Archive

Archive for the ‘KJV Apologetics’ Category

How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God

by Pastor James Melton

There are many good works that one can read on the authority of the King James Bible, and this particular effort offers nothing really new. However, it does attempt to explain the issue in a simple and brief manner for all to understand. Over the years I have learned a great deal about this issue, and I believe that a truth worth learning is a truth worth telling.

Many preachers and teachers across our land talk about “preferring” and “using” the KJV, but I haven’t heard them speak much about BELIEVING it. Many prefer it and use it, because that’s what their congregations prefer and use, but they do not BELIEVE it to be the infallible words of God. They are taught in college to USE, PREFER, and RECOMMEND the KJV, but they are NOT taught to BELIEVE it. Most “Christian colleges” teach that the King James Bible is only a translation, and that NO translation is infallible. Consequently, the average minister today uses a Book which he doesn’t even believe.

Now, I thank God that I don’t have that problem. I don’t have to play make-believe with anyone about the word of God. I believe it. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved and infallible words of God. It doesn’t merely “contain” the word of God: it IS the word of God. I’m absolutely sure of it, and I’d like to give a few reasons why. Here are twelve reasons how I know that the KJV is the word of God:

God Promised to Preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that “. . . . his truth endureth to all generations,” and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God’s WORD is truth.

These words state very clearly that God’s preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.

You say, “But ALL translations are God’s word, not just one.” That’s impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the “corrupt” and “perverted” versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19)? God wouldn’t have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn’t going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

Now, if the Authorized Version isn’t the infallible word of God, then WHAT IS? There has to be a Book somewhere in “all generations” which is God’s word; so what book is it? Those who “use” the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations. However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK. He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn’t pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS,” according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king’s name was “James,” which is the English word for “Jacob,” whom God renamed “Israel,” because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God’s form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

Because It Has No Copyright

The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV’s without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.

The new “bibles” are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term “Authorized” has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long. The fact that it bears no copyright allows printing ministries throughout the world to print millions of copies each year for the mission field. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright.

Because God Always Translates Perfectly

The words “translate” and “translated” occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is “only a translation.” Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul’s kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What’s the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE “ORIGINAL GREEK” ISN’T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord’s leadership (Jn. 16:13).

The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through “holy men of God” (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: “. . . . because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . “

I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because God is very capable of using anyone He pleases as His very own instruments of righteousness in order to preserve His word.

Because It Produces Good Fruit

The Lord Jesus said that every good tree will bring forth good fruit, and we can know them BY their fruits (Mt. 7:17-20).

God had the KJV translated for the purpose of bringing forth fruit, and it has been very obedient to the call. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than questioning its authority.

The KJV produces good fruit. I was led to Christ with a King James Bible. Nearly every Christian I know was led to Christ with a KJV. Why? Because it produces good fruit.

The new translations produce EVIL fruit. The modern perversions of scripture are producing infidels who do not even know what the word of God is, much less where to find it. The new translations produce spiritual babies who are totally incapable of discussing Bible doctrine. The new versions produce NEWER versions, which produce MONEY for the publishers, and I Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of MONEY is the root of all EVIL.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t bear witness to the modern translations, but He DOES bear witness to the King James. I’ve always believed the KJV to be God’s word, even before I was saved. No one ever told me to believe this, but the Holy Spirit just bore witness to the King James–not the others. After being saved, I spent several years of my Christian life not being aware of the big debate going on these days between King James Bible believers and New Age Version believers. The whole time I believed only ONE BOOK to be God’s word, and even then I was suspicious of the new versions, although no one had told me to be. When I discovered that over eighty percent of the “Christian” schools in our nation do not believe the KJV to be the word of God, I was shocked.

How is it that one comes to believe the KJV naturally, but must be EDUCATED OUT of his belief in it? Why is it that King James believers are accused of following men when GOD is the One Who led them to believe it? Why do opponents of the KJV accuse us of following men, when THEY are the ones who allowed MEN to talk them out of believing the KJV?

The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It’s easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a Book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author. We shall know them “by their fruit”, and I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because it produces GOOD fruit.

Because the King James Translators Believed They Were Handling the Very Words of God

One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version. These men didn’t believe they were handling “God’s message” or “reliable manuscripts.” They believed they were handling the very words of God Himself. As I Thessalonians 2:13 says, they “. . . . received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

Like the serpent of Genesis 3:1, modern translators approach the scriptures in skepticism, saying, “Yea, hath God said?” This was the first recorded sin in the Bible, and it still runs rapid through the hearts and minds of most scholars and new version promoters.

God has always allowed such people to be DECEIVED because of the IDOLS in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1-9; II Thess. 2:10-12; I Kings 22). A man who lacks faith in God’s word is in no condition to translate it. This eliminates every revision committee in the past one hundred years, because these committees have consisted mostly of highly educated men who were heady, high-minded, and proud, thinking that their intelligence qualified them to tamper with the pure words of God.

The KJV translators were not like this. Their scholarship FAR EXCEEDED that of modern translators, yet they remained humble and allowed God to use them in order to produce an infallible masterpiece. They didn’t set out to “judge” and “correct” the word of God. Their purpose was to translate God’s word for the English speaking people, as they were told to do by their appointed king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because the KJV translators believed it themselves.

Because the King James Translators Were Honest In Their Work

The critics of the KJV enjoy making a fuss about the words in italics, which were added by the translators, but the argument is entirely unnecessary and unfair.

The italic words in the KJV actually PROVE that the translators were honest in their work. When translating from one language to another, the idioms change, thus making it necessary to add certain words to help the reader grasp the full meaning of the text. When the KJV translators added such words they set them in italics so that we’d know these words were added, UNLIKE we find it in so many new versions today, which do NOT use the italics.

Besides, no one has ever PROVEN that the italic words are not the words of God, because no one has “the originals” to check them with. In fact, we know for sure that the translators were led by the Holy Spirit to add at least some of the italicized words.

One good example of this is found in II Samuel 21:19. When the translators came to this verse in the Hebrew text, they noticed that an exact translation would give Elhanan credit for slaying Goliath, but we know from I Chronicles 20:5 that he actually slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath. So the KJV translators added the words “the brother of” to II Samuel 21:19. If the Lord had not led them to do so, then II Samuel 21:19 would contradict I Chronicles 20:5 (as it DOES in the New World Translation!).

Another fine example is I John 2:23. The last half of the verse was missing at the time, but the KJV translators inserted it anyhow (in italics), feeling that it was necessary. This naturally disturbed many people, but since that time new manuscripts have been found which CONTAIN the last half of I John 2:23. The translators were RIGHT in adding the italicized words.

One last example of the Holy Spirit’s guiding influence on the KJV translators is found in Psalm 16:8, which says, “I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” As you can see, the words “he is” are in italics. According to many scholars they should be omitted, but according to the Apostle Peter they should NOT be omitted. Peter quotes Psalm 16:8 in Acts 2:25, and he USES the italicized words! How did the translators know this if the Lord didn’t lead them?

The italics in the King James Bible are the marks of an HONEST translation, for no one added these words to mislead us, or to change the word of God. They added the words to help us, and they set the words in italics so we’d know they were added. That’s honesty. I know the KJV is the word of God, because the translators were more honest in their work than any of the modern Bible translators.

Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV

The new versions do not compare themselves with each other, because they’re too busy comparing themselves with one Book–the King James Bible. This fact alone proves that there is something very special and unique about the KJV.

Why does everyone line up in opposition AGAINST the King James Bible? Why not attack one another? That’s easy: Satan has no desire to divide his own kingdom (Mt. 12:26). His desire is to discredit the word of GOD, not himself; so he attacks only one Book, God’s Book, the KJV.

Those who oppose the KJV are unsure of themselves, for they have no Final Authority; so they despise those of us who DO have an Authority. They’re unstable, insecure, dishonest, and very inconsistent. They’re all TERRIFIED of One Book, the KJV, and they’ll stop short of nothing in their efforts to rid the Body of Christ of that Book.

I know the KJV is the word of God, because it’s the standard which all others use for comparison.

Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated

The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800’s and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm “bibles.”

The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD( Rev. 3:8-10)!

In 1611, when the King James Bible was completed, the scourge of lukewarm Laodicea had not yet swept over the world. There was no “scientific” crowd around in 1611 to put pressure on the translators. There was no civil rights movement going on at this time to influence the work of these men. The women were not screaming for “equal rights,” and the humanists and socialists had not yet taken control. The massive army of liberal and modernistic preachers had not yet been assembled. The open public denial of God’s word and the Deity of Christ was practically unheard of among ministers. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that professing Christianity became flooded with lukewarm preachers who would be willing to compromise the word of God for self gain.

The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did – the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene! Think about that. I know the KJV is the word of God because of the time in history in which it was translated.

Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God’s Word

Any honest American should know that innocence is supposed to prevail in our land until guilt is proven. The KJV should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone proven it guilty? No. Has any scholar actually PROVEN that there are errors in the King James Bible? No. Enemies of the KJV delight in IGNORING the facts about the Authorized Version, while never PROVING anything. All apparent “errors” in the KJV can be explained through prayer and a careful study of the scriptures, but the opponents of the KJV aren’t interested in looking for TRUTH; they’re interested attacking God’s word, while never proving anything. I know the KJV is the word of God, because, over nearly four hundred years, no one has proven otherwise.

Because of the Manuscript Evidence

Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.

The new “bibles” are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the “Vaticanus” and the “Siniaticus.” These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.

The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other “bibles” do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. We don’t need an Egyptian version, for Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that “every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians” in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten. Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don’t need a “bible” from Alexandria, Egypt.

Then there’s the Roman text, also called the “Western Text.” We can also do without a Roman “bible”, because it was ROMAN soldiers who nailed our Lord to the cross. The harlot of Revelation 17 is a perfect description of the Roman Catholic Church, which has persecuted Christians for thousands of years. Romans persecuted the Christians in Acts18:2, and in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Rome is the “dreadful and terrible” beast of Daniel chapter seven, and Christ will destroy the “Revised Roman Empire” at the Second Coming (Dan. 2; 7; and Rev. 13). It has been estimated that Rome is guilty of the blood of some 200 million people who have rejected her corrupt system. A “bible” from Rome is another thing we can live without.

There’s only one line of manuscripts that we can trust, and this is the line from Antioch, called the “Syrian” or “Byzantine” type text. The word of God speaks POSITIVELY of Antioch, and NEGATIVELY of Rome and Egypt. We should TAKE THE BEST AND DUMP THE REST! I know the King James Bible is the word of God because of the manuscript evidence.

Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ

Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39.

A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another.

By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new “bibles” have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Savior, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminent place.

If the reader doubts this, we challenge you to take whatever version you want and compare the above verses in it to the same verses in the King James Bible. If you still doubt it, after checking the verses, then write us and we will send you a great many more references to check. The new “bibles” have a very consistent record of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ; so they cannot possibly be “the scriptures” that He said would testify of Him in John 5:39. They testify AGAINST him.

The King James Bible NEVER attacks our Lord. More than any book in the world, the Authorized Version of the Protestant Reformation EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ. If we had no other reason for receiving the Authorized Version as the word of God, this reason alone should be enough to convince any true believer, for how could we not become suspicious of the new versions for making such changes? I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it always exalts the Lord Jesus Christ.

Copyright © 1994 James L. Melton

This tract and others are available in printed form.
To Order Printed Tracts

The Westcott And Hort Only Controversy

September 10, 2016 Leave a comment

Dr. Phil Stringer

The Westcott And Hort Only Controversy

© Dr. Phil Stringer

 

All Scripture quotations are taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible unless noted when directly quoting or refuting another source.

 Bible students interested in college and seminary level degree studies in Bible, Ministry, Prophecy, Religious Education, and Theology, may request application information.

——————————————————————–

COLLATERAL READING ASSIGNMENT FOR PMI STUDENTS

Collateral reading and reporting is part of your required coursework. When summarizing material, refrain from opining or you will have to redo your assignments. I am not interested in your opinion; I want to see how well you can read, analyze, and then communicate the material- as it is presented- in writing.

  • Read and summarize each of Dr. Stringer’s sections in 25 words each. Prepare a 10 word synopsis of each summary.
  • List 30 important facts about this text you would want other students to know.
  • Prepare a 1000 word report entitled The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. The King James Only Controversy. 4
  2. The Primacy of the King James Bible. 4

III. The Westcott and Hort Theory. 6

  1. Westcott and Hort Only! 7
  2. What You Have To Believe To Accept The Westcott And Hort Theory. 8
  3. Are Westcott And Hort Infallible?. 8

VII. Who Were Westcott And Hort?. 9

VIII. The Doctrine Of Westcott And Hort. 10

  1. Were Westcott And Hort Saved Men?. 11
  2. The Work Of The English Revision Committee. 12
  3. Were Westcott And Hort Secret Practitioners Of The Occult?. 14

XII. The Fundamentalist Defenders Of Westcott And Hort. 16

XIII. In Conclusion. 18

What You Have To Believe To  Accept The Westcott And Hort Theory. 20

 

I. The King James Only Controversy

You don’t have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the “King James only controversy.”

Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to “refute the ‘King James Only’ cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today.”
Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the “veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of ‘King James Onlyism’.”
Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as “misinformers” and as “a cancerous sore.”

 

Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, “heretics”.
Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents “undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself”.

Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common. Some refer to loyal supporters of the King James Bible as the “King James Only Cult”. Another common term is the sneering reference to the “King Jimmy Boys.”

However the use of the “King James Bible only” wasn’t always so controversial.

II. The Primacy of the King James Bible

God was doing a great work in England in the early 1600’s. The preaching of the gospel of Christ out of the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible was leading to multitudes of conversions. Evangelicals and Puritans were becoming a stronger and stronger force in the Church of England and in English culture.

Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new translation. The King James Bible was printed in 1611.

At first there were questions and concerns about this new Bible translation. This was as it should be. No one should accept a Bible translation lightly. By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people. The Geneva and Matthew’s Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print. There was simply no demand for them anymore.

The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement, used the King James Bible exclusively. It was the Bible of the Puritans, both inside and outside the Church of England. In fact the Puritans began to use the distinctive Biblical English of the King James Bible in the day to day speech.

The King James Bible was the Bible of the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Quakers. It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists. By 1640 it was the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).

The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. All non-Catholics could have been referred to as “King James only people.” When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700’s, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament. However, it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Only the King James Bible was in common use.

When English colonies flourished in Australia and New Zealand, the King James Bible was the common Bible of the settlers. When President George Washington took the first presidential oath of office in the new United States of America, he did so with his hand on a King James Bible. Every American president since, with the exception of Franklin Pierce, has done the same.

Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880. However, they found no audience except in a few cults. Most went out of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly “King James only”.

Baptist preachers produced a Baptist translation of the Bible. They replaced the word baptism with the word immersion. They replaced the word church with the word assembly. However, they found no audience, not even among Baptists. Their translation was soon out of print. The Baptists were truly “King James only”.

As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King James Bible. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (not exactly a religious right publication), describes the early public schools this way, “Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in their lessons”. The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.

Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the King James Bible on the United States, “The book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in America was not published until 1611, a few years after the first Virginian settlement: the ‘King James’ translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James I. Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies.” Truly the early United States was King James only.

According to Winston Churchill, ninety million copies of the King James Bible had been printed by the mid-twentieth century.

The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700’s and 1800’s. The missionaries from England and the United States were saved, called to the mission field, and trained under the preaching of the King James Bible. They traveled around the world, introducing the gospel of grace to millions. Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek and Hebrew. They translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible. Truly the modern missions movement was a King James only movement.

III. The Westcott and Hort Theory

In the 1870’s, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism, but this challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The heart of the Westcott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monastary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantine von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.

The King James New Testament was translated from a different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new translation from texts that they considered to be older and better. They believed that the true work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library. [Editor RAB: that’s where they belong.]

Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it “villainous” and “vile”. Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact. [Editor RAB: sad but true. One of my professors was one of the contributing editors to the NIV, he did one of the minor prophets. I was not even a year old in Christ when I went off to seminary. I was not brought up in church, and never owned a Bible until my girlfriend gave me one as a gift before I went to seminary. The night I was saved I borrowed a Bible from a Muslim, (THAT IS ANOTHER STORY}. What was so disturbing to me was my professor. I felt he was trying to undermine my faith in the Bible and I told him so. By the way, my girlfriend gave me a King James Bible and told me it was the Word Of God. I married her while I was in seminary. Praise the Lord for a godly wife with godly convictions concerning the Bible. AMEN.]

IV. Westcott and Hort Only!

It is clear that the modern movement to revise the English Bible is based completely on the works of Westcott and Hort.

K.W. Clark writes, “…the Westcott-Hort text has become today our Textus-Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other…The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly.”

E.C. Colwell writes, “The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, …But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. …This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped – and still shapes – the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament through the English language.”

Zane Hodges, a long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes, “Modern textual criticism is psychologically addicted to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.”

Alfred Martin, former Vice-President at Moody Bible Institute, wrote in 1951, “The present generation of Bible students having been reared on Westcott and Hort have for the most part accepted this theory without independent or critical examination. …if believing Bible students had the evidence of both sides put before them instead of one side only, there would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort.” The two most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text.
 

V. What You Have To Believe To
Accept The Westcott And Hort Theory

  1. You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
  2. You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
  3. You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
  4. You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
  5. You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
  6. You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.

VI. Are Westcott And Hort Infallible?

Even though many evangelicals treat the Westcott and Hort Theory as proven fact, there have always been serious textual scholars that challenged it.

The brilliant textual scholar, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s “violent recoil from the Traditional Text” and “their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text”. He refers to their theory as “superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents.”

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, “Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself…”.

It is a phony claim to scholarship to simply parrot the ideas of Westcott and Hort and pretend that you are superior to those who don’t accept their ideas. Those who wish to change the King James Bible, so long greatly used of God and cherished by the English speaking people, need to give clear reasons why!

How do you know that the “older” Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts aren’t corrupt manuscripts? How do you know that the Lucian Recension ever took place? Why do you believe that the evangelicals throughout the centuries were using a corrupt text? Why would you trust Westcott and Hort only?

VII. Who Were Westcott And Hort?

B.F. Westcott was born in 1825. F.J.A. Hort was born in 1828. They were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament.

Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.

Both men wrote several books. They are best remembered for their edition of the Greek New Testament entitled, “The New Testament in the Original Greek”. They are also remembered for being the two most influential members of the English Revised Version committee which produced a new English translation. Scrivener thought that they exercised too much influence on this committee.

Westcott died in 1901. Hort passed away in 1892. Both men had sons who collected their personal correspondence and who wrote biographies about them. 

 

VIII. The Doctrine Of Westcott And Hort

The Scripture

It is clear that neither Westcott nor Hort held anything even faintly resembling a conservative view of Scripture. According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the “idea of the infallibility of the Bible”. Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot.

When Westcott became the Bishop of Durham, the Durham University Journal welcomed him with the praise that he was “free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration.”

Salvation

Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement “immoral”. In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership.

Westcott and Hort wrote many commentaries that include references to classic passages about salvation. Repeatedly their commentