DOWNLOAD PDF DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE: A FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE Only the King James Bible satisfies Jesus' mandate in Matthew, where He said "man shall live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Only the King James Bible is an "every word" Bible. From international conferences to exhibits at Oxford, Cambridge, and the Folger Shakespeare Library, the version of received great attention and scholarly appreciation, ending no less with a cover story in the December issue of National Geographic. Centennials such as this have become major players in shaping scholarly work and publishing agendas, and they have also created welcome opportunities for academics and members of the public to share knowledge of and enthusiasm for a hallowed English translation of the Bible that has influenced so much of western, even global, Anglophone culture, for better or for worse. Ironically, this work, which explored the collaborative and inter-related nature of English and nearly all vernacular translations of the Bible in the early modern period, illustrated what a non-event really was in the cultural, scholarly, and theological contexts of the time, both for translators and for readers. In light of the long-term development of its text, the KJB was the work of a series of international, multi-generational committees that becomes visible to us today only through careful comparative textual analysis among the versions themselves. This and more was emphasized in the books by Gordon Campbell Oxford, and David Norton Cambridge,, along with explanations for the lack of fanfare that greeted the " Authorized Version," in the face of loyal readers of the Geneva Bible and the Catholic Douai-Rheims Bible. Plagued with typographical errors from day one, the version whose exact date of publication is lost, was met with a mixture of public criticism and apathy, a fact scholars have long known but that received much-needed public exposure, considering the long shadow cast by the KJB in its eventual rise to popularity, along with claims for its inerrancy that are still made in some conservative Christian circles. Library exhibitions complemented this scholarly work with physical evidence of the early print history and reception of the KJB. I was fascinated to see first-hand the notorious error in the so-called "Wicked Bible" of, at the Cambridge University Library exhibit. Gordon Campbell, Professor of Renaissance Literature at the University of Leicester wrote and spoke eloquently on this topic at dozens of conferences and events in, winning the Longman-History Today prize in for his contributions. Literary analysis often centered on traditional figures such as Milton and Bunyan, particularly favored at "The Bible in the Seventeenth Century: Mark Noll drew striking parallels between the celebrations of and, explaining why our own era is one of significantly lessened public enthusiasm for the version see Jeffrey,, pp. It is true that for many English speaking Christians, the KJB became a national treasure, a monument of literary excellence, of theological and textual accuracy, sometimes all these. This brings us to recent work on the contemporary legacy of the KJB, and its place among revised English translations of the Bible today. Here is where scholars of literature and of the Bible seem to disagree the most. Literary critics, and often some historians of religion, lament the eclipse of "biblical English," as the eloquent phrasing of the KJB becomes more and more a thing of the past, giving way to modern translations that cater to busy consumers with little time to read slowly and carefully. Biblical scholars, on the other hand, value accuracy and readability above all. There is no question that contemporary translations such as the NRSV present a version based on the oldest and most reliable Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. Serious readers of the Bible appreciate this careful attention to sources, explained in notes such as those in the New Oxford Annotated Bible edited by Michael Coogan, and they get the most out of a translation that reads smoothly and is informed by contemporary spoken Anglo-American English. Even today, there remains a lack of consensus as to whether the eclipse of the KJB in mainstream Western culture, and among most readers of the Bible, is to be mourned or praised. Yet of course some people still do read the KJB and prefer its text above all other biblical versions for various stated theological reasons and often unstated aesthetic preferences. The existence of "KJB-Onlyists" was mentioned occasionally in passing, but nothing to my knowledge was said about their textual arguments for preferring the textus receptus, which they believe to be more accurate than the modern Page 1

2 Greek and Hebrew texts used by scholars and biblical translators see Cloud, ; Beacham and Bauder, The religious anthropology of these groups, ranging from Southern Baptist communities in the US to black Pentecostal churches in the UK, needs further study, to help us understand the ongoing afterlives of this version and broader patterns of attachment to traditional versions in the long history of the Bible. Anyone who truly misses the literary influence of the KJB should study these arguments for the textus receptus, which are a startling reminder that full veneration of the KJB stands ideologically against nearly all that modern biblical scholarship has sought to accomplish: Cultures of biblical memorization, prominent in some evangelical circles and with parallels in Muslim communities, also await further exploration. Offset somewhat by the NIV, the KJB remains the central text in use by youth Bible Quizzing teams, in which children ages 8â 18 memorize up to an entire book from the New Testament each year and compete at regional and national quiz tournaments. An ethnographic study in this area would be very worthwhile and would move the center of KJB-scholarship closer to the present time, where the version is still being put to many uses in living faith communities, some preserving rich oral, educational, and religious traditions. Other uses are unfortunately less benign, such as those denying the rights of women and the full spectrum of human sexuality. This kind of intellectual fatigue will no doubt play a role in future anniversary years, with conferences and exhibitions galore. Yet a very productive momentum began to build toward the end of the year. The last few conferences in the autumn were the best of the year because all the groundwork had been laid, the obvious historical backgrounds examined already, freeing up and demanding that speakers present innovative research and point to the future. Another reason I personally enjoyed the conferences later in the year is because they reflected more attention to diversity of presenters, an important detail I hope organizers for and beyond will not neglect to consider. Other conferences, planned by well-intentioned and extremely knowledgeable experts in the field, got off to a poor start, in my view, by slating all white male senior scholars for the first half of the conference, then turning to a token few women, maybe one person of color toward the end. A flyer I saw for a day-conference at a Midwestern college featured a lineup of eight all-white male speakers. I was shocked and immediately disinclined to attend, to say the least. These things really do matter: Heading up the charge for is Refo, an international organization based in Europe and partnered with Protestant and Catholic universities, seminaries, and museums, all jointly planning events and conferences to commemorate the historic and continuing impact of the Reformation. I myself grew up reading and memorizing it as biblical truth and now study and read it with quite a different perspective. If nothing else, these later abuses illustrate the dangers of keeping the Bible in that one snapshot for too long. It needs to be retranslated and interpreted anew, to ensure that the legacy of the Bible is not just one of tradition and history, but also of liberation and change for the future. American Prose and the King James Bible. The Story of the King James Version, â For Love of the Bible: Way of Life Literature. The Literary Culture of the Reformation: The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven and London: The Bible and the People. American Catholic Biblical Scholarship. London and San Francisco: La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura, â By the Hand of Mormon: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences. Jeffrey, David Lyle, ed. The First Three Thousand Years. Selected Sermons and Lectures. The Battle for the Bible in England, â The Making of the King James Bible. A History of the English Bible as Literature. The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible. The Bible and Empire: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, pp. The Social Universe of the English Bible. In Discordance with the Scriptures: Defending the King James Bible: Bible For Today Press. The Bible Wars in 19th Century Ireland. Rethinking Catholicism in Reformation England. Oxford University Press, Page 2

3 Chapter 2 : The Four-Fold Superiority of the KJV (2/2) Defending the King James Bible does a pretty good job of just that. I found that much of it was the usual arguments in favor of the AV that are better portrayed in other books (in my opinion), although there were a few features here that I hadn't come across yet. Donald Waite Updated August 5,, fbns wayoflife. Those who want to take a neutral position on the issue of Bible texts and versions often claim that the current defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Greek Received Text is an unnecessarily divisive, near-cultic position that has no historical precedent among fundamentalists and other strong Bible believers. This is historic revisionism of the worst sort. The fact is that only recently have professing fundamentalists begun using and defending the modern versions. And thousands of strong Bible believers during the past two centuries have defended the Greek Received Text as the preserved Word of God and have condemned modern textual criticism as heresy. This is not a new and obscure position that was devised only a few decades ago by a Seventh-day Adventist or by Peter Ruckman, as some would have us believe! This book is edited by James B. An autographed copy was presented to Bob Jones III at an evening session, and he made a passionate speech about it. Within a matter of hours, their stock of the book was sold out and more copies were delivered the next day. In the Introduction to this book, Dr. Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible, I am convinced that Dr. Williams presents a slanderous caricature of the truth. Williams ignores the fact that many King James Bible defenders have scholarly credentials at least equal to that of the contributors to From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. It is an unequivocal fact of history that the defense of the Received Text and the KJV did not originate with a Seventh-day Adventist, but with godly men in Britain in the s who defended the Greek text underlying the KJV against the new theories of textual criticism, which they considered to be unbelieving and heretical. I have documented this extensively in my page hardcover book For Love of the Bible: Box, Port Huron, MI This series of articles is an attempt to help set the record straight. The following is an example of the men and organizations that have defended the Received Text and the King James Bible during the past years: Waite has semester hours 1, class hours of training in the biblical and other foreign languages, plus countless hours of teaching and personal research in the use of these languages. He obtained a B. Such a view is far from the truth. Waite, for example, has produced a number of exacting studies in the field of Bible versions. To find out for himself the exact number and nature of changes that have been made in the critical Greek text, for example, Waite went through the Westcott-Hort text and compared it with the Received Text. He counted every single word difference, and weighed its significance. When Waite says there are 9, Greek words added, subtracted, or changed from the Received Text in the Westcott-Hort text, he is not merely parroting what he read somewhere. He is citing his own scholarly research. He has also published the results of these studies. I repeat, it is one thing to disagree with Dr. It is quite another thing to pretend that he and others like him are some sort of crackpot cultists. I have updated some of the statistics: For about twenty years, I was in darkness about this issue. I knew almost nothing of it from roughly to I was at Dallas Theological Seminary from to That was my Master of Theology. Then I stayed an extra year, Throughout those years we were simply told to use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which we did in the Greek classes. It was the actual text Westcott and Hort developed. I majored in classic Greek and Latin at the University of Michigan, I took three years to get my four years of work. I went summer and winter, so that I could marry my wife, Mrs. Then I came to Dallas Seminary. I just wanted to learn the forms and get good grades, which I did. But I did not examine the textual base that we were using. I just assumed that was the only one to use. I have always read from the King James Bible. I never Page 3

4 used it. I looked at it a couple of times. I bought a copy and still have a copy of it. But the teachers there, Dr. It adds words that the Westcott and Hort adds; it subtracts words that the Westcott and Hort subtracts; and it changes words that the Westcott and Hort changes. This, then, was the reason. I kept going with the King James Bible. This is now roughly from to Actually this dates from when I became a Christian. I was saved in I had no doubts about the notes, but after having learned the truth of the Textus Receptus and the value of it, I noticed in the Preface of the Scofield Reference Bible that Dr. Scofield prefers the B and Aleph, the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts. He says that these are the more up-to-date manuscripts, and they are really the ones to follow, and they really are better than the manuscripts that the King James Bible translators used. And I notice that for this reason he makes these notes in the margins. You remember that quotation in the Preface of the Old Scofield Bible. But I was so enamored with this editorial development and editorial comment, that every time they suggested a change I would pencil out any words that they said did not belong in the text. In fact even in the Bible that I still have, that my wife gave to me in before we were married in, these are penciled out. For example, in 1 Cor. This shows how committed I was to following what these people said who were committed totally to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. How I came to understand this issue You ask the question, then, how I came to understand the Bible version issue. I guess the first thing I read about, or knew about, my mother-in-law to be, Mrs. Here is the first book that I have seen that says there is a difference in the Greek text that the modern versions are using, and that the King James Bible text that underlies it, the Textus Receptus, is superior to the Westcott and Hort-type text, or to the critical text. Then about that time, I think it was about or, along in there, Dr. Fuller came out with his book Which Bible?. Also, I looked at at least one of the books by Dr. Hills, Believing Bible Study. So in, having read these various books, I was deeply convicted and convinced that the King James Bible and the Greek text that underlies it, as well as the Hebrew textâ although I got into the Hebrew text a little bit laterâ but I was convinced that the Greek text that underlies the New Testament of the King James Bible was the accurate text to use. Writing my first book on the subject Thus I wrote my first paper on this thing. David Otis Fuller, who was a good friend of mine at that time and was until the day of his death; and Believing Bible Study by Dr. A Summary of the Evidence and Argument. This was the book that I put out first, in You can say the first twenty years, from, I was in somewhat of a daze, somewhat of a darkness, concerning the issues. Then from, twenty more years, I have been writing, I have been studying, I have been preaching, I have been teaching, I have been debating, I have been arguing, I have been talking about, I have been preaching from, I have continued to memorize from and believe the King James Bible and the text that underlies that Bible. I have studiously stayed away from the extreme position, however, of Dr. I believe that position is heresy. That position in effect says that the King James Bible is not a translation but is direct, Holy-Spirit revelation, [coming] word for word, including the italics, from God in I believe that is adding revelation to the Word of God where He said the canon was closed. I believe to say that God supplanted and threw away the Hebrew and Greek that He gave us originally and now He is giving us special word for word revelation in the English language called the King James Bible, I believe that is heresy. But I do believe in the superiority of the King James Bible. I hold it up proudly and say it is the Word of God in English. Our Dean Burgon Society does as well, and we strongly support it. The Bible for Today Our The Bible for Today ministry in Collingswood, New Jersey, which began in extensive fashion in, has paralleled the development of this whole theme of the superiority of the King James Bible, and the Textus Receptus, and the version issue. In we saw the light on that issue, and in we also began our The Bible for Today ministry in a more extensive way. We have more than 2, titles that we carry. Of those 2,, about titles are concerning the defense of the King James Bible, both on video cassette recordings, on audio recordings, on books, on booklets, not only that I have written, but that others have written. So The Bible for Today has become a very important arm of this entire ministry. We have over ten or eleven small booklets on various issues and subjects that deal with this Bible version issue. Publishing out-of-print titles The Bible for Today is a publishing organization, as well as carrying books from other publishers. One of the things we want to see published more than anything else are works that are defending our King James Bible, the Received Page 4

5 Greek Text, and the Massoretic traditional Hebrew text, as well. We have reprinted old books that are now out of print. Some of these are The Authorized Edition of There are about 2, pages we have reprinted in full, with the original pagination and editions. Then we have reprinted Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. Page 5

