HEN WE GO to the bookstore to purchase a new Bible, we no longer merely choose whether we prefer a black or brown leather cover. We are now inundated with a multitude of various “translations.” There are versions for children, versions for college students, attractive covers that look like a school textbook (for those who don’t want to be seen carrying an actual Bible), illustrated versions, computer versions, etc.

They are available in everything from Good News for Modern Man, to The Living Bible, to the New International Version, and on and on—well over eighty different versions in all.

Some of the reasons given for selecting one of the new versions is that they are “easier to read,” they will help you to “understand,” they are more “accurate,” you can use it to “compare” to the King James since it is so “archaic,” and so on.

But is this really the case? Are they really more readable? Are they actually more accurate as their publishers claim? Are they more up-to-date in a way that can benefit the Christian walk?

I believe the answer to all the above is no—absolutely not! Granted, the words thee and thou may at times properly be understood to mean you in modern language. Whithersoever can be read as wherever without doing damage to the meaning. But this is by no means the extent of the changes being made.

The real motives—not merely the advertised reasons—may be quite revealing. On closer examination, some of the changes in these versions are absolutely shocking to one who loves God’s word.

Is this current situation altogether the diabolical scheme of money-hungry publishers? Probably not. Does it have its roots in Satan’s unrelenting attempt to derail the truth? I believe it does. I think you will be inclined to agree as you discover the myriad of serious problems associated with the various versions now being promoted.

░░░░░

Is There A Problem?

The current Bible-selling market includes well over eighty different “versions” of scripture. Most of these new bibles are produced by major, well-respected publishing houses. They are well advertised, referred to in many scholarly works, used in many seminaries and quoted by all the popular Christian media. Is this a problem?

efore you purchase your next Bible, you should know that there are between 5,000 and 36,000 differences in many of the new versions, depending on which one you are considering. These differences are not merely updates, or using less old-fashioned words—but actual differences in meaning. Basic doctrines of the Christian faith are both directly and subtly attacked.

These new bibles are not merely more up-to-date translations like they have been promoted to be. They are not just a more readable form of the English language. They are not simply an effort to eliminate “thee” “thou” and “ye” from the Old English of the King James. They don’t just change from words like “whithersoever” to “wherever”—they have virtually changed the testimony of scripture.

In the last few years, several books have been published attempting to unmask the plot to destroy the validity of the traditional Protestant King James Bible. And with very good reason. Some of the basic tenets of faith that Christianity held for centuries have been undermined in these new copyrighted bible versions.

The doctrines of the deity of Christ (that Christ is God), the virgin birth of Christ, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, the doctrines of salvation by faith, and the tri-unity of God (that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are truly one) are just a few of the many differences.

For a specific example (one of many), given by Edward F. Hills, Th.D., in his excellent book The King James Version Defended ¹, look at the narration of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53—8:11). Hills writes, “The story of the woman taken in adultery (called the pericope de adultera) has been rather harshly treated by the modern English versions. The R.V. and the A.S.V. put it in brackets; the R.S.V. relegates it to the footnotes; the N.E.B. follows Wescott and Hort in removing it from its customary place altogether and printing it at the end of the Gospel of John as an independent fragment of unknown origin. The N.E.B. even gives this familiar narrative a new name, to wit, An Incident in the Temple. But as Burgeon has reminded us long ago, this general rejection of these precious verses is unjustifiable.”

For a more complete treatment of the thousands of changes and

perversions, see the listing of Resources for Further Study at the

end of this book.

Contaminated Manuscripts

HE BASIC DIFFERENCE between the King James Version Bible (KJV) and all others lies in the original manuscripts from which the versions are taken. Most of the versions now on the market are either translated or paraphrased from the corrupted Alexandrian (Alexandria, Egypt) manuscripts.

