The King James Bible Only: An Analysis of Modern Versions. and the Greek Text Upon Which They are Based

Transcription

1 The King James Bible Only: An Analysis of Modern Versions and the Greek Text Upon Which They are Based written by George Shafer in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Divinity May 1996 Anchor Baptist Bible Institute of the Anchor Baptist Church Salt Lake City, Utah

2

3 Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1 -- Identification of the Differences IDENTIFYING THE DIFFERENCES MISSING VERSES CHANGED WORDS AND MISSING PHRASES VERSES MARKED AS DOUBTFUL SIMILARITY BETWEEN MODERN VERSIONS THE PATTERN OF DIFFERENCE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCES Chapter 2 -- Implications of the Differences THEOLOGY A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE DIFFERENCES OF SUBSTANCE THEOLOGY PLACED IN DOUBT THE DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION THE SPIRIT OF MODERN VERSIONS Chapter 3 -- Initiation of the Differences MANUSCRIPT TYPES MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE WESTCOTT AND HORT ON ALEPH AND "B" SINAITICUS (ALEPH) AND VATICANUS (B) BEST MANUSCRIPTS? Chapter 4 -- Irresolution over the Differences INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION CONCEPTUAL PRESERVATION ARE WORDS IMPORTANT? Chapter 5 -- Implausibility of the Differences THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY DEFAMATION OF THE SYRIAN TEXT CONFLATION INTERNAL EVIDENCE PATRISTIC EVIDENCE WHAT CHURCH FATHERS REALLY SAID MANUSCRIPT FAMILIES

4 Chapter 6 -- Impertinence of the Dissenters METHODS AND TACTICS DISTRACTION SUBSTANCE OR VERBIAGE A FAULTY APPROACH DISTORTION PERSONALITIES RATHER THAN ISSUES A MATTER OF UNITY Chapter 7 -- Infestation of the Differences A MODERN TREND EFFECTS OF INFESTATION HEARING GOD'S WORD KEEPING GOD'S WORD ACCOUNTABILITY Conclusion

5 Introduction 1 Introduction God told Isaiah and the nation of Israel, "to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" (Isaiah 66:2). His statement enhances our understanding that we must properly identify and respond to the word of God in order to have an appropriate relationship with Him. An attempt to discover exactly where to find the word of God is much more than an inconsequential exercise of scholarship or intellect. It is the first step down a path that never ends: it is the determining factor of a course that leads either to the Lord Jesus Christ and eternal life or to a devil's hell and everlasting punishment. There is tremendous confusion today over the identity of God's word. Misconceptions about how to identify it also abound. A number of modern English language versions have been introduced in the past one hundred years or so that each claim to be the word of God. Introduction of modern versions has escalated in the past few decades to such a degree that dozens are now widely available. Men who would defend these versions are also plenteous, as are books, pamphlets, radio and television programs, and many other attempts to promote these recent works. At the center of the Bible issue are the King James Bible, and a small but steadfast group of men who insist that it is the word of God to the exclusion of all modern versions. Their insistence has been branded unreasonable by many who propose that modern versions should take the King James Bible's place. Inconsistent assertions abound. Some say that modern versions are not different from the King James Bible. Others say that the differences do not matter. A few are willing to admit to significant differences, boldly proclaiming that they are corrections of mistakes in the almost 400 year old book. An observant reader soon begins to realize that not everything written can be the truth. The question that must be answered is whether or not the coexistence of modern versions with the King James Bible is acceptable. It is the unconditional position of this author that the King James Bible is the very word of God, that