6 Chapter 3 : The King James Bible Defended! Defending the King James Bible has 18 ratings and 0 reviews. This book is now a classic. It has been printed ten times through two editions. It should be. Many Christians claim that it is, and it casts doubt on other believers who use more modern translations. If someone subjectively prefers the KJV, this is their prerogative. Many Christians grew up reading the KJV, and they enjoy the way it reads. There is really no problem with someone holding to this view. While we might debate the legitimacy of the KJV, there is really no significant problem if someone prefers to read this translation. However, this is a question of intellectual debate. To construct his translation, Erasmus had only 6 manuscripts at his disposal from the Byzantine text family see below for an explanation of the textual families. None of his manuscripts was earlier than the twelfth century. This group often appeals to blatant circular reasoning when debating other translations. Why explain all of these groups? If someone claims that they will only read the KJV, it is often helpful to ask which group they would adhere to: Is their view a subjective preference or an objective position? Do they personally enjoy how the KJV reads, or do they believe that it should be normative for all believers to read? Which manuscripts should we use to translate our modern English Bibles? KJV Only advocates argue that we should only use the Byzantine Text to translate our modern versions, while others argue that we should utilize all existing Greek manuscripts. Therefore, these textual families are groups of texts that all seem to come from the same source or scribal group. There are four major textual families that scholars use to create modern Bible translations: Remember, the Textus Receptus is not the same as the Byzantine Text; Erasmus only had six manuscripts from this textual family when he published his Greek manuscript. Since then, the Byzantine Text has found thousands of more manuscripts in this family. Western Text Textual critics are not sure if a disciplined scribe or scribes were responsible for this textual family. Caesarean Text This textual family is a mixture of the Western and the Alexandrian. KJV Only advocates of various stripes claim that we should only draw from the Byzantine textual family. However, modern textual critics disagree with this, believing that we should utilize all of the existing textual families. Westcott and Hort based this view on two primary arguments that are still used today by textual critics: First, the church fathers never quote the Byzantine before AD Second, the Byzantine Text harmonizes verses from the Alexandrian and Western text. Therefore, this group is most likely earlier than any other. Problems with Viewing the KJV as Inspired or Inerrant Beyond the textual argument listed above, there are additional other problems with accepting the inerrancy or infallibility of the KJV: What will you do with the errors of the copyists? This is due to the forgetfulness of the scribes, for it is difficult to remember these kinds of things. The original KJV translators in did not hold their translation as inerrant or inspired. Not all King James Bibles are exactly the same with one another. The KJV itself has undergone many changes since it was first printed in Of course, these variants are minimal. The vast majority of them are quite inconsequential. And less than 1 percent of all textual variants both affect the meaning of that verse though none affects core doctrine and have some plausibility of authenticity. Since the KJV of was published, several thousand more Greek manuscripts have been foundâ even in the Byzantine family. Erasmus published the TR with only six Greek manuscripts in Since then, thousands of Greek manuscripts have been found. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence. However, thousands of manuscripts have been discovered since they made their translation! We should utilize all of these manuscript discoveries in order to better understand what the original autographs contained. When the NT authors cite the OT, they use a variety of translations. They never cite the OT in its original Hebrew. Instead, they quote from a popularâ though surely flawedâ translation called the Septuagint LXX. They also quote from other OT translations, so that they could write to their Greek speaking, contemporary audience. More colloquial translations should be used for this reason alone, if it will make the message of God clearer 1 Cor. The Byzantine text has far more manuscripts than other families. Why, they ask, would we not use the textual Page 6

7 family that contains the main source of our manuscripts? A number of observations can be made: First, textual scholars DO utilize the Byzantine family. Because the Byzantine family contains ancient manuscripts, textual critics of course utilize this group of manuscripts. However, they do not favor this familyâ as KJV Only advocates doâ nor do they refuse to look at other families of manuscripts. Instead, textual scholars utilize all existing manuscripts. Second, textual scholars often favor other textual families, because the Byzantine family was developed later in history. As we have already seen, the Byzantine family is later than the other manuscript families. As one scholar argued, would you rather have one real hundred dollar bill or five fake ones? Since the other manuscript families were written earlier, we should consider these as more reliable. Many wonder why there are more Byzantine manuscripts than any other. This is no doubt due to the fact of Christian persecution in the first three centuries of the church. Once Christianity became legal in the fourth century under Constantine, thousands of manuscripts were made. Modern translations remove the deity of Christ from the Bible. KJV Only advocates often claim that modern translations corrupt essential Christian doctrines like the deity of Christ. Is this the case? Modern translations do disagree with certain passagesâ just as they disagree on other non-essential passages. Just compare these verses between the two translations: When we compare these passages, we quickly see modern translations often teach the deity of Christ in passages where the KJV does not. Therefore, it is unfair to say that modern translations distort key doctrines like this. Why would God allow the Byzantine text to be used for 1, years if it was flawed? KJV Only advocates argue that the Byzantine text was the dominant text from the 8th century until the 19th century. God historically has worked through various translations. Moreover, this same argument was used against Erasmusâ the publisher of the Textus Receptusâ when he made his translation. It seems that new translations are historically opposed by the church. Further Reading Carson, D. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Book House, Therefore, his writing on this subject is top-notch scholarship. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Parts of the book read like an encyclopedia, where he addresses various text issues. Other parts of the book detail the history of the KJV translation and the modern debates over this. White cites extensively on the arguments of the KJV authors. Wallace is one of the leading scholars in the Greek New Testament on Earth today. Hodges is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary; although, this is not an official position of that seminary by any means. Bible Baptist tore, The Language of the King James Bible. Defending the King James Bible: Texts, Translators, Technique, Theology. Bible for Today, The Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Cited in White, James R. Note 66 on Romans 1: Page 7

8 Chapter 4 : Focus On King James Defending the King James Bible. Excellent evidence supporting the KJV as the Word of God. A four-fold superiority of the KJB is given: Superior TEXTS, TRANSLATORS, TECHNIQUE, and THEOLOGY. review questions in the appendix plus a listing of all the com. Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He has earned a B. He has produced more than studies on the Bible and other subjects. Waite presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: We begin with a couple of introductory thoughts about Bible translations: Readability and the King James Bible. He took the first chapter of every book in the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation and compared the six versions of the Bible mentioned above. I know hundreds of people whose intelligence and educational levels have not reached as high as some of these How do you figure that out? In the King James Bible, the words match what God has said. But to change it around just to make it simple, or interpreting it, instead of translating it, is wrong. We want exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English. Do we need more "translations" of the Bible? It can be asked: Are these new versions really necessary? We notice that, on the average, there has been one complete English Bible every 4. Do you think we need more Bibles? In the last years from through complete English Bibles have increased in frequency. Complete English New Testaments. In the same book, there is a chart that lists the number of "complete English New Testaments" by years. Do you think we need more New Testaments? Even if they were all presently available, imagine someone reading all of them. In the last years from through complete English New Testaments have also increased in frequency. Complete English Bibles and New Testaments combined. It means that, on the average, there was either one complete English Bible or complete English New Testament published every 1. I believe that the major factor in the production of Bibles and New Testaments is money. When the publishers discover that a certain version no longer brings financial profit to their treasuries, that version runs out of print in a hurry! Very few churches are doing what the Berean Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana, is doing--printing Bibles and giving them out at low cost. In fact, they give many of them away without charge. To my knowledge, only those who have the real truth found in the King James Bible are doing this. You will find few, if any, publishers of these false perversions printing them at low cost or without charge! Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible: This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek. There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. We carry this Hebrew Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of and, used that texts and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the Leningrad Manuscript B19a or "L". He used this because he claimed it was the oldest single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about A. This adds up to about 20, to 30, changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. How many of these changes in the Hebrew text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,? How many of you would like to accept changes? Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We must have an absolute. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. The NIV uses all nineteen of these, by the way. I want to take the Septuagint LXX reading instead. It is the Old Testament written in Greek. Its text is corrupt. The use of the Septuagint LXX by these new versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error. Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at all. It is pure conjecture. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary. He was an apt and humble man, though he reminded me of an "absent-minded professor" at times. He taught us Isaiah in our second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way that differed from the Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, "Why did you read it that way? Unger replied, "Well, I just thought it sounded better that way, so I changed it. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins University for his Ph. He was taught by Dr. Page 8

9 Albright who was far from sound in his theology. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are a few problems. How do you know which Hebrew manuscripts this heretical cult called the Essenes took with them when they left the temple of Jerusalem and went to the area of the Qumran caves? How do you know the methods they used and the accuracy with which they copied and recopied those manuscripts? Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for the Hebrew Word of God? God authorized the Jews to be the exclusive guardians of His Words. The Jews were to be the guardians of the O. God did not give that privilege and responsibility to any other race or people. It was the Hebrew O. It must be Hebrew. There were eight or more important, strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew scribes who copied and recopied the Masoretic Hebrew O. These rules were to insure that each letter, word, and sentence of the Hebrew text was preserved exactly. The Jews were meticulous and reverent in the copying and recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. This came out before Kittel decided to scrap it for his false Ben Asher text. These same Bible Societies print the false Hebrew texts, too. Hebrew Words of God ourselves, if that becomes necessary. Sometimes this Hebrew Bible has gone out of stock at the American Bible Society, but it has always come back in stock by a shipment from England. There is a simple table in our book which speaks volumes concerning the New Testament Greek text debate. If you examine this table carefully, you will learn much about the debate that is raging concerning the Greek N. On the left of the table are some facts about the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJv. The Trinitarian Bible Society has published this text and made it available to anyone. The TBS took this text from that of Dr. Frederick Scrivener who was commissioned in about, by the Cambridge University Press, to come up with the exact Greek text that underlies the King James Bible. Scrivener set down all of the Greek words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their English Revised Version. He inserted the exact alterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way. This Greek text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful tool. Jack Moorman counted, Greek words in the Textus Receptus. Though there were some scattered opposition to the Received Text in years before, the concerted effort against the Received Text came in, and after. In, two theological heretics posing as conservatives from the Anglican Church, B. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5, places by my actual count. This included 9, Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, It was a radically new Greek text. Page 9

10 Chapter 5 : Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite The following study is a summary of Waite's book Defending the King James Bible, which is available from Bible for Today, Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. The second reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior translators. Why do I say that the KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because they ARE superior! I think that there is no question about the expertise and ability of the translators who gave us our KJV. This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic qualifications are unequaled! The accomplishments of Lancelot Andrews. He was certainly a superior KJV translator. He had mastered fifteen languages. Someone said that if Dr. Andrews had been present at the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, he could have served as interpreter general. Send me their names, if you have proof of this. The acumen of William Bedwell. He was famed in Arabic learning. In fact, he published in quarto, an edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. Bedwell left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. In fact, he wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three volumes. Do you know any of these men who have written an Arabic dictionary and begun a Persian dictionary, or done anything similar in the scholarly world that will even come close to the accomplishments of William Bedwell? If so, send me their names and the proof. In our day, many people watch too much television. They attend too many football games, baseball games. We are ignoramuses today compared to the scholars who gave us our KJV! The acceptability of Miles Smith. Look at the acceptability of Dr. He was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost as familiar to him as his native tongue. Smith went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers, making annotations on them all. The activities of Henry Savile. Sir Henry Saville was proficient in both Greek and mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. Saville translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes. He was the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He was a profound, and exact scholar. The academics of John Bois. John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. At the age of six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. Much more could be said about John Bois. The superior translators in general. Do you remember what the Lilliputians did to poor Gulliver? They were tiny, tiny people, and Gulliver was like a giant to them. It states in Ge. The KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior technique of translation. The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence--not dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and perversions have used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal equivalence. It is a rendering of "me genoito" which is "may it not be" or "let it not be. It is found only seven times in the O. It is a rendering of "chalal" which is "may it be something profane" or "may it be far from me. It means "may the king live long" or "may the king be preserved or safe. The term "salvation" was used in a much broader sense in past centuries. The fact is that such examples are very, very few in the KJV, whereas they abound in the modern versions and perversions because in those, the dynamic equivalent technique is the rule rather than the exception. The KJV basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper concept of what "translation" really is. It comes from translatus which in turn comes from two Latin words, trans "across" and latus which is the past participle of fero "to Page 10