One of these is known as the Codex Vaticanus, which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of its being in “excellent condition,” it omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28, Psalm 106 through Psalm 138, Matthew 16:2—3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14—13:25, and all of Revelation! In the four gospels, it omits over 230 words, over 450 clauses and 740 whole sentences. ² It did include the Apocrypha, books that had been rejected by practically all Protestants as not being part of the inspired portion of Scripture. The King James translators knew of this manuscript but refused to use it, knowing that it was unreliable.

The other Alexandrian manuscript is known as the Codex Sinaiticus. It was found in 1844 in a trash pile in Saint Catherine’s Monastery located at the foot of Mount Sinai. A German biblical professor named Constantin Tischendorf uncovered the manuscript in a stack of discarded paper the monks were using for kindling. Some might claim that this was divinely ordained, adding credence to the power of the spirit of St. Catherine, represented by her head and her hands, actually preserved at this monastery in gold boxes and revered by the monks. Others might say it was more diabolical than divine, considering the consequences of this discovery.

This manuscript contained nearly all of the New Testament plus adding the “Shepherd of Hermes” and the “Epistle of Barnabas.” It also has been proven to be extremely non-reliable. John Burgeon ³ spent years examining every known manuscript of the New Testament. Concerning the Sinaiticus he writes: “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 than 115 times in the New Testament.”

When modern version Bibles say in the footnotes, things like: “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!

While it is believed that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts may be the oldest, they are certainly not the best manuscripts!

In this case older is not better! 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 leaves 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 contain all these verses.⁴The 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.

These two corrupted manuscripts even disagree with each other over 3,000 times—in the gospels alone! But from the combination of these two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, come virtually ALL of the Bibles on the market today—except, of course, the King James Version of 1611.⁵

The Roman Catholic Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are known to be copies of one of Origen’s⁶ bibles, the HEXAPLA, written about the year 200 A.D. (See 2 Corinthians 2:17 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15), so this should come as no real surprise. Origen, who was baptized as an infant, gave no indication that he was saved. He taught that the Lord Jesus was a created being, and inferior to the Son of God, according to pages 900-902, volume 16, 1936 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Later editions omit this fact.)

Wescott & Hort’s revised bibles of 1881—1885 are based largely upon the Roman Catholic Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. Around 1875, a popular cry in England was to update some of the words of the King James Bible. The ones pushing for the update were the friends of England’s Roman Catholic Cardinal Newman, who was educated by the Jesuits⁷. A committee was formed, and the work was then performed in absolute secrecy. The truth is they were not actually updating the Bible at all, but rather were changing it by using another manuscript.

Two of the committee members were B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort from the Church of England, who secretly supported the Roman Catholic Church, and worshiped Mary, the “Queen of Heaven.” These two men convinced the committee that the “old” texts in the Vatican (originated by Origen in Egypt) were more reliable than the copies of scripture available from Antioch. The true word of God was thus greatly maligned and a New English Version of the old Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate ⁸ was then produced.

Catholicism and the Jesuits had much reason to be pleased.

It took from 1611 to 1881 (about 270 years) for Rome to bring about this damage to the reputation of the King James Bible. But in just the last 80 years or so, there have been well over eighty new English bibles, all based on Origen’s corrupted text—all trying desperately to push the King James Bible into oblivion.

If this doesn’t work, what will be the next attack? When the New World Order fully emerges, will Rome again gain the power she feels is rightfully hers and will history then repeat itself as our King James Bibles are banned, confiscated and burned?

The Textus Receptus

HE TEXTUS RECEPTUS (meaning received text) from which the King James (Authorized Version) is written, traces its roots back to apostolic origin through the Waldenses, who were the literal descendents of the early Italic Church. The book of Moses, the Psalms, the Writings, and the Prophets (Old Testament) had been carefully protected by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around the priesthood (see Deuteronomy 31:24-26).

The New Testament church, possessing the gifts of the Holy Ghost, discernment, etc., had carefully guarded against any changing of God’s revealed Word. Unlike many teachers today, they understood that the Word was to change them, not the other way around. God, true to His promise (Matthew 24:35), guided true believers to reject any false readings and thus preserve the TRUE TEXT through the universal priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:9) ─ the faithful Christians in every walk of life who were indwelled by the Spirit of truth (see John 14:17). At the end of the Middle Ages this True Text was placed in print and became the Textus Receptus, the very foundation of the glorious Protestant Reformation. (For more about the Textus Receptus, see “God’s Promise to Preserve” beginning on page 36.)

On July 22, 1604, King James of England, in response to a petition from the Puritan clergy, announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version. These men were organized into six groups, which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford, and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language.

Each scholar first independently translated his assigned portion of Scripture, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each group had completed translating a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went through the hands and minds of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors, another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies. Then the entire version came before this select group where all differences of opinions were ironed out. It put the finishing touches upon the work, and in 1611 prepared it for the printers. It was a thorough work of organized cooperation where the direction and discernment of the Holy Spirit were desired.

These translators of the King James Bible were thus made to realize that they were dealing with sacred Bible Manuscripts giving words, jots and tittles that were God-breathed.

In addition, it was understood that if there were obscure passages especially hard to understand, all the educated men of England would be called upon by letter. Comments from the clergy were welcomed. This was not done in secret, like the later Wescott and Hort bibles, which form the basis of all the new versions, including the New International Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard, American Standard Version, The Living Bible, New English Bible, The Everyday Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, Good News for Modern Man, The New World Translation, The Berkeley Version, and a host of others. Even the New King James, although essentially taken from the Textus Receptus, works continually to disempower the True Word of God by the use of footnotes and marginal notations referring to those “better” or “older” manuscripts and uses much of the Alexandrian material.

According to author Jasper James Ray in God Wrote Only One Bible, “Current, conflicting and confusing Bible Versions and paraphrases appear to be part of a `BRAIN WASHING’ process, to prepare both clergy and laity for the reception of the new `EVOLVING BIBLE’.” He points out a magazine article which tells about “agents operating within the World Ecumenical movement, who have initiated the preparation of a new `Authorized Version’ of the Holy Bible. This is evolving through the `BRAIN WASHING’ power of the translators who delete important scriptures by saying they are not in the `best’ manuscripts. By `best’ they refer to the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which were elevated to the `Chair of Authority’ through the deceptive teaching of Westcott and Hort.”

Ray also writes, “this new Evolving Bible is to be the Bible of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH of WORLD BROTHERHOOD. It will go beyond anything we have seen yet, for we are told that it will `delete’ (blot out) every trace of the story of Christ’s crucifixion, whereby He died for the sins of all who will believe. More than this, plans are being made by which this UNIVERSAL CHURCH BIBLE will supplant (take the place of) both the Douay [Catholic] and King James [Protestant] bibles. Already, before our very eyes, we see both the clergy and laity turning away from the King James and turning to various new versions and paraphrases which omit portions of God’s word which are essential for salvation.”

The Bible, in its original form, was not a collection of books created by the intellect of man. It was the writing of God, either directly, as in the case of the Ten Commandments, which God wrote with his own finger (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10), or by direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16). God also promised that his words were pure words and that he would preserve them forever (see Psalm 12:6,7).

If we believe that God inspired his words and promised to preserve it forever, and it was perfect in the original autographs, then we must also believe that God has preserved it perfect for us today. The carnal mind wants to understand everything with the mind rather than the Spirit, but scripture says, “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:6,7). New versions are not the answer to a better understanding of scripture – true conversion, having God put his laws into our minds, is the answer – the ONLY answer. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Hebrews 8:10). □

Something’s Missing Here

N AN E-MAIL to Chick Publications ⁹, a reader suggested a very enlightening Bible drill where the leader of a youth group reads a Scripture reference and the kids scramble to see who can find it first and read it aloud. This is a good drill to develop verse-locating skills.

However, for those in the group who happen to be using a modern NIV (New International Version) Bible, there would be a real problem that users of the King James Bible would not have. The list of verses suggested for the drill included:

Matthew 17:21 Matthew 18:11

Matthew 23:14 Mark 7:16

Mark 9:44 Mark 9:46

Mark 11:26 Mark 15:28

Luke 17:36 Luke 23:17

John 5:4 Acts 8:37

Acts 15:34 Acts 24:7

Acts 28:29 Romans 16:24

All the previous verses are completely missing from the NIV. At best there is a reference to a footnote. The young Christian might easily conclude that the missing verses were not important—but this is hardly the case. For example notice what is missing when the first one, Matthew 17:21 is left out (shown here underlined in the following passage):

20. And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

21: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Also completely missing is Matthew 18:11 which says, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Do these seem like unimportant Scriptures? Of course not, unless there exists a motive to remove potency from God’s word. Mark 7:16 is extremely rich in meaning—but one which is left out of the NIV: “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” Certainly Satan is no fool when it comes to deception. He has worked for ages to destroy confidence in and the validity of God’s Holy Word—and he is not finished yet!

In referring to the anguish of the destruction of hell, Jesus said in Mark 9:44, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” NIV left it out. He also said, in Mark 11:26, “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” But Mark 11:26 is not in the NIV.

Neither is Mark 15:28, “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors” or Luke 17:36, “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left” or John 5:4, “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

Believing with all our hearts — and especially believing with all our hearts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God – is not something Satan wants us to do. As Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian who had come to Jerusalem to worship, this convert to Christianity was eager to be baptized. But eagerness, according to Philip, was not sufficient reason to proceed! Philip said in Acts 8:37, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he [the Ethiopian] answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” None of Acts 8:37 is in the NIV.

And on it goes. Not only missing whole verses but also vital segments. In Matthew 5:44 notice what’s been done to destroy the meaning. Here is the verse in NIV:

“But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”

Here is the same verse in the King James Version:

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

Notice (bold type) how much has been omitted from the NIV.

Another example would be Matthew 27:35. Notice that the reference to fulfillment of prophetic Scripture is completely missing from the NIV.

“When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.”

In the King James it reads:

“And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”

In the KJV, in Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to “heal sicknesses,” and to “cast out devils.” The NIV only gives them authority to “drive out demons.”

In Luke 9:55, when Jesus’ own disciples displayed a wrong attitude toward detractors, He “...turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” NIV says merely that Jesus turned and rebuked them.” The sting of the rebuke has been removed almost completely. In the following verse (56) it says that, “the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.” The NIV omits this pivotal doctrine, saying simply, and they went to another village.”

How many apostles were with Jesus when He sat down at the Passover? The KJV reveals in Luke 22:14 that there were twelve. The NIV says only that “Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.” How many languages, and what were they, that was written over Jesus at His crucifixion? The KJV says, in Luke 23:38, “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” The NIV considers this of no importance, saying only, “ There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

John 3:13 is a tremendously important verse, proving not only the deity of Christ, but even where the Son of Man was at the time it was spoken. Notice the KJV. “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” The NIV renders this simply “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven─the Son of Man.” For a more detailed treatment of this subject you can read In The Beginning Was The Word (see Additional Free Resources at the end of this book).

Another very important verse regarding the deity of Christ is found in 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJV reads, “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.” According to the NIV it’s difficult to know who it was that was “manifest in the flesh” reading, “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: 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, was taken up in glory.”

The Bible speaks of a three-in-one (a tri-unity) aspect of God. This is one of the pivotal doctrines of the true Church. According to 1 John 5:7,8, who are these three? First notice the King James translation: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Now notice the perversion as rendered in the NIV: “ For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

It seems that one of Satan’s major objectives has been to cloud mankind’s mind regarding exactly who the Lord Jesus Christ our Messiah really is. Was he truly God in the flesh or was he merely a later and more improved model of God? Was he the one who created the world? Did he, with His own finger, write the Ten Commandments or was Jesus the one on a mission to discard the precepts of the Father? Notice, the words of Jesus, in the first part of Revelation 1:11, “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia.” Watch now as the NIV completely OMITS reference to Alpha, Omega, first, and last. Here’s the same verse in the NIV. “which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches:”

No, the NIV is not more accurate or more up to date! While many try to defend it claiming that it is easier to read, it nevertheless remains flawed in a multitude of ways. This is true of virtually all the other new versions as well since they also are based on the minority text, instead of the Textus Receptus. □

Is the NKJV any better?

CCORDING TO David W. Daniels, author of The King James Bible Companion,¹⁰ “The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words!”

Daniels continues, “This is very important to those who want God’s truth in the English language. I myself used the NKJV for a decade before I learned the truth about the preserved words of God. Here is some of what convinced me to switch to the King James Bible from the `New King James’.”

One simple word can change the intent and meaning of an entire thought or sentence. For instance, is Jesus God's "Son" or God's "servant"? In the NKJV, changes such as this can make a huge difference in how we understand a passage, or indeed, our entire understanding of the plan of salvation.

One of the strong arguments in favor of the NKJV is that it eliminates some of the “archaic” English of the 1611 version. Sounds like a good point, doesn’t it? But sometimes the old English has a more specific meaning than would first appear. Please decide what God is saying to Moses:

“And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Exodus 16:28, NKJV)

Doesn’t it look like God is saying, "Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep my commandments and my laws"? But then look carefully at the accuracy of the King James:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”

Here it is more apparent that it was the people, not Moses, whom God was upset with. In the very specific English of the era of King James, “Ye” and “you” mean more than one person. “Thee,” “thou,” “thy,” “thine,” “doeth,” “hast,” etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The “y” is plural. The “t” is singular. Isn't that simple?

Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).

What Jesus meant was, "Nicodemus, marvel not that I said unto thee, all of you need to be born again." This is very important. Everybody, including Nicodemus, needed to be born again. That's why Jesus used the plural YE.

But it is not only the “thees and thous” that have been changed in the NKJV. Other words have been sort of “retranslated” and meanings subverted. The NKJV consistently uses terms that do not mean the same as in the King James Bible. Here are just a few examples:

King James Version New King James Version

2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many "peddling the word of

which corrupt the word God" ( similar to the NIV,

of God" NASV and RSV)

Titus 3:10 "A man that is an "Reject a divisive man"

heretick after the first (similar to the NIV)

and second admonition

reject"

1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all "Abstain from every

appearance of evil." form of evil." (like the

NAS, RSV and ASV)

No matter how you read these verses, the NKJV does not have the same meaning as the more precise King James Bible. Both translations cannot be correct. If one is right, the other has to be wrong. That’s because they are NOT using the same original manuscript as their final authority. KJV relies only on the Textus Receptus but the writers of the NKJV defer to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

It is clear the NKJV made Thomas Nelson Publishers a lot of money. Did a new King James-type Bible renew their hearts to God or just reline their pocketbooks? Note the following facts:

■ They are also the publishers of the American Standard Version, the American revision of

Westcott and Hort's perverted English Revised Version.

■ They are also the publishers of the Revised Standard Version, the revision of the American

Standard.

■ To this day they continue to sell at least six Bible perversions. The NKJV was just one

moneymaker that helped Nelson "reclaim its place" as a major publisher.

■ The NKJV repeats the lie that "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants,

Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." In fact, there are two:

1. the perverted Alexandrian line that was continued by the Roman Catholic religion and

2. the preserved, apostolic, Antiochian line that progresses from the Christians at Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to our precious King James Bible.

Who are the translators of the New King James Version?

Marion H. Reynolds Jr. of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association reveals a little-known fact:

“The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text – the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR [Textus Receptus]. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?"

This reveals that there were two schools of thought among the translators working on the NKJV. Half of them believed that the perverted 45 Alexandrian manuscripts, from which came the Roman Catholic Bibles and all the modern perversions, were better than the manuscripts behind the King James. The other group believed the thousands of manuscripts supporting the King James was a better original from which to translate. Apparently, none of them believed that they held God's words in their hands, only a "better" or "worse" text! The translators believed they had something close, but not an accurate Bible. It is a scary thing when Bible translators don't even believe they have God's words in their hands. It sounds like they don't believe God kept this promise:

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31)

Maybe that is why some of them had no problem working on other perversions, both before and after working on the NKJV. This group seems quite different from the 54 men who prayerfully and carefully translated the King James Bible from carefully preserved manuscripts of God's words.

Praise God for the Bible in English! He has preserved his word faithfully. He has enabled godly men to put it in print. But the enemy has tried to thwart God’s plan with the NKJV. Pastors may approve it and "scholars" promote it, but the NKJV is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The New King James is just another compromise between the liberal, perverted Bible versions floating around and the accurate and preserved words of God, the King James Bible.

Which Greek Is It?

When The Pastor Refers to ‘The Greek’

Excerpted from: Battle Cry, July/August 2003

ANY PEOPLE IN our congregations are impressed with preachers who refer to the Greek or Hebrew in their sermons. Authors David Daniels and Gail Riplinger point out several problems with this. First of all, in the New Testament, which Greek are they referencing? As Riplinger points out in New Age Bible Versions, most will go to the Westcott and Hort. This Greek text is based on flawed Roman Catholic manuscripts that ignore the bulk of the texts that have been used by Christians down through the ages. Few pastors even realize that there is a far more reliable Greek text, the one used by the King James translators.

Daniels describes another problem often overlooked. “Many people think that a year or two of Greek or Hebrew qualifies them to translate their own Bibles. But they forget that in numerous languages, there are many words that can have one or more meanings, depending on the context.”

Anyone with only this brief introduction to a language will probably go to a dictionary or lexicon and pick whatever meaning they think is right. To properly determine the true meaning they would have to be fluent in Greek just like they are in English.

Daniels relates a story in his book, Answers To Your Bible Version Questions. “Shortly after the King James was translated, one of the translators, Dr. Richard Kilbye, an expert in Hebrew and Greek, visited a church. In that church, a young preacher spent a great deal of time criticizing words in the KJV and telling what he thought the Bible should say. He used up most of his time on one particular word.

“That evening the young preacher was invited to dinner, along with Dr. Kilbye. Dr. Kilbye then told how they had looked at the three reasons given by the preacher, but then found thirteen better reasons to translate the word as it is.”

Daniels shows how King James assembled a group of about 50 scholars who had spent their lives studying Greek and Hebrew, not just a couple of years. He says, “They reviewed every verse of the Bible fourteen times, and had to come to agreement on every word they used.” This guaranteed that the translation was not based on the opinion of one person with only limited knowledge of the original language.

When God decided to give His words to the English speaking world, He arranged for some of the most qualified translators in the world to work from manuscripts that had been faithfully copied over the centuries from the originals. We need to remember this when we sit in church and hear a preacher refer to the Greek or Hebrew to dispute a meaning in the King James Version. □

The Translators

With excerpts from The Translators Revived

A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible

Written in 1858 by Alexander W. McClure, D.D. (except where noted)

OR TWENTY YEARS (the late 1830s to the late 1850s) researcher Alexander McClure pored over old writings to learn all he could about the men who translated the King James Bible. His resulting book, The Translators Revived stands as a monument to these dedicated Christian scholars.

Here are just a few examples of their qualifications:

John Harmar, D.D.
In 1585 he was appointed King's Professor of Greek. “He published several learned works; among them, Latin translations of several of Chrysostom’s writings,--also an excellent translation of Beza’s French Sermons into English, by which he shows himself to have been…adept in the difficult art of translating. Wood says, that he was ‘a most noted Latinist, Grecian, and Divine…’” He was a member of the New Testament group that met at Oxford.

