The One, The Christ …
Question: Does Your Bible Teach You to Worship New Age ‘Gods'?
Answer: "Years and years previous to this someone had given me a little book about the superiority of the KJV version and I remember quite honestly that I thought that was hilarious. I thought, ‘Someone has taken a large portion of that person's brain.'" , on New Age Bible Versions Video
But the inconsistencies of the new Bible versions shocked Riplinger as she studied the text changes in the new Bible versions.
As a college professor she shared Jesus Christ with her college students when they came to her with their personal problems.
Together they would look up verses in the Bible to find answers to these problems. Often they would use the student's new version Bible.
To Riplinger's surprise she found over and over that the key elements of salvation, comfort and healing were missing from the verses in these new versions of the Bible.
She began to compare the KJV with these new Bible versions and came face to face with the fact that the new Bible versions' texts are changed to accommodate all religions and their ‘gods,' thus changing theology and removing the truth that will set people free.
Riplinger tells us in a live television interview on her New Age Bible Versions Video that, "New Agers have always said that we need a semantic bridge to bring the world religions all together and we need common names for things. What is happening in New Age literature is that Buddha is disappearing, Buddha being the prophet over in the east. Krishna is disappearing. And even in Luciferian literature Lucifer's name is disappearing and being replaced by the Lord, the Christ, the One and the Spirit.
"Now we are seeing a parallel move within the new Bible versions where it's not Jehovah anymore its just 'Lord.' It's not Jesus Christ it is just 'the Christ.'
"They have separated Christ from Jesus in the new Bible versions because they want 'the Lord,' 'the Christ,' 'the One' and 'the Spirit' rather than the personal identity of the historic God of the Old Testament which is Jehovah and the God of the New Testament which is the Lord Jesus Christ."
Riplinger points out that the new versions remove Jesus Christ because, "The religions of the world believe that 'god' created all things but not by Jesus Christ."
For New Agers, Jesus Christ is too narrow a definition of "god." The different gods of all the world's religions fit neatly in the categories of the Lord, the Christ, the One and the Spirit.
Therefore there is no need to proselytize people from other religions because their 'god' is really the same as yours and all these 'gods' lead down the same "path" to heaven, don't they?
John 14:6 reminds us of the truth, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
The New Age Bible Versions Video, is a thought provoking live television interview with Gail Riplinger who gives a concise and practical introduction to the Bible version controversy that will help you and your friends begin to examine the facts for yourselves.
QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?
EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.
At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.
It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.
QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?
EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?
ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.
EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.
The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.
That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.
© 2001 by David W. Daniels
Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.
It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:
- The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
- The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
- 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.
The Greek and Roman Institutions
During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.
The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.
But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.
A Trail of Evidence
But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
Old Latin ms r has it
The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
Wianburgensis referred to it
Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
miniscule 635 has it
minuscule ms 88 in the margin
miniscule 629 has it
Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.
Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?
The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.
Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.
What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?
The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).
And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.
QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?
ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.
EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized Version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape.
Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man with the title of Dr. David F. Reagan.
Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating exposé on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled "The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions."
Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety.
THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man's corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.
One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.
One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.
I - THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611
If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.
Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that's one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modem printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.
The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these revisions."
11 - THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS
OF THE 1611 KJV
Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.
In the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV "revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!
Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process: the purification of early printing errors, so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process: the standardization of the spelling, These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.
III - THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS
Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence.
QUESTION: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we need a modern translation to eliminate them?
ANSWER: Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No, we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.
EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true. An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is found in I Corinthians 10:25.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:"
The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common speech with the word "market place", Indeed we can be certain that "shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed from common use.
Well then, shouldn't we publish a new translation which removes " shambles" and inserts the more common "market place"?
No, what we should do is turn to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice and see what the Bible practice is concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a perfect Bible will want to follow the Bible's practice concerning archaic words.
In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite,a mighty man of power.
2 And he had a son whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.
3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.
4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.
5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.
6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.
7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?
8 And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"
Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9 we are not only confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for handling it.
We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5).They decide to go to see Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).
In verse 11 we are going to run into an archaic word. But, before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer".Thus we see that, between the time that this event took place and the time that the incident was divinely recorded the word " Seer" had passed from common use to be replaced with "Prophet". "Seer" was now archaic.
BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word appeared.
"And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"
Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer". It does not say "Is the prophet here?".
Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but did not change the holy text!
So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called 'shambles' is now called 'market place"'. But we should leave the archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words than God has.
So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic words in the Bible but No we do not need a modem translation to eliminate them. God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want us doing it.
QUESTION: Should we make an issue of Bible translations?
ANSWER: Only if you believe anything out of it.
EXPLANATION: Many Christians attempt to evade the issue of whether of not there really is a perfect Bible (as they are told from the pulpit) by piously hiding behind the statement, "I don't make an issue of Bible translations."
