German, they

expressed the sense of the Greek in clear, vigorous and idiomatic English. They were scholars

of an order not found in the last or the present centuries. They based their translation of the

Hebrew text not only on Tyndales earlier translation81, but also on insights developed by the

doubt on St. Lukes accuracy. Excavations have shown that the word meris was indeed used to describe thedivisions of the district. (Joseph Free,Archaeology and Bible History)76

Almost 10,000 Greek words 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) from the Greek text that underlies our KJV.77

The oldest papyrus fragment known dates back to 2400 BC (Harold Greenlee,Introduction to New Testament

Textual Criticism). The earliest mss were on papyrus, but it was difficult for any to survive except in dry areas

such as the sands of Egypt or in caves such as those at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Papyrus

was still in use until about the third century AD.78

The normal readable lifetime of a scroll in careful weekly use was approximately 100 years; if used more often,

it would obviously be shorter. From at least 2000 BC, animal skins were often preferred to papyrus because they

lasted longer and were less brittle, so they preserved the text better.79

E.g. II Thess. 2:1,2; 3:1780

Dionysius, a minister at Corinth, in a letter dated about AD 168-170, deplores the fact that his own letters have

been altered, and adds, It is not marvellous, therefore, if some have set themselves to tamper with the Dominical

Scriptures. An unknown author (thought by some to be Hippolytus, but by others, Gaius) writes around AD 230:

They (the heretics) laid hands fearlessly on the divine Scriptures, saying that they had corrected them.

(Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History and Martyrs of Palestine, Ecclesiastical History, Book 4 Chapter 23 and

book 5 Chapter 28)81Tyndale (c. 1494-1536), who taught himself Greek and Hebrew single-handedly, has been described as the

unsung hero of Bible translation, for having made the Hebrew Bible accessible in the English language for the

very first time. A helpful article On Translating the Old Testament: the Achievement of William Tyndaleby


21/41

- 21 -

scholarly and well-respected Rabbi David Kimchi (1160-1235), in addition to Rashi82, the

main Talmudic commentator on the Mishnah and the Gomorrah. Their

number included:

Lancelot Andrewes, the Chairman of the overall committee83,

who had mastered at least fifteen, some sources say 20, languages.

It was said of him that had he been present at the Tower of Babel,

he could have acted as interpreter. He followed a monastic

lifestyle, and spent from 4 a.m. until noon every day in prayer and

study84.

Dr. William Bedwellwas famed in Arabic learning. He published, in quarto, an

edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. Dr. Bedwell left

many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a

font of types for printing them. He wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three

volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary which is among Archbishop Lauds

manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

Dr. Miles Smith, an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic, wentthrough the writings of the Greek and of the Latin Church Fathers, making annotations

on them all.

Sir Henry Saville,proficient in both Greek and mathematics,

became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. Saville

translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus, which he

published with notes. He also 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 St. Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers,

pictured on page 15. He was a profound and exact scholar. John Boishad read the whole Bible, in Hebrew, by the age of

five. He was also expert in Greek by the age of 14. For

years, he spent from 4 oclock in the morning till 8 oclock at

night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages.

These men were all scholars who could draw on their knowledge of the cognate languages to

facilitate their understanding of the original texts. They were also known to be deeply

spiritual, and to have understanding of the depths of the texts essential in those who would give

a true rendering85. We have very few, if any, men of such skill today. The complete

translators notes of the Authorized King James scholars are not included in todays

publishings. This is unfortunate, because the notes say a lot about these men. They were

humble, loved the word of God, loved the King, and their longing was to provide a translation

Michael Weizman, of University College, London, can be foundat:

http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/weitzman.html82

Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes, 1040-1105, whose immensely valuable commentary summarises early

Rabbinic discussion of the meanings of ancient Biblical Hebraic words, and was used by the Franciscan scholar

Nicholas de Lyre (1270-1349), whose running commentary on the biblical text was in turn an important aid for

Luthers version.83

He held a place second to none in the history of the formation of the English [Anglo-Catholic] Church. (Eliot,

p.12)84Buckeridges Funeral Oration, quoted inLancelot Andrewes, Mentor of Reformed Catholicism in the Post

Reformation English Church 1555-1626by Marianne Dorman85

I Cor. 2:11-16


22/41


23/41

- 23 -

III Technique

Unlike many of todays translators, the authorized KJV translators let us know which words

they had to add in translating in order to give the full meaning of the original text. Direct

translations between language are not available, especially where two languages come from

different ends of the continent and different millennia. No precise synonym for every mother

tongue word and phrase in every other language is available. It is therefore often necessary to

rearrange or add words to make sense of the translation, but genuine scholars will indicate

where this has been done. In 1786, Dr. Geddes wrote of the King James Version,

If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an

excellent Version, this is of all versions the most excellent.