Dr. John Spencer
“He was elected Greek lecturer for [Christi College, Oxford], being but nineteen years of age.” It was written of him, "Of his eminent scholarship there can be no question." He was a member of the New Testament group (Romans through Jude) that met at Westminster.

Thomas Bilson
McClure wrote that he was "so complete in divinity, so well skilled in languages, so read in the Fathers and Schoolmen, so judicious in making use of his readings, that at length he was found to be no longer a soldier, but commander in chief in the spiritual warfare."

Dr. George Abbot, B.D., D.D.
“This distinguished ecclesiastic…was the son of pious parents, who had been sufferers for the truth in the times of popish cruelty. He was created Doctor of Divinity, in 1597; and a few months after, was elected Master of University College [at the age of 35].

“In 1598, Dr. Abbot published a Latin work, which was reprinted in Germany. The next year he was installed Dean of Winchester. In 1600, he was elected Vice-Chancellor of the University; and was re-elected to the same honorable post in 1603 and 1605. It was about this time, that he was put into the royal commission for translating the Bible.”

He was regarded as "the head of the Puritans within the Church of England" and became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. He was in the Oxford New Testament group.

Sir Henry Saville

At the age of twenty-one “he read his ordinaries on the Almagest of Ptolemy, a collection of the geometrical and astronomical observations and problems of the ancients. By this exercise he very early became famous for his Greek and mathematical learning.

“In his twenty-ninth year, he travelled in France and elsewhere, to perfect himself in literature; and returned highly accomplished in learning, languages, and knowledge of the world and men. He then became tutor in Greek and mathematics to Queen Elizabeth…”

He founded the Savillian professorships of Mathematics and Astronomy at Oxford. His many works include an 8-volume set of the writings of Chrysostom. ⁽¹⁾ He also worked in the New Testament group at Oxford.

Richard Brett

“`He was skilled and versed to a criticism’” in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, and Ethiopic tongues. He published a number of erudite works, all in Latin. It is recorded of him, that `he was a most vigilant pastor, a diligent preacher of God’s word, a liberal benefactor to the poor, a faithful friend, and a good neighbor.’ This studious and exemplary minister, having attained this exalted reputation, died in 1638, at the age of seventy, and lies buried in the chancel of Quainton Church, where he dispensed the word and ordinances for three and forty years.”

Dr. Lancelot Andrewes (Andrews)
From Terence H. Brown, (Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England) comes this description of Westminster committee member Lancelot Andrewes:

"It is recorded that Andrewes was a man of deep piety and that King James had such great respect for him that in his presence he refrained from the levity in which he indulged at other times. A sermon preached at Andrewes' funeral in 1626 paid tribute to his great scholarship:

'His knowledge in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic, besides fifteen modern languages was so advanced that he may be ranked as one of the rarest linguists in Christendom. A great part of five hours every day he spent in prayer, and in his last illness he spent all his time in prayer -- and when both voice and eyes and hands failed in their office, his countenance showed that he still prayed and praised God in his heart, until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul to Himself.'"

McClure records, “And a brave old chronicler remarks, that, such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that, had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as Interpreter-General! “

Lawrence Chaderton, D.D.

"He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, and was thoroughly skilled in them. Moreover he had diligently investigated the numerous writings of the Rabbis, so far as they seemed to promise any aid to the understanding of the Scriptures. This is evident from the annotations in his handwriting appended to the Biblia Bombergi,* which are still preserved in the library of Emanuel College.”

*An edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in 1518.

Overcoming Their Humanness
Gustavus S. Paine, author of The Men Behind the King James Version, made this assessment about the combined work of the KJV translators:

"Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity--no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them." ⁽²⁾

While these scholars were perfectly suited for the task of translation individually, they still had to agree with one another on every single word of the Bible. This meant no man's mere opinion would be allowed to stand.

The One Who Started It All
These translators were building on the work of great men and Christians who went before them. Perhaps one man did more for the English Bible than any single person before or since: William Tyndale. He was ordained a priest around his late teens, in 1502. By 1515 he had earned his M.A. at Oxford. He later transferred to Cambridge and it was there that he came upon the preserved Greek New Testament of Erasmus. He began to understand the truth of the gospel at about the same time as Martin Luther. Tyndale then began preaching and teaching the gospel message, which made the hierarchy of the Roman church angry enough to brand him a heretic. One day, as Tyndale was confronted by a “very learned” Roman Catholic scholar, the papist cried out, "It were better for us to be without God's laws, than without the Pope's!" To which Tyndale prophetically replied,

"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than you do!"

This incident changed Tyndale forever, as he wrote that it decided him, once and for all, that he must translate the New Testament scriptures:

"Which thing only moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scriptures were plainly laid before their eyes in the mother tongue.”

Tyndale was well suited to his task. Spalatin, a friend of Martin Luther, wrote this in his diary of what had been told him concerning William Tyndale’s New Testament:

"The work was translated by an Englishman staying there with two others,--a man so skilled in the seven languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French, that which-ever he spake, you would suppose it his native tongue."

By the time Tyndale was betrayed, imprisoned and nearly frozen during a cold winter in jail, he had translated the New Testament into English, along with some Old Testament books, and had trained at least two others to carry on his work. But he wasn't finished, even when burnt at the stake on October 6, 1536, he cried out prophetically:

"Lord! Open the King of England's eyes" (Dr. William Grady, Final Authority, p. 137)

That very day the King’s own printer was cranking out a copy of Tyndale's New Testament!

Over the next century, God's preserved words were translated and revised by many scholars into a great many "good translations." These, along with God's preserved words in Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch and other languages were all "good translations." But the goal of the king's translators of 1604-1611 was not to write a new Bible from scratch, nor was it to make a translation from the Roman Catholic perversions:

"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark" (The Translators to the Reader, 1611 KJV, ninth page).

Throughout history God has preserved His words. And, culminating with over 54 dedicated, learned Christian men, God put His words in English in its perfection into the King James Bible.

Footnotes to this section:

1. Chrysostom was a 4th century Greek-speaking minister and writer.
2. Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, p. 173, quoted in Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version by Thomas Holland, p. 90 (Emphasis mine).

God’s Promise To Preserve

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

—Psalm 12:6-7

T’S YOUR DECISION:

You must decide whether or not you believe God has kept this promise. Did He preserve His Word throughout the generations? Or did He not? That decision will lead you to one of two Bible texts: either the Textus Receptus (meaning Received Text) or it will lead you to the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus texts. Here's why:

If you believe God preserved His Word

If God kept His promise, then what we need to do is simple. Have archaeologists find all the copies and pieces of copies they can find that have survived from ancient times. If God kept his promise, copying errors will not have polluted the text. Instead, when we compare the copies from churches all over the ancient world, we will find that they agree, that they all had basically the same text. If we occasionally find a copy that does not match the others, we will throw it out, knowing that it was made by a sloppy copyist.

This has, in fact been done. The Old Testament Hebrew text was preserved by the Levites. The apostles quoted it, and we can trust it. For the New Testament, of all the copies in existence today, 95% agree in an incredible way. God did keep His promise! Only 5%, a tiny minority, are "messed up." All we have to do is put together a Hebrew and Greek text made up from our overwhelming majority of ancient texts, and we will have a text that we can be confident is exactly the same as the one held by the early church. Today, this text is called by several names, the most common being the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus."

This was the text used by devout translators like William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin and others, some of whom died to preserve the Scriptures. If they were going to have to die for it, they were determined to die for the right text! This is also the text used to make the most famous and durable of all English Bibles, the King James Bible.

No modern English Bible translation uses this text! But that's another story.

If you do not believe God preserved His Word

If you believe that God did not keep His promise, then you have to expect that as people copied the Scriptures, mistakes constantly crept in. The next copyist would copy those mistakes, and add some of his own. As time went on, the Scriptures held by the church would deteriorate, be