It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you are consistent in your stand... or lack of it.
In other words, if the issue of a perfect Bible is a "non-issue" with you, then to be consistent, neither should be ANY of the following:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Isa 7:14
2. The deity of Jesus Christ. I John 5:5
3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ. Romans 5:8
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I Cor 15:4
5. Salvation by grace alone without works. Eph 2:8, 9
6. The Pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I Thess 4
7. The existence of a literal Heaven. John 3:13
8. The existence of a literal Hell. Mark 9:42-44
9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:7
This is by no means a comprehensive list of convictions held by those who call themselves "Fundamentalists." Yet every one is taken from the Bible. How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the Bible, but see "no issue" concerning the perfection of the Book on which they base their every issue? IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?
Some may say, "I accept the Bible where it is accurately translated." Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in the world! WHO is to judge just where the Bible is "accurately translated?"
No, it is impossible to make "any issue" over even one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an "issue" over the Bible itself.
Why then do people make such a statement? Basically, it is out of fear of the consequences of such a stand. They are afraid of the rejection of their friends, family, and fellow-workers.
How bold for the truth are you?
Where Did the King James Bible Come From?
Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?
(Modern versions) "The Bible is just like any other book. It is not liable to Satanic attack. In order to find out what the original copy probably said, you just find the oldest copies available and use them.
"We don't have the exact word of God now anyway, so a few disagreements will not matter."
(King James Bible) "The Bible is not ‘just like any other book.' Satan hates it because it is the Word of God. Satan has been trying to destroy it ever since the Garden of Eden.
"However, God has preserved His Word for us. He preserved the Old Testament through the Levites as priests and He has preserved the New Testament through the body of believers through the witness of the Holy Spirit."
The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians.
In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek "Textus Receptus" (received text). This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation knew to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The King James Bible was translated from the "Textus Receptus."
The debate continues:
(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).
(King James) The oldest manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not reliable at all! But wait, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone!
Facts About the Vaticanus
It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:
Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
These parts were probably left out on purpose.
Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.
The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.
Facts About the Sinaiticus
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:
"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.
Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."
That's not all!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:
"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!
That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.
They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.
When the modern versions say in the footnotes, "Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20," or "This verse not found in the most ancient authorities," they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!
Don't fall for the "oldest are the best" line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.
But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.
The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet, look in your modern version.
The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.
That's ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?
You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.
Why do the modern versions question the virgin birth of Christ, attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of salvation by faith and the Trinity?
The Difference Between Translator and Teacher
Picture this: You have the chance to earn a large sum of money by carefully following a set of instructions. All you must do is follow them carefully! There is just one problem: they are written in a language you cannot read. You need a translator.
You will have to choose between two translators. One is an old conservative who wants to translate the words as directly as possible from the first language to yours. It will be up to you to read the result carefully and follow it.
The other translator will go one step further: He will render a translation which describes his best understanding of how the author wanted you to carry out the instructions. Written as a paraphrase, it will be easy reading, and easy to follow. There is just one catch: you will have to trust that his understanding of how it should be done agrees with what the author intended, or you will fail and end up with nothing!
Which translator will you choose? Do you want to know exactly what the instructions say, or will you trust the second translator's ability to understand the author's intent and not lead you astray?
Selecting a Bible version involves the same kind of choice. There are two basic approaches: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Bibles translated by formal equivalence will take careful reading. At times, you will have to study history to learn the cultural background before you can fully understand the text.
The translator is simply rendering the text in your language… nothing more. But you will have the confidence of knowing that you are not trusting another man's understanding, or theology, but can make up your own mind what God wants. The King James Bible was translated using this approach.
On the other hand, Bibles translated by dynamic equivalence will read as easily as a novel. When a story seems difficult to understand without a little history, the author may even change it to a form he believes you will better understand! You will never know for sure what God said, but must trust the translator's theology to lead you into truth. The translator here is acting as a teacher, not just telling you what God said, but adding his understanding of what God meant!
Many Christians have developed the vital habit of reading the Bible text as they listen to a teacher explain it. They always judge the teaching by the written word. After all, the teacher is just a man, and can make mistakes. It's vital to know exactly what God said! But what can you do if the Bible in your hand doesn't give you God's Word, but a teacher's explanation of God's intent? Now what can you use to judge the teaching? You have no authority you can trust.
This is just one of the reasons the King James Bible is the superior English translation in the world today… formal equivalence. The translators were determined not to tell you God's intent, but just convey to you His words!
It is the translator's job to tell you what God said. It is the teacher's job to tell you how to understand and apply it to your life. Always insist on a Bible that gives you God's words, so you have an absolute upon which to judge everything else.
Publishers Must Make New Bibles
Harder to Read or Give Up Copyright Dollars
Gail Riplinger's new book Which Bible Is God's Word? contains answers to common questions concerning modern versions and translations. The following is a sampling:
Isn't the KJV difficult to read?: "According to copyright law, new Bible versions can only be copyrighted as ‘derivative works.' Words must be changed whether they need to be changed or not. New versions may update that one archaic word in eight thousand in the KJV, but they must change many other words, actually making it more difficult to read.
"When you subject the new versions and the King James Version to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula you discover that the King James Version is fifth grade level..." The other versions go up from there in difficulty to read.
"The reason the KJV reads more easily is because, according to a study done at Bob Jones University, ninety-five percent of its words are one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon words.
"Since the KJV has laid claim to these first, the derivative copyright works must replace them with harder, Latinized words which always have three or four syllables; many have suffixes and prefixes."
There are too many thee's and ye's in the KJV: "New versions boast of their substitution of the word ‘you' for the archaic 'ye' and 'thee,' but do not notice that the KJV uses the word 'you' two thousand times.
"It only uses 'ye' and 'thee' when needed, to distinguish between the Greek singular and plural; 'ye' is plural, and 'thee' is singular. By using those particular renderings, the KJV gives exact representation of the Greek word.
I'm not a scholar. These changes aren't really important, are they?: "You cannot casually detect a land mine, but it is deadly. Many today, and I include myself among those, are too casual with Bible reading; we are not as careful as we should be.
"Dr. Logsdon, who renounced his involvement with the New American Standard Bible, said the reason few notice the changes is because, 'It is done so subtly that very few would discover it.'"
Isn't the New King James as reliable as the KJV?: "The deity of Christ has disappeared in a number of places in the New King James. The KJV verses in Acts 3:13, 26 that say Jesus Christ is the 'Son' of God, is changed in the New King James to say he is a mere 'servant.'
"There are a lot of New Age renderings in the New King James. They consistently substitute the term 'the Christ' for 'Christ.'
"Liberty University's dean, Norman Geisler, says, 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as 'the Christ.'"
What Will You Do When They Know It’s Not True?
Once upon a time there was a missionary in a far-off land. He cared about the people there. He wanted them to know the gospel. So he began translating the Bible into their language the way he had been taught.
But when he came to Luke 15 he came to a problem. “These people don’t know what a sheep is,” he said. "They have never seen one. How do I teach them the parable of the lost sheep, if they don’t know what a sheep is?" Then he remembered his training. "I need to do one of two things. I could teach these people about "sheep" and make up a new word for it in their language. Or I could find a dynamic equivalent for sheep in their culture." He decided the second was easier. And so he found an animal the people cared for like a sheep: a guinea pig.
And so he translated the Bible, finding dynamic equivalents wherever he thought he needed to. "I don’t need to teach these people all about Israel, the Hebrews and their culture," he thought. And finally he published this "Bible" and gave it to the people. They loved their Bible and read from it often. Some even became Christians and moved away to a school to learn more.
One day a student returned to his family and confronted the missionary. "Why did you change the Bible?" he demanded. "The Bible doesn’t have guinea pigs and jungles, you liar!" "But I thought you wouldn’t understand," replied the missionary. "No! You told us lies about what God said! How can we ever trust you again?" So the people no longer believed the missionary. All his work was ruined and he went home in disgrace.
There are only two ways to bring the gospel to people. You can tell them God’s words and help them to understand what they mean. Or you might change the truth to make it easy for them and hope they never find out. But if you do, what will you do when they know it’s not true?
Try Answering These From Your NIV
By Rex L. Cobb
Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz.
Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).
- Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
- According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
- According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
- According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
- In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
- In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________
- According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
- According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
- In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
- In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
- In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
- According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
- In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
- John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
- What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
- In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
- In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
- What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
- Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
- Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
- Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
- First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
- In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
- Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
- Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"
(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?
If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.
Is the NIV preparing the way for ‘Another Jesus?'
Author finds NIV chips away at vital doctrines about Jesus
"What shall I do with Jesus?" is the central question of the ages. Every false religion cooked up by Satan downgrades Jesus one way or another. So, what do the new Bible versions do with Jesus?
Chick Salliby determined to find out. He began comparing verses in the KJV with the most popular modern version, the NIV. In dozens of places he found subtle, but consistent omissions and alterations which chip away at doctrines concerning Christ's redemption, deity, virgin birth, miracles, priesthood and second coming.
For example, Christ's statement of purpose in Luke 9:56: "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" is completely omitted in the NIV. The same sort of statement is left out in the NIV version of Matt. 18:11.