Most modern Bible translations, including even the Jewish translations95, are not translations

in the literal sense of the word, but dynamic equivalents, in other words giving thought for

thought, which is of necessity subjective, rather than word for word, flouting both the ancientdoctrine that every detail in the word of God is significant96, and also St. Jeromes observation

that in holy Scripture even the word order is a mystery97. Some of the modern translations

are no more than paraphrases. In a paraphrase, something is said in words different from

those found in the original, thus restating the thoughts of an original author in order to arrive at

what the paraphraser thought the original author meant. Neither a dynamic equivalent nor a

paraphrase can properly be described as the Word of God.

Every translation has to supply some extra words to give the sense of the original text, but the

Authorized Version of the Bible is a translation as close to the original as possible. Where

words have had to be added to make sense of the translation they are put in italics in the AV,

so that we know that they are not part of the original, and can test them as instructed in I Jn.4:1. With the exception of the New King James Version, modern translations tend not to do

that.

IV Theology

The theology of all the new translations is questionable. Many verses are changed to remove

the fundamental sense. For example, John 6:47 in the Authorized Version says, Verily,

verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Westcott and Hort

95Most Chumashim(books containing the Pentateuch, divided into the sections in which it is read, and

compilation of Haftorahs, portions from the Prophets, read every Shabbatt) have Hebrew on the right and the

vernacular on the left, so that non-Hebrew speakers can follow whichever they prefer, and understand what is

being read to them from the bima. (The bimais more than a lectern; it is a platform, usually in the middle of the

synagogue, which faces the ark; it is translated judgment seat ten times in the Bible, and throne once. The seat

of the Umpire at the Olympic Games was called thebima; it was from there that the victors received their

medals.) They also have substantial notes at the bottom of the page, and often a commentary on a specific topic

or topics at the end of each book of the Pentateuch. Orthodox Jewish boys can usually read Hebrew fluently at a

very early age, and many of them know the entire Pentateuch, by heart, in two languages, by the time they are

twelve or thirteen, often even younger.96S.P. Brock, Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979)

pp. 69-8797

Epistle no. 57; see J. P. Migne ed.,Patrologia Latina, 22 (1859), col. 571.


24/41

- 24 -

removed on me, such that modern versions say, he that believeth hath everlasting life.

Everyone believes something, but Who we believe is fundamental!

Another example is Rom. 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. The Greek texts of B (Vatican) and Aleph (Sinai) remove the two words, of

Christ in this verse, so modern versions omit the crucial nub of the verse.

The RSV was prepared by a committee appointed by the International Council of Religious

Education98, and published in 1946 to replace the American Standard Version99, the

Americans version of the English Revised Version100. Its modernism and Unitarian bias

appear throughout. To give a few examples,

(a) it professes to use Thou when referring to God and you when referring to men,

yet the disciples are made to use you when speaking to our Lord Jesus, implying,

evidently, that they did not believe He was divine.101 Even when they confess

Him to be the Son of God, the disciples are still made to use You

102

.(b) Some editions of the RSV include in a footnote

103a reading, found only in the

Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, which says that Joseph was the father of Jesus104.

(c) In John 10:29, the Traditional Text has, My Father, who gave them to Me, is

greater than all, but the RSV footnote says, That which My Father hath given unto

Me is greater than all. This alteration is of great doctrinal significance, because it

makes the preservation of the saints depend on the Church rather than on God

Himself. Westcott expounds it, The faithful, regarded in their unity, are stronger

than every opposing power.

(d) In John 6:68-69, where the Traditional Text has, Then Simon Peter answered Him,

Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believeand are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, the RSV has,

the Holy One of God, not the incarnate Son at all105! Since the purpose of St.