11 carry". It means to "carry across" from one place to another, or from one language to another. Let me illustrate "translation. They just simply took the Hebrew words and put them into English. They picked up the Greek words and put them into English. When compared to the Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had over 2, examples of dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Words of God. In a similar study of the New International Version I found over 6, such examples. What is meant by dynamic equivalency? It is either changing or unchanging. Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para "along side or beside" and phrasis "a word or phrase". It means to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning. It is to state something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators sought, to put into English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather than to give something that is "beside" or "along side of" the word or phrase. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior theology. Some denials that theology is affected by Greek or English versions. It is said by those who use the new versions and perversions of the Bible that there is no difference in any of them when it comes to theology. It is also said that there is no difference in any of the Greek texts in the matter of theology. This is even said by those who are looked up to as Bible believing leaders. There are two phases of their theological denial: They believe that the false Westcott and Hort Greek text when compared to the Greek text of the KJV contains nothing that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. They believe that you can take any modern English version you wish and when you compare it to the KJV, that version does not have anything in it that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is also false. It is not true to the evidence. Some examples of theology that is affected by Greek and English versions. I have given examples of the theological superiority of the KJV in my book. I selected these from Dr. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. Is this not a major doctrine? Another example is Mark 9: Both verses are gone: In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. While it is true that verse 48 is retained in this passage in the modern versions, the power and authority is weakened by two- thirds. The God- honored Received Text says Jesus repeated this statement three times to emphasize the horrors of going to hell. The critical text removes two of these statements, thus weakening the force of the doctrine. For centuries, many have removed the fire out of hell even though the KJV keeps it in. Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a "fireless hell"! Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. Page 11

12 Chapter 6 : The Four-Fold Superiority of the KJV (1/2) This study on "Defending the King James Bible--A Four-Fold Superiority--God's Word Kept Intact In English" is the product of over twenty-one years of the author's thinking, researching, writing, publishing, and speaking on this most important theme. Reprints The Holy Bible: Pollard, and illustrative documents. Oxford University Press, William Aldis Wright, ed. London, Imprinted by Robert Barker, printer to the King, General Studies Ward S. A reproduction of notes taken by John Bois as he and others discussed the translation. Allen, Translating the New Testament Epistles, Vanderbilt University Press, Allen and Edward C. University of Arkansas Press, Benson Bobrick, Wide as the Waters: New York, The Macmillan company, University of Chicago Press, A Glossary Explaining its Words and Expressions. This is a very helpful book that gives a glossary of all the archaic words in the KJV. This book has nearly entries. Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Making of the King James Bible. Paine, The Learned Men. Baker Book House, Lupas, The Translators to the Reader: American Bible Society, Lord Baltimore Press, This is a critical edition of the Authorized Version, containing a reconstruction of its original text and marginal notes, but with modernized spelling and with revision of the italics. Press, ; reprinted This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version. Issued in four volumes and reprinted by Eerdmans in Currently available from Hendrickson. A detailed and scholarly comparison. Earle gives explanations for most of the important differences in rendering between the King James Version and the major English versions published in the twentieth century. Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences. Cambridge University Press, The books listed below contain many falsehoods. David Otis Fuller, Which Bible? Grand Rapids International Publications, David Otis Fuller, True or False? David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine? Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, Christian Research Press, Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text: Philip Mauro, Which Version? Reprinted in True or False? Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions. Waite, Defending the King James Bible: Bible For Today Press. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Reprinted in the 3rd ed. Eye Opener Publications, A Plea for Realism. Glassman, The Translation Debate. Peter Johannes Thuesen, In discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant battles over translating the Bible. Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Bethany House Publishers, Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, One Bible Only? Page 12

13 Chapter 7 : Testimonies of Kjv Defenders - Dr. Donald Waite by Dr. Waite This booklet is a quick review of the book, Defending the King James Bible--A Four-fold Superiority--Texts, Translators, Technique, and Theology. This list includes books and articles that examine several versions. Books and articles that focus on particular versions are listed in the bibliographies for those versions. Issued in four volumes and reprinted by Eerdmans in Currently available from Hendrickson. Vincent offers alternative renderings to the King James version in almost every verse, frequently comparing it with the English Revised Version Baker Book House, This is a very helpful book for comparison of versions. Earle gives explanations for most of the important differences in rendering between the King James Version and the major English versions published in the twentieth century although he sometimes fails to notice the various Greek readings that are the true reason for the differences under discussion. Being a member of the New International Version translating committee, he also includes a certain amount of NIV promotion in his explanations. Tyndale House Publishers, A simple and brief introduction to the major English versions that describes their salient characteristics, "complete" only in the sense that most versions are mentioned. Comfort, Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Read a review of this book. How to Choose Your Bible Wisely. John Knox Press, The Good News Bible and Contemporary English Version receive especially favorable treatment, while literal versions are severely criticized. Newman chief translator of the Contemporary English Version. Millar Burrows, Diligently Compared: A History and Evaluation. Baker Book House,, 2nd ed. Thomas, How to Choose a Bible Version: Making Sense of the Proliferation of Bible Translations. Christian Focus Publications, Books by King James Version Apologists. The books listed below contain many falsehoods. They are included in this bibliography only because of their importance as literature of the "King James Only" teaching which arose in some conservative churches during the latter half of the 20th century. David Otis Fuller, Which Bible? Grand Rapids International Publications, David Otis Fuller, True or False? David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine? Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, Christian Research Press, Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text: Philip Mauro, Which Version? Reprinted in True or False? Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions. Waite, Defending the King James Bible: Bible For Today Press. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Reprinted in the 3rd ed. Eye Opener Publications, Against the King James Version Apologists. The influence of the King James apologists has given rise to a number of corrective books which interact with their claims. A Plea for Realism. Glassman, The Translation Debate. Peter Johannes Thuesen, In discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant battles over translating the Bible. Oxford University Press, Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Bethany House Publishers, Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, One Bible Only? Page 13

14 Chapter 8 : Bibliography of the King James Bible A four-fold superiority: Texts Translators Technique Theology. Title: DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE Author Name: Waite, D. A. Categories: Books, Publisher: Bible for. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He has earned a B. He has produced more than studies on the Bible and other subjects. Waite presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: We begin with a couple of introductory thoughts about Bible translations: Readability and the King James Bible. He took the first chapter of every book in the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation and compared the six versions of the Bible mentioned above. I know hundreds of people whose intelligence and educational levels have not reached as high as some of these How do you figure that out? In the King James Bible, the words match what God has said. But to change it around just to make it simple, or interpreting it, instead of translating it, is wrong. We want exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English. Do we need more "translations" of the Bible? It can be asked: Are these new versions really necessary? We notice that, on the average, there has been one complete English Bible every 4. Do you think we need more Bibles? In the last years from through complete English Bibles have increased in frequency. Complete English New Testaments. In the same book, there is a chart that lists the number of "complete English New Testaments" by years. Do you think we need more New Testaments? Even if they were all presently available, imagine someone reading all of them. In the last years from through complete English New Testaments have also increased in frequency. Complete English Bibles and New Testaments combined. It means that, on the average, there was either one complete English Bible or complete English New Testament published every 1. I believe that the major factor in the production of Bibles and New Testaments is money. When the publishers discover that a certain version no longer brings financial profit to their treasuries, that version runs out of print in a hurry! Very few churches are doing what the Berean Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana, is doing--printing Bibles and giving them out at low cost. In fact, they give many of them away without charge. To my knowledge, only those who have the real truth found in the King James Bible are doing this. You will find few, if any, publishers of these false perversions printing them at low cost or without charge! Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible: This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek. There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. We carry this Hebrew Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in It was not until, that he switched Hebrew texts and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the Leningrad Manuscript B19a or "L". He used this because he claimed it was the oldest single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about A. This adds up to about 20, to 30, changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. How many of these changes in the Hebrew text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,? How many of you would like to accept changes? Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We must have an absolute. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. The NIV uses all nineteen of these, by the way. I want to take the Septuagint LXX reading instead. It is the Old Testament written in Greek. Its text is corrupt. The use of the Septuagint LXX by these new versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error. Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at all. It is pure conjecture. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary. He was an apt and humble man, though he reminded me of an "absent-minded professor" at times. He taught us Isaiah in our second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way that differed from the Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, "Why did you read it that way? Unger replied, "Well, I just thought it sounded better that way, so I changed it. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins University for his Ph. He was taught by Dr. Albright who was far from sound in his theology. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are a few problems. How do you know which Page 14