In other places, the NIV seems to be chipping away at the doctrine of the deity of Christ. In Rev. 1:13 John saw, in the midst of the candlesticks, "Someone like a son of man" (NIV) instead of "One like unto the Son of man" (KJV). The "judgment seat of Christ" in Rom. 14:10 (KJV) becomes "God's judgment seat" (NIV). In Acts 3:13, God's "Son Jesus" becomes "servant Jesus." In his book, If The Foundations Be Destroyed, Salliby lists nearly 150 verses which have been altered or simply left out.
Sure, there are lots of other scriptures left in which may say basically the same thing. But are we seeing the beginning of a pattern? If this version leaves out a few verses and later another version comes out omitting a few more, will some future generation lose all proof of who Jesus was and what He came to do? Is this Satan's ultimate strategy? Salliby discovered another curious thing. Of the 147 words or verses which he found omitted in the NIV, 146 were also left out of the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses! This is the Bible which they carry while trying to convince you that Jesus was just a manifestation of Michael the archangel in human form, a mere created being.
The heart and soul of Christianity is that Jesus was God and therefore able to redeem us by His death when we had no other hope. How do we know this? The Bible tells us so. If some future Bible is not abundantly clear on this doctrine, then true Christianity will be no more. It will become just part of Satan's witch's brew of religions which all teach that man must be good enough to earn his own salvation.
Is It Hard To Be Saved?
Mark 10:24 (KJV)
Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Mark 10:24 (NIV)
Jesus said again, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Picture two pastors preaching a sermon from this same verse, one from the King James Bible (KJV) and the other from the New International Version (NIV). The KJV pastor will teach that you must place your faith in God, not in riches.
But the NIV pastor has nothing here to preach but that it is hard to get saved. Because the NIV cuts the heart out of this scripture, it tilts the meaning of this entire passage away from the free gift of salvation toward (hard) works.
If the NIV pastor is a true Christian, simply fooled by the advertising hype pushing the NIV, it is doubtful he will preach that being saved is hard. Because someone probably preached the truth to him from a KJV Bible when he was young, he will know, down deep in his heart, that this is simply not true. So he will abandon this verse and find another on which to preach. But as modern versions keep chipping away at the Scriptures, there will soon be nothing left.
Who says all Bible versions are the same?
© 2001 by David W. Daniels
Question: It is true that I don't find lots of verses and words in the text of my NIV. But a lot of times I find the words in the footnotes. Isn't that good enough?
Answer: It is never "good enough" to take out or replace God's words. The text of the Bible is what the translators want you to think is the word of God. By putting the words into the footnotes, they make the reader think 1) they did not really belong in the Bible and 2) they are not really important.
But those words are very important. Look at these Scriptures:
KJV: Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"
NIV: "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"
With an NIV is pretty easy for a Christian Scientist to say that God is "in everyone," even those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
KJV: Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marveled…"
NIV: "The child's father and mother marveled…"
Anyone who believed that Joseph, not God, was Jesus' true father would love the NIV (or any other of the Alexandrian perversions).
KJV: Mark 10:24 "…Jesus answereth again, … Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"
NIV: "…Jesus said again, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'"
The perversions spread the lie that it is hard to get to heaven. That makes it easy to say we need to do good works to be saved.
KJV: Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
This is the only place in the New Testament that shows us the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 53:12. The perversions hide a fulfilled prophecy!
KJV: Luke 9:54-56
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
NIV: 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" [comparison with Elias omitted]
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [Jesus' words of rebuke omitted]
56 [Jesus' reason for coming to earth omitted] and they went to another village.
The Alexandrian writings make this passage meaningless! The preserved Bible shows us that Jesus' disciples are not to take revenge, nor to "destroy lives," but to "save them." The whole lesson here is removed in the perversions.
There are many other examples. Many can be found in the excellent book, If the Foundations Be Destroyed by Chick Salliby
But these show us that every word of the Bible is very important. That is why God warns us about adding to or taking away from His words.
God's preserved words in the King James Bible are what we need as Christians, to prepare in this life for the life to come, and to know what God wants us to know. Anything short of that-is not God's word.
What does the NIV have against Jesus?
Is your Bible missing important verses and doctrines? If it is an New International Version there's a lot missing! Author Chick Salliby documents the sad truth of how much is left out of this popular modern Bible. If you or someone you care about is using it, you really need to read this book!
For example, did you know that there is only one verse in the whole Bible that tells us we need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before we are baptized? That verse is Acts 8:37. Why is it missing from the text in the NIV? (Look for yourself).
Or what about Colossians 1:14, where it says "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Why has "through his blood" been removed from the NIV? Do you really believe that you can be saved without the shed blood of Jesus Christ?
The author gives us 155 clear instances of changes and omissions from the Bible, things that should be in the NIV but are not. The NIV weakens the deity of Christ, and removes doctrinally important teachings. Verse comparisions between the King James and the NIV cover a wide range of topics, as seen here from the table of contents:
More Information To Come