Johns Gospel is that his readers may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of

98Representing 40 Protestant denominations in the United States and Canada

99Published in 1901 by Thomas Nelson and Sons, with an appendix listing the readings which they favoured but

which the British revisers had declined to adopt100The New Testament of which was published on 17 thMay 1881, and the Old Testament in 1885. Neither the

RV nor the ASV were widely used, due largely to their poor English style, which, according to F.C. Grant (The

New American Revision of the Bible, pp. 219-220), was, in many places, unbelievably wooden, opaque, or

harsh.101

Another example is Psalm 45:6: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever is altered to Your divine throne

endures for ever and ever. The use of Your indicates that the translators believed that this verse did not apply

to a Divine Person. The Name of God is here reduced to the adjective divine, but when this text is quoted in

Hebrews chapter 1:8, it is made to apply to the Son, and the Name of God is restored in the text. The footnote

leaves the way open to the sceptical reader to deny that the Son is addressed as God, Thy throne, O God, in the

text, becomes God is thy throne in the note.102

See, for instance, Matt. 16:16103

Similar to that in the NEB104

Matt. 1:16105In the Authorized Version of the Bible, only demons ever address the Lord Jesus as the Holy One of God

(Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, identical passages)


25/41

- 25 -

God106, he would hardly have made Peter confess Jesus as the Holy One of God,

rather than as the Christ, the Son of the living God.107

(e) The RSV also denies the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. For example,

Micah 5:2,Out of thee shall He come forth ... whose goings forth have been from

of old, from everlasting, becomes in the RSV, ... whose originis from of old,

from ancient days.108

Thus, the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God is denied,and the new translation assigns to the eternal Son an origin in time. This is a very

ancient heresy, disinterred in the last hundred years or so and thrust upon

undiscerning hearers and readers in many modern versions.

(f) Another example is in Proverbs 8:22: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of

His way. The RSV reads, The Lord createdme at the beginning of his work,

contradicting the Creed in which we affirm that He was begotten, not

made.109

(g) The RSV loses the essential Divine Goodness of the Lord Jesus. For instance,

without any explanatory note, the RSV changes Matthew 19:17 from, Why callest

thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God... to, Why do you ask meabout what is good? One there is who is good ... The significance of the passage

is, You know there is only One Who is essentially and perfectly good, that is God

Himself. You addressed me as Good, but do you really believe me to be Good

and therefore one with God? The whole point of the passage is destroyed by the

altered rendering.

(h) The RSV obscures the Divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus. In Mk. 1:1, The

beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, the RSV has a footnote:

Other ancient authorities omit the Son of God. The testimony for their

inclusion is overwhelming, and even the translators of the NEB were constrained to

admit that the Son of God is the best attested reading.(i) Some of the other significant doctrinal changes in the RSV include the omission of

the fulfilment of prophecy110, the post-resurrection appearances of the Lord

Jesus are omitted111, His miraculous Ascension is obscured112, the doctrine of

the Trinity is impugned113, the rightful place of the Son of Man in heaven is

denied114, His use of the title, Son of God is denied115, prayer to the Father in

the Name of the Son is discountenanced116, the Deity of Christ is obscured

117,

the Judgment Seat of Christ is abolished118, the pre-existence of the Son as

106Jn. 20:31

107The Gnostic papyri discovered in 1945 at Nag-Hammadi in Egypt seem to indicate that these 2nd-century

heretics regarded the term Son of God as a mystic name which should not be pronounced except by the initiated,

so it may have been they who introduced the substitute Holy One of God into the text of John.108

Italics mine EA109

Alleging that the Person spoken of was a creature has been widely canvassed in recent times by the Jehovahs

Witnesses.110

Mk. 15:28111

Mk. 16:9-20; Lk. 24:40112

Lk. 24:51,52113

Jn. 1:3,18114

Jn. 3:13115

Jn. 9:35. The RSV changes Son of God to Son of man, thereby eliminating this clear personal testimony of

our Lord concerning His own Divine Sonship. Admittedly the title Son of man is used elsewhere, but here the

point is His unique relationship to the Father. The RSV destroys the important doctrinal teaching of this verse.116Jn. 14:14; 16:23117

Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; II Pet. 1:1118

Rom. 14:10


26/41

- 26 -

Lord in Heaven is discredited119, the miraculous incarnation of the Son is

eliminated from I Tim. 3:16120, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is called

into question121, and others.