6 The King James Bible Only 2 it is verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, complete, and preserved, and that each and every word contained therein is the very word that God intended in perfect accord with the original writings of the prophets and apostles. It is further the unconditional position of this author that all other modern English language versions are intentional corruptions of the word of God, and that these are not only unacceptable for use but are also perilous for reference as they are deceitful books originated in the mind of the devil himself. While there is more than sufficient evidence for the rejection of modern versions based upon factors of conviction, philosophy, and translation, the specific contention of this work is that there is a consistent pattern of difference between modern versions and the King James Bible caused by disparity in the Greek texts upon which they are based; that these differences are very substantial; that they cause significant alterations in the message and therefore the theology of the Bible; that they are introduced into modern versions because of fraudulent theories of manuscript evidence and the improper use thereof; and that God specifically warns that those who choose to disregard His word in favor of another version are accountable for that disregard and will be eternally punished in hell as a result of it. There are a number of factors that must be understood in order to fully appreciate the belief that the King James Bible is the word of God and that modern versions are not. The first of these is the fact that there is a significant difference between the King James Bible and modern versions. This difference is not merely the result of updating so-called archaic words. While there are words in the King James Bible that are not in common use today, and a few that have been redefined, it is easy to overcome this small inconvenience and understand the message God has sent. The differences in modern versions are significant, involving more than one dozen missing verses in the New Testament, deletion and alteration of thousands of phrases, and insertion of footnotes that instruct the reader to question at least two large portions of scripture. It is impossible to assert that a verse such as Acts 8:37 was deleted in order to correct "archaic" words. The changes in modern versions are, in fact, so significant that they encompass more than half of the verses in the New Testament. Further changes due to translation and language style cause most modern versions to differ from the King James Bible in almost every verse. The second factor is that modern versions differ from the King James Bible in a particular and consistent way. The same verses missing from one version are almost always missing from the

7 Introduction 3 others. The same phrases changed in one version are also consistently modified in others. Statistically, the chance that these changes coincide on accident prove such an idea to be impossible. Furthermore, the pattern of difference is universal, such that the King James Bible is the only one that does not include them. One modern version, the New King James Version requires special treatment as its translators attempted to stay close to the King James Bible, but even this modern version shows tremendous respect for the very same manuscripts that the others are based upon. Translators of modern versions frequently disclose this common basis by citing the work of textual critics in their preface. The common basis for modern versions is manifest in the theories and work of two nineteenth century critics. Today, there are two "Bibles" represented by English language versions... the King James Bible and those that depart from it. A third factor that must be understood is that the differences between modern versions and the King James Bible are significant in meaning and theology. Modern versions change or omit verses dealing with the importance of God's words, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the criteria for baptism, the character of God, the plan of salvation, the judgment of this world, and hell. They also cloud the testimony of other verses by giving conflicting accounts where one verse is changed so that it no longer agrees with another. The changes are so numerous, that even though some deny the obvious alteration of doctrine, they do so at the expense of reason. God intended to convey many things in the Bible that are not immediately evident to the reader. These less than conspicuous messages are lost in modern versions which reflect the alteration or exclusion of thousands upon thousands of words from the modern Greek text. It is imperative to realize that the differences in modern versions originated in the Greek text made available by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in the early 1880's. The aberrant theology of these two men has brought such negative publicity that defenders of modern versions are forced to distance themselves from Westcott and Hort. One defender of modern versions questionably stated that he knew of no one who believed their theories today. As the theories of Westcott and Hort and the supposed evidence for those theories are clearly documented, men have been able to uncover the faulty nature of their work. To this day there are basically two Greek biblical texts in existence. One of them was used in the

8 The King James Bible Only 4 translation of the King James Bible and the other was used for modern versions. There are variations of this second text, but its theory and the majority of its readings are manifest in every modern version in a remarkably similar manner. Many readers of modern versions falsely believe that those versions are the product of many different Greek manuscripts. Few realize that there are about 5,000 manuscripts that agree with the King James Bible and only a handful, and ultimately two, that agree with modern versions. Even the so-called 'eclectic' text behind the NIV is quickly unmasked to reveal the Westcott and Hort readings time and time again. The similarity between the NIV and the Westcott and Hort text is undeniable. This ultimate source of the Westcott and Hort Greek text is found in two ancient Greek manuscripts, each having a dubious history and an astounding dissention with the text upon which the King James Bible is based. These two manuscripts are known as Codex Vaticanus (otherwise known as "B") and Codex Sinaiticus (otherwise known as the Hebrew letter Aleph). Each of these manuscripts has a questionable background. More surprisingly these two manuscripts, the ones Westcott and Hort said were closest to the original autographs, are so different from each other that it is easier to find two verses that are different in them than it is to find two that are the same. When defenders are forced to admit that modern versions are radically different from the King James Bible and that God promised to preserve His word, they fall back to the argument that there is much disagreement over the definition of preservation. Many contend that preservation only applies to the concepts rather than the words. Others say that God's word is preserved in all of the known manuscripts, but that we cannot know which ones are correct. The contention is that God inspired particular words, but then allowed them to be lost... retaining only the concepts that were originally given. There is a inordinate amount of deceit and subtlety manifest by those who would defend modern versions. While space precludes thorough examination of those who defend modern versions, it is important for anyone investigating the King James issue to realize that he will ultimately encounter dishonesty, trickery, and diversion in his search for the truth. There are a number of examples of this dishonesty readily available. Unfortunately, it is necessary to single out specific authors in the presentation of these examples. This is not an attempt to assassinate character, but rather to alert the

9 Introduction 5 reader to the maliciousness to which he will eventually be exposed. Men are accountable for their treatment of God's Son, as seen in His words, just as they are accountable for their recognition of God, as seen in His creation. The Bible provides repeated examples of the way certain men have treated God's word as an indication of their personal salvation. It is the conviction of the author that there is a supernatural factor in the acceptance or rejection of God's word that transcends physical evidence. While the evidence is certainly in favor of the King James Bible, just as other evidence is in favor of creation, it is the Spirit of God that convicts a man to accept His word. Those who reject God's word, just as those who reject His salvation, do so in defiance of the Holy Spirit. Subsequent to their rejection, Romans chapter 1 says that their "foolish heart" will be darkened. They are turned over to their own "reprobate mind." Their scholarship and education can exceed all other men, but it will never provide an ample substitute for the conviction that only God can give. As they desperately attempt to justify their rejection, their wicked devices will grow more and more sophisticated. The man who accepts God, however, will be drawn closer to Him and understand that His pure word is all important to him, for it will keep his heart, and ultimately affect the very issues of life.

10 The King James Bible Only 6 Chapter 1 -- Identification of the Differences It would be impossible to honestly deny that there are notable differences between the King James Bible and other modern English language versions. Open a King James Bible and any other modern version to whatever passage you choose. A quick comparison will demonstrate that it is very difficult (and often impossible) to locate two verses that read exactly the same. You may even open to a passage such as Acts 8:37 or Matthew 18:11 which are almost always missing from modern versions. Whatever the case, one could not depart from this simple experiment without realizing that a difference does exit. The certainty that there is a difference is also easily demonstrated by the sharp disagreement among some men over which version should be used. If all versions were identical there would be no reason for such disagreement. Many books have been written on this subject. These books neatly fall into two categories -- those that contend for the exclusive use of the King James Bible, and those that contend against it. Men do not write books entitled "The New International Version Controversy" or "The Revised Standard Version Debate." The books that are written have titles such as "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations." In almost every case you will find that the question is centered around the King James Bible. The reason the King James Bible is at the center of the issue is that the King James Bible is the only one that is different. If there were no significant differences in the modern versions, people would not buy them. The fact that millions of copies of new versions have been sold points to the fact that someone thought they were different -- at least different enough to justify spending money on such an item. If automobile manufacturers made their cars exactly the same year after year (as they did until 1923) people would only buy a car when their old one was beyond reasonable repair. By making cars different each year, the consumer's desire for something new is tapped and many more cars are sold. Those who print Bibles, such as Thomas Nelson, have also obtained benefit from the desire men have to own the most current product. They have obtained that benefit by providing a product that is significantly different.

11 Identification of the Differences 7 Men who have written in favor of the modern versions agree that they are different. Stewart Custer, a faculty member at Bob Jones University, declares: "There is a difference between preservation and inspiration. When we speak of the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired word of God, we are referring to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Any translation is inspired only insofar as it agrees with the originals. God's preservation is not a continuing inspiration, but a preservation so that no teaching of the Bible would be lost. 1 " It is notable that a number of verses in the Bible speak of God preserving His word and yet none of them describe the preservation of "teachings", but the most interesting comment Stewart Custer makes is that the versions we have today contain only various levels of inspiration. He defines the inspiration of a particular version in terms of its agreement with the originals. His contention is that the word of God has changed, but that the teachings have not. When he says modern versions are not 100% inspired he is right, and he has also pointed out that they are different from God's pure word. While any deviation from God's pure word is very critical, differences can be placed in one of two categories -- those that change meaning and those that do not. Our ability to accurately categorize them is extremely questionable because we almost never understand the entire meaning of a passage at first glance. How many times have we examined a passage for the hundredth time only to stop and realize that we finally, for the first time, understand what it means? At first it may appear to us that the meaning of a verse has not been altered by a modern version, when in reality the meaning of the change is simply too subtle to be easily noticed. While this is often the case, examples of obvious change in meaning are also plenteous. The differences between the King James Bible and other modern versions are not limited to simple changes in wording. There are numerous occasions where radical changes have been introduced. While we are thoroughly convinced that the particular words used by God are important, even if changing them were acceptable it is sure that God would strongly disapprove of men changing the meaning also. It seems equally sure that a man who would seek to read the very message that came

12 The King James Bible Only 8 from God would be less than satisfied to learn that he was reading a message that had originated with man instead. IDENTIFYING THE DIFFERENCES While there is an identifiable pattern of difference that distinguishes every modern version from the King James Bible, modern versions are far from being identical. Older ones such as the 1901 ASV tend to stay closer to, although worlds away from, the King James text. Newer versions such as the NIV take almost unlimited liberties with wording. Some newer versions, like the NKJV, have intentionally chosen to be somewhat eclectic and attempt to mix the Westcott and Hort type of Greek text with the Textus Receptus (Received Text). Because such a large number of different versions exist, it is expedient to limit the versions analyzed in this work to those that have been most widely accepted by the public. Because all modern versions use the same philosophy of manuscript evidence, we can safely say that versions excluded will perform in a similar manner to those tested. In isolated cases they may not, however, perform identically. The versions chosen for comparison 2 are the New International Version (NIV) of 1984, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1947, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of 1989, and the American Standard Version (ASV) of The Greek texts chosen are the New Testament in Greek by Westcott and Hort, and the 27th edition Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland). The ASV of 1901 is the ancestor of both the NRSV and RSV, but does not display all of the changes found in those two later versions. Robert Sargent, the author of a manuscript evidence textbook, points out that the men who translated the ASV "were not as captivated by the critical text [of Westcott and Hort] but none-the-less followed the manuscript evidence behind it 3." The NRSV and RSV are directly related... the NRSV being a 1989 revision. It should be no surprise that they are quite similar. The NIV is far removed from the other three versions, translated from an "eclectic critical text 4 " that is very consistent with the Westcott and Hort text. The Nestle-Aland Greek text is the commonly used Greek text of our day although it agrees very closely to the Westcott and Hort text, and disagrees with the Textus Receptus in thousands of places -- almost always in the same places that the Westcott and Hort text disagrees also. The critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek text was used as a source of information for the Figures (i.e. Figure 2.) in this work, to determine which manuscripts support or disagree with a particular reading.

13 Identification of the Differences 9 For purposes of demonstration we will classify some of the differences between the King James Bible and other modern versions into three types and give examples of each. The first type of difference involves verses that are present in the King James Bible but missing from modern versions. Type two includes verses where significant words or phrases are missing or changed in modern versions. The third type includes verses or groups of verses that have been included in modern versions, but which have been identified as "doubtful" by a footnote or other marking device -- verses that are said to be of unreliable origin and therefore are not to be considered God's words. There are other types of differences, but the three named above include the majority and are adequate to demonstrate the remarkable similarity between the Westcott and Hort text and modern versions. The lists of differences that follow are far from comprehensive; they are only a fraction of the thousands of changes that could be presented. Differences caused by translation are not included. All of the variations listed result from fundamental differences between the Greek texts used in translation of the modern versions and the Textus Receptus which was used in the translation of the King James Bible. MISSING VERSES There are more than a dozen verses deleted from most modern versions in the gospels alone. The gospels are where most omissions may be found. One method used to locate verses omitted by modern versions is quite simple. A parallel Bible 5 containing the New International Version (NIV) can be scanned with special attention to footnotes in the NIV column. When the footnote appears significant enough to warrant further investigation, a computer Bible (i.e. Online Bible 6.3 for Windows) or printed copy of each of the texts (i.e. the NIV, NRSV, RSV, ASV, and Westcott and Hort Greek) may be used to compare each reading simultaneously. Missing verses are located in those places where the verse numbers skip a number in the sequence (i.e. 35, 36, 38, 39). To obtain the list given in Figure 1. each of the above mentioned versions, including the Westcott and Hort Greek text, was checked for the presence or absence of the verse in question. The most recent copy of the United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text (the 27th edition) was also checked for the presence of the verse. The verse was included in the list (see Figure 1.) only if it was missing

14 The King James Bible Only 10 from all of these sources. It is interesting to note that there was not a single occasion where a verse that was missing from the NIV existed in the NRSV, the RSV, or either of the two Greek texts which were analyzed. There was one instance out of 17 where a verse appeared in the ASV but not in the NIV and was excluded from the list 6. The conclusion must be drawn that, on the basis of missing verses, there is tremendous consistency between the modern versions listed above and between the Westcott and Hort Greek text, the UBS Greek Text, and the Greek text used by the NIV translators (which was said to be "eclectic"). Using the above method there were 16 verses found to be omitted from the NIV, NRSV, RSV, ASV, Westcott & Hort Greek, and Nestle-Aland (UBS) 27th edition; this is not necessarily a complete list of verses consistently missing in modern versions. King James Bible NIV, NRSV, RSV, ASV, Westcott & Hort, and Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Luke 23:17 For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast. 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. (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing)

15 Identification of the Differences 11 Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (missing) (missing) (missing) (missing) I John 5:7 For their are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (missing) Modern versions have been renumbered to make it appear as though this verse is not missing. (Fig. 1 - Verses missing from most modern New Testaments) There are 31,175 verses in the Bible 7 and it is doubtful that there is a man alive who is proud enough to claim that he knows the exact reason God had for writing each of them. Without doubt it is unreasonable to assume that we may omit a verse without altering the message God intended to convey in any given passage. Even though we do not know the complete doctrinal significance of each omission, when verses are omitted we must agree that changes affecting meaning have been made as information has been lost. CHANGED WORDS AND MISSING PHRASES Verses excluding or substituting significant words or phrases are much more numerous than verses that are entirely missing from new versions. A comprehensive list is far beyond the scope of this work. The list in Figure 2. is only a portion of the many possible examples. The verses listed in Figure 2. were identified by reading footnotes in the NIV and comparing the various English and Greek versions indicated. The list was then supplemented by adding two or three familiar changes to provide additional examples having doctrinal implications. Only when a verse (with the exception of Mark 10:24) was missing from all six compared versions (NIV, NRSV, RSV, ASV, W-H, N-A 27th) was it included in the list.

16 The King James Bible Only 12 King James Bible NIV, NRSV, RSV, ASV, Westcott & Hort Greek, and Nestles 27th Edition Greek Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment Matthew 5:44 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; Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. Mark 10:24... But 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 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 9:55-56 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. "without a cause" (Greek word eike) omitted based on P64, uncial MSS Aleph, and B only "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph and B only "evil" changed to "the evil one" and "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph, B, D, and Z "new" omitted based on P37 and uncial MSS Aleph, B, D, L, Z, and 1 "and fasting" omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph and B only "is it" changed to "it is" and "for them that trust in riches" omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph and B (note: 1901 ASV does not make this change) "new" omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph, B, C, D, L, 1, and Q "but by every word of God" omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph, B, L, and W. Underlined words omitted based on uncial MSS Aleph, B, C, L, X, and =. Underlined words omitted based on P75 and uncial MSS Aleph and B

17 Identification of the Differences 13 Luke 11:4... And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Luke 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Acts 2:30... he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh... "but deliver us from evil" omitted based on P75, one Aleph corrector, B, and L "ass" changed to "son" based on P45, P75, and uncial MSS A, B, and W (note: two MSS (1 and the Curetonian Syriac) say "donkey son") "waiting for the moving of the water" omitted (along with verse 4) based upon P66, P75, Aleph, A, B, C, L, and T "on me" omitted based on P66, P75, Aleph, B, C, L, T, W, and 1 Changed to "he would set one of his descendants on his throne" based on uncial MSS Aleph, A, B, D, and D "God" changed to "he" based on Aleph and B I John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God... "is come in the flesh" omitted based on uncial MSS A and B (Fig. 2 - A few of the many verses changed in most modern New Testaments) There are literally hundreds of examples that are just as significant as those seen above, and there have been many excellent books written which reveal the vast differences between the King James Bible and the modern versions. Over half of the verses in the New Testament have been changed in the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Such massive revision of God's word cannot be expected to leave its meaning unaltered. VERSES MARKED AS DOUBTFUL With the exception of the King James Bible, the translators of almost every English language version in print today have chosen to employ footnotes to mark certain passages as "doubtful." The King James translators use many footnotes, but not in a way that sheds doubt on the authority of the text. For example, the NIV places the following notice after Mark 16:8 "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." Subsequent to the message, the translators continue by placing Mark 16:9-20 in the text. The reader is left to decide whether or

18 The King James Bible Only 14 not the passage is God's word. He is not given any additional information or help in making his decision; he is simply left to choose whether or not he will regard the suspected passage or not. The reader is forced to become the authority. Footnotes of this type are a direct attack on the authority of God's word. There are many instances of this type of marking (footnotes that place doubt on a passage) in modern versions, but two particularly significant ones are listed in Figure 3. Both of these examples involve a large number of verses, and both are based upon only two or three uncial MSS -- Aleph and B (and L, P66 and P75 for John 7:53-8:11 8 ). The New King James Version prefers this method of change -- adding suspicion by footnote -- and places footnotes on many of the verses that are changed in other versions (i.e. Acts 8:37, I Timothy 3:16, I John 5:7-8). The regard paid by the New King James Version translators to the methods and theories used by translators of other versions is readily seen in this technique. Passage NIV Footnote Mark 16:9-20 The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. John 7:53-8:11 The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. (Fig. 3 - Groups of verses marked as doubtful in modern versions) The significance of the suspicious footnote is that it takes a portion of God's word that would be considered authoritative by the reader, and changes it into something that the reader has now been given license to disregard. It makes the Bible a type of "fill in the blank" workbook. If the reader likes what he sees in the passage he is allowed to consider it to be God's word, and if he does not he may disregard it with the permission of the translators. The footnotes added by the translators also tend to be very presumptuous in nature. When the translators say "most reliable early manuscripts" what do they really mean? In the case of Mark 16:9-20 the word "most" actually means "two", and the concept of "reliable" is definitely in the eye of the beholder (as the manuscripts they are talking about are Aleph and B). It would have been

19 Identification of the Differences 15 more accurate to say "two early manuscripts, that some men consider to be reliable, do not contain Mark 16:9-20 but thousands of others do." The way the footnote is phrased leads us to believe that the verses should have been omitted altogether, rather than inserted for our inspection. One is then left with the question "if this is an improved Bible, why does it include verses that do not belong"? The translators disclose their indecision by letting the reader decide for them. SIMILARITY BETWEEN MODERN VERSIONS It is not unusual to find a substantial analysis of the differences between the King James Bible and other modern versions in books that defend the King James Bible. Defending the King James Bible by Dr. D. A. Waite categorizes the differences according to traditional areas of systematic theology. God Wrote Only One Bible by Jasper James Ray lists 162 test verses in order of appearance in the Bible, and then demonstrates how they appear in 45 of the most popular English and Greek texts. Figure 4. is an abbreviated version of the table provided by Mr. Ray. Version Number of Test Passages Corrupt/Missing Revised Standard Version 158 out of 162 Nestle's Greek Text 155 out of 162 Westcott & Hort's Greek Text 151 out of 162 American Standard Version 135 out of 162 New International Version 160 out of 162 Received Text 0 out of 162 King James Bible 0 out of 162 (Fig. 4 - Version comparison statistics by Jasper James Ray) D. A. Carson criticizes Mr Ray's work saying, "What Ray's tract actually proves is that most modern versions differ from the KJV in the places that he carefully selects. 9 " Anyone familiar with the differences between the KJB and other modern versions will quickly recognize that Mr. Ray did not have to be "careful" at all. You can start looking for differences between the KJB and any modern version (i.e. the NIV) and soon discover that those same differences appear in all of the other modern

20 The King James Bible Only 16 versions almost without exception. Within only a few hours the author was able to identify more than 30 differences as listed in Figure 1. and Figure 2. If the changes in modern versions were not similar one to another, imagine how long it would have taken Mr. Ray to find over 150 common differences in 45 different English and Greek versions, where none of those differences appeared in the King James Bible or the Textus Receptus (and all that in an age prior to personal computers). To say that there is a distinct pattern of differences between the King James Bible and all other English language versions is almost an understatement. If one were to take either the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, the ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, or NIV and make a list of missing verses, he would find that every one of those missing verses would also be missing from any other one of the versions in this list with very rare exception. Although differences in translation are a complicating factor, one could also take any of the above English language versions and quickly discover hundreds upon hundreds of verses where the same phrase has been omitted, or where the same word has been changed (i.e. "God" changed to "he" in I Timothy 3:16). The similarities between all modern versions, and their consistent difference from the King James Bible is quite obvious. THE PATTERN OF DIFFERENCE It would be hoped that anyone with the audacity to change that which is recognized as God's word would base those changes on something tangible. Surely no one would contend that modern versions were revised at the whim of their translators. In the King James Bible the book of Mark has 678 verses 10. Five of these verses are missing from the ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV. The chance that two versions would pick, at random, the exact same five verses to exclude are approximately one in 142,000,000,000,000. The fact that four English language versions omit the exact same five verses in the book of Mark is only a small portion of the evidence that demonstrates the common basis modern versions have for their changes. Translators of modern versions agree that there is a commonly accepted basis for their changes. The preface to the Revised Standard Version states: "... the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth

21 Identification of the Differences 17 century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. 11 " "Many" actually means several, but the important item to note is that the RSV translation committee had, as its goal, significant changes (to the King James Bible) based only upon newly discovered manuscripts. These manuscripts are the common basis for modern versions. The NIV translators also specifically mention their efforts to be consistent with new and "accepted principles" of textual criticism. The preface to the New International Version states: "The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one... Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament were used. 12 " The best printed Greek texts of the New Testament to which the NIV translators refer are all strikingly similar to the Westcott and Hort text... and surely included it. The translators may have made choices about readings, but those choices are frequently identical to the choices made by Westcott and Hort. The similarity verified in Figure 1. and Figure 2. between the NIV, RSV, ASV, and NRSV is undeniable. These modern versions each used the same foundation... a Greek text that was based on the two ancient manuscripts preferred by Westcott and Hort, and which was modified slightly according to the preferences of the respective translation committees. Wilbur Pickering agrees when he states: "... most scholars do not practice pure eclecticism -- they still work essentially within the W-H framework. Thus, the two most popular manual editions of the

22 The King James Bible Only 18 Greek text today, Nestle-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), really vary little from the W-H text. The recent versions -- RSV, NEB, etc. -- also vary little from the W-H text. 13 " The Westcott and Hort framework is a set of mostly unwritten rules that specify the rejection of the majority of Greek manuscripts in favor of a selected handful that contain the least similarity to the Received Text upon which the King James Bible is based. The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament is the foundation of modern versions. This can be demonstrated by comparing differences it introduced to those found in modern versions. Aside from the verses marked as doubtful, such as Mark 16:9-20, there are sixteen verses that are omitted from the Westcott and Hort text outright. These verses are listed in column two of Figure 5. Modern versions, almost without exception, omit the very same verses. This similarity points to the fact that modern versions are based on the very same theory of manuscript evidence that Westcott and Hort proposed, and ultimately, on the very same handful of manuscripts. Westcott and Hort Verse NIV, ASV, RSV, NRSV (missing) Matthew 12:47 NOT MISSING (missing) Matthew 17:21 (missing) (missing) Matthew 18:11 (missing) (missing) Matthew 23:14 (missing) (missing) Mark 7:16 (missing) (missing) Mark 9:44 (missing) (missing) Mark 9:46 (missing) (missing) Mark 11:26 (missing) (missing) Mark 15:28 (missing) NOT MISSING Luke 17:36 (missing) (missing) Luke 23:17 (missing)

23 Identification of the Differences 19 (missing) John 5:4 (missing) (missing) Acts 8:37 (missing) (missing) Acts 15:34 (missing) (missing) Acts 24:7 NOT MISSING (missing) Acts 28:29 (missing) (missing) Romans 16:24 (missing) (Fig. 5 - Verses missing from the Westcott and Hort Greek Text) It is interesting to note that there is at least one other verse after Romans 16:24 that is missing from the Westcott and Hort text (I John 5:7), but that words from the verse before and after have been shifted into the missing verse to make it appear that it is still there. It must be remembered that the initial version of the Westcott and Hort text did not include verse numbers. It seems likely that this omission was, in part, done to make comparison to the Received Text more difficult. EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCES Differences between modern versions and the King James Bible have significance. To easily quantify the significance of the differences between the Greek text from which the King James Bible was translated, and the text used for the modern versions, any of a number of studies may be referenced. Dr. Waite analyzes the changes to the Westcott and Hort Greek text as follows: "There are a total of 140,521 Greek words in the Received Greek New Testament. The Received Text differs from the Revised Text of Westcott and Hort in 5,604 places which involve a total of 9,970 Greek words. This is 7% of the Greek words [one out of every 14 words] in the New Testament... If totaled up... these variations would amount to a total of 45.9 pages of the Greek New testament. 14 " As there are, on average, about 17.7 words in each verse in the New Testament, it can be assumed that there is slightly more than one change for every verse in the New Testament. As the changes are usually grouped together, in reality, the verses changed are only about half that numerous.

24 The King James Bible Only 20 Computer analysis comparing the Westcott and Hort text to the Textus Receptus reveals the true extent of the changes that were made. By programmatically examining each word in the Textus Receptus and identifying whether or not the same word appears in the Westcott and Hort text, the exact number of changes can be determined. Counting the total number of verses changed in each book of the New Testament reveals that in the average book, over half of the verses contain at least one change. The book most modified by Westcott and Hort is the book of The Revelation with an average of over two changes per verse, and with more than 83% of the verses containing at least one change. The book with the second most changes is Mark with an average of 1.75 changes per verse, also with just over 80% of the verses being changed. The least modified book is I Timothy with just over 40% of the verses in that book containing one or more changes, and with an average of about.62 changes per verse. The nature of the changes detected by the computer ranges from spelling to verse deletion. The impact of the changes is overwhelming when the fact that more than half of the verses in every book in the New Testament contain at least one change is considered. For any man to say that the changes are "trivial" exceeds exaggeration and enters into the realm of total dishonesty.

25 Identification of the Differences 21 1 Stewart Custer, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy, Bob Jones University Press, 1981, pp Online Bible 6.30 (Computer Software), Woodside Bible Fellowship, Elmira, Ontario, Canada, Robert J. Sargent, Manuscript Evidence, Bible Baptist Church Publications, Oak Harbor, Washington, 1995, p Sargent, p The New Layman's Parallel Bible, Zondervan Bible Publishers, The 1901 ASV includes "questionable" verses, but places them in italics. The verse in question was not in italics. 7 Jasper James Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible, The Eye Opener Publishers, 1983, p Sargent, p D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, Baker Books, 1979, p Fenis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1994, p. 54 (NT). 11 The New Layman's Parallel Bible, Revised Standard Version, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1981, p. xii (RSV Preface). 12 The New Layman's Parallel Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1981, p. x (NIV Preface). 13 Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, Thomas Nelson Inc., 1977, p Rev. D. A. Waite, Defending The King James Bible, Bible for Today, 1992, p. 188.

26 The King James Bible Only 22 Chapter 2 -- Implications of the Differences The differences between modern versions and the King James Bible go far beyond simple rephrasing and replacement of so-called archaic words. There are thousands of instances where important changes of meaning have been made. When these are combined they have a net effect of changing the overall revelation God intended to give us by His word. Arthur Hort, son of F. J. A. Hort published a book about his father's work. In it he states: "I do not think the significance of their [Westcott & Hort's changes to the Greek text] existence is generally understood. It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first... The difference between a picture of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences... It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church History. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. 1 " The implications of the differences between modern versions and the King James Bible are much more extreme than proponents of those versions would have us believe, and the fact is that the changes made to the Greek text by Westcott and Hort are far from trivial. If Arthur Hort felt that trivial differences implied "significance", imagine how he would have interpreted changes to half of the verses in the New Testament (as is the case). THEOLOGY The word of God is the only valid source of theology. If we are to be sure about our theology we must be sure about the word of God. Theology, simply defined, is the doctrine or teaching to which we subscribe... that which we believe pertaining to God. Orthodox Christianity cannot base its doctrine on things that are less than absolute (such as emotions, feelings, or the opinions of men). If our doctrine is to be absolute it must be based on a Bible which is absolute. We cannot accept a doubt filled version of God's word unless we desire doubt filled theology.