In Luke 23:45, where the traditional text has, And the sun was darkened, the RSV and other

modern versions read, The sun having become eclipsed. This rationalistic explanationof

the supernatural darkness at the crucifixion is impossible, because at Passover the moon was

always full122. In the last portion of Luke, the RSV removes no fewer than eight readings123,

usually called Western omissions,124from the text and consigns them to the footnotes. The

omission of these eight readings means that all reference to the atoning work of Christ has

been eliminatedfrom Lukes account of the Lords Supper125and that the Ascension of

Christ into heaven126

has been entirely removedfrom the

Gospels, Marks account of the Ascension having already been

rejected by the critics. The opening verses of Acts make it clear that

Luke thought that he had already given an account of the ascension

in the last chapter of his Gospel. No believing Bible student could

remain indifferent to such mutilation of the Gospel record. Anychurch which adopts the RSV as the main Bible of the church is

surely building its house upon sand.127

Influenced by political correctness and the feminist movement, some of the modern versions

call themselves gender accurate, gender inclusive, or gender neutral but are actually

examples of muddle-speak. For instance, in one of them, Todays New International

Version, father becomes parent, brothers become fellow believers and man becomes

human being. In verses such as I Cor. 15:21 such treatment removes the entire sense of the

verse. The Lord Jesus was every inch male; otherwise, He would be unable to husband His

Bride, the true Church. II Cor. 11:2 makes clear that we are to be a chaste virgin for Him. In

Ps. 34:20, the same version changes his bones to their bones, thereby losing the Messianicprophetic significance of the verse.128

A prime example is the Greek word Adelphos, found 346 times in the New Testament. Its

literal meaning is from the womb, and Strong129says that it is used in the Bible in six senses:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same

father or mother

119I Cor. 15:47

120The majority of the Greek manuscripts and the AV read, God was manifest in the flesh. In the RSV and other

modern versions this is reduced to, He was manifested in the flesh. Every human being who has ever lived is

manifest in the flesh; the great mystery of our faith is that Christ is God Himself manifest in the flesh.121

II Tim. 3:16122

E. Arbuthnot,Rosh Chodesh (1993)123

Lk. 22:19,20; 24:3,6,12,36,40,51,52. All eight of these readings are found in Papyrus 75, c. 200 AD, one of

the earliest and most important of the Bodmer Papyri published in 1956-62, so they are most unlikely to be later

additions to the text, as scholars now concede. Hence the RSV, the NEB and the other modern versions which

omit them are considered out of date. This rapid shifting of opinion shows the untrustworthiness of naturalistic

textual criticism, and the unwisdom of using modern versions of the Bible.124

These passages are omitted from the Western family of basic texts, but the Western family also includes a

number of passages not normally considered authoritative which the RSV omits, so it is not consistent.125

Lk. 22:19,20126

Lk. 24:51127Matt. 7:24-27128

The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, www.cbmw.org129

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance


27/41

- 27 -

2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or

countryman

3. any fellow or man

4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection

5. an associate in employment or office

6. brethren in Christ:

a. his brothers by blood

b. all men

c. apostles

d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

However, in gender-neutral modern versions it is often mistranslated, or even omitted

altogether. To treat in such a fashion a word which occurs 346 times in the Bible is to tamper

with the Word of God.

Taking manhood out of the Bible has a number of implications. For instance, in I Sam. 18:2

the TNIV changes to his fathers house to to his family, thus taking out the fathers

leadership role in his own home. In II Sam. 23:8, Davids mighty men become mighty

warriors, thereby detracting from their masculinity. This version takes away references to

God as Father; in favour of our parent in heaven. Such errors can discourage men from

going to church or for seeking true faith for themselves.

Other problems with the TNIV include more than 3,600 changes from singular to plural,

thereby shifting the focus of the Bible from an individual relationship with God, from our

individual responsibility before Him, to group responsibility. The culture has been allowed to

influence the way the Bible is being translated, which is dangerous.

The New International Version likewise casts doubt on the Lord Jesus being the Son of God

130

,rejects the clearest verse in the entire Bible on the Trinity131, and throws out the blood of the

Lord Jesus132. It likewise denies the mystery of godliness by avoiding confessing that Jesus

Christ is God manifested in the flesh133, prompting some to suggest that this fulfils the criteria

for the spirit of antiChrist134. In Gal. 5:9 we are warned that, A little leaven leaveneth the

whole lump. A small amount of error can spread throughout the whole system to distort it all.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out if the mouth of

God.135 We need every word for fullness of life, and those words need to be those which

130Lk. 2:33 in the NIV reads, The childs father and mother marvelled at what was said about him, as against the

AVs rendering: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. Acts 4:27 in

the NIV says, Indeed, Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the gentiles and the people of Israel in this city

to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. The Authorised Version says, For of a truth

against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hat anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the

people of Israel, were gathered together. We are all Gods servants, but child more clearly describes the Lord

Jesus as the Son of God.131

I Jn. 5:7132

Col. 1:14 in the NIV says, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The AV is clear: In

whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Without the shedding of blood there

can be no redemption, according to Heb. 9:22 and Lev. 17:11133

Compare I Tim. 3:16 in the NIV, He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,

was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world and was taken up in glory with the AVs

translation, 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.134

I Jn. 4:3; II Jn. 7135

Matt. 4:4


28/41

- 28 -

have proceeded from the mouth of God Himself. The NIV is a translation of the same corrupt

manuscripts as the Jehovahs WitnessesNew World Translation.

Dr. Jack Moorman lists 356 doctrinal passages that have been changed in the Egyptian Greek

texts of B, Aleph and others from the Textus Receptus. The new versions attack the

fundamentals of the faith, including the blood atonement, the Holy Trinity, salvation by

faith alone, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the person of the Devil, the nature of man,

eschatology, the reality of hell, the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures,

messianic prophesies, the love and compassion of Godand many, many other doctrines, and

promote another Jesus136. We dare not go down this route!

Much ink has been spilt over the modern versions rendering of Phil. 2:7. The Authorized

Version translates this, But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a

servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Translations such as the New American

Standard Bible, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised

Version, the J. N. Darby Version and the Modern Language Bible claim that Jesus emptied

himself in this verse, suggesting that Paul teaches that our Lord was once God but hadbecome instead man. The New International Version, the New English Bible, the Revised

English Bible, the New Century Version and the New Living Translation have made himself

nothing, which is equally as bad. Robert G. Bratcher, who spent 2 years translating the

Good News Bible New Testament137, is on record as saying that Christ gave up His deity

when He became a man, a belief he wrote into this verse in the GNB138.

The King James Bible contains hundreds more words than modern versions, yet nobody could

call it verbose. An appendix to this paper is a printout from the internet of a sample of

Westcott and Horts omissions from the Gospels of the Textus Receptus. Anyone who is

interested can find the rest of the New Testament omissions online with no difficulty139, but the

omissions from the Gospels speak for themselves. The Lord Jesus promised His words wouldnot pass away140, yet dozens of His words are missing in the new Bibles. One possibility is

that all English versions are in error, at least in part. If all versions contain errors, it could be

argued that a foundation of sand remains for us all and the Lord Jesus is found a liar141.

Two thousand years ago, the Lord Jesus made a promise that has stood the test of time. He

promised His words would not pass away. God is not a liar but the God of truth142. The Book

God authored is also a Book of truth.

V Language

Few can doubt the unique linguistic beauty of the Authorised Version of the Bible. Bishop

Lightfoot affirmed that this version was the storehouse of the highest truth and the purest well

of our native English. Indeed, he wrote, we may take courage from the fact that the language

136II Cor. 11:4

137The Good News Bible was written for those whose mother tongue was not English, but that hardly excuses

false doctrine138

O Journal Batista, Southern Baptist Seminary, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 9th

July 1953139

If you have no access to the Internet and yet would like to see the rest of the New Testament omissions, a

printout can be supplied on request140Matt. 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33; I Pet. 1:23-25141

I Jn. 5:10; Jn. 8:55142

Jn. 14:6; Ps. 31:5; Deut. 32:4; Jer. 10:10


29/41

- 29 -

of our English Bible is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its

grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of the literature

of the time.143 The Authorized King James has been listed on Norton Anthologys list of the

worlds best literature for decades. People may not be aware, though, of other linguistic

factors which should be taken into account when considering which Bible translation to use.

(a) Some argue that the original texts were written in contemporary language, hence easily

understandable, and that therefore we should use a version in

contemporary language. This argument cannot stand, because it is

based on a false premise. The language of the original texts was unique

and self-explanatory. Ultra-orthodox Jews living in Mea Shearim, the

orthodox area of Jerusalem, today, will not use modern Hebrew144for

everyday parlance lest they inadvertently corrupt the language of the

Bible, in which they study the sacred texts and in which they are fluent;

the language in which they conduct their affairs is Yiddish. Similarly,

the Greek of the New Testament was based, not on classical Greek or

first-century Greek, but on the Septuagint, which was modelled after OldTestament Hebrew and was used, and considered inspired, by the Early Church Fathers.

Any Bible translator who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles must take

care to use language which is above the level of daily speech, language which is not only

intelligible but also Biblical and venerable. The English of the King James Version is not the

English of the early 17th century. It is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It

is Biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who

produced the King James Version. Some old ecclesiastical words were retained in the text for

accuracy as well as familiarity, and some words were even retrieved from disuse145for the

purpose. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century

English usage but Biblical usage, because at the time of the translation these singular formshad already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation.

(b) Secondly, those who talk about translating the Bible into the language of today never

define what they meanby this expression. Language is constantly evolving, perhaps faster in

the twenty-first century than ever before because of the internet and other modern

technologies. Todays youngsters sometimes use words to mean the very opposite of the way

in which older generations use them; for instance, wicked is now used as a term of approval;

gay no longer means vivacious, light-hearted, blithe, lively, bright or happy as in my youth.

An inspired text is timeless and does not need modernising.

Some suggest that the best way to translate the Bible into todays language is to convert it intofolk songs. In many contemporary youth conferences and even worship services, which

appear to reject the vast majority of the great doctrinal hymns of the faith of the former years,

there is little or no Bible reading, but only crude vocal, tuneless music accompanied by ear-

piercing drums, strumming guitars and vigorous electric keyboards. In contrast, the language

of the King James Version is enduring diction which will remain as long as the English

language remains.

143On a fresh Revision of the New Testament, 1872, p.191

144Modern Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew, although it is based on it145

For instance, the word host, used 465 times in the Authorised Version, as a result of which it has found its

way back into the English language.


30/41

- 30 -

(c) Some argue that todays youngsters do not understand the language of the King James

Version of the Bible, and hence are discouraged from reading it. It is suggested that this

inhibits their becoming Christians. On the other hand, when people convert to Islam, they

have to learn Arabic in order to read the Quuran; when people convert to Judaism, they need

to learn Hebrew in order to follow the service and to make certain blessings and certain

prayers. Both those languages involve learning not only new words and concepts but an

entirely different alphabet (aleph-beit) and way of reading (from right to left, instead of from

left to right). Biblical English is not significantly different from modern English to justify

using any version of the Bible which is in error at least to some extent.

(d) Fourthly, modern-speech versions of the Bible include many New Age words, subtly

initiating Christian believers into wrong philosophies by surreptitious means.146

(e) Fifthly, the current attack on the King James Version and the promotion of modern-

speech versions discourages the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children.

Why memorize or require our children to memorize something out of date and about to be

replaced by something new and better? Why memorize a modern version when there are somany from which to choose? Children are therefore growing up densely ignorant of the Holy

Bible, because they are not encouraged to hide its life-giving words in their hearts.

(f) Sixthly, modern-speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible is an

ancient, divine Book, which nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself.

The language of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible. The King James

Version fulfils these two requirements better than any other Bible in English.

(g) Seventhly, modern-speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the Bible has

always savoured of the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It has always been

Biblical, rather than contemporary and colloquial. Fifty years ago, based on the papyrusdiscoveries which had recently been made in Egypt, it was claimed that the New Testament

authors wrote in the everyday Greek of their own times, but these claims are now recognised as

false. The New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint, and most of them were

familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Their language was not that of the secular papyri of

Egypt, but Biblical.

(h) Eighthly, the Bible itself tells us147that the natural man receiveth not the things of

the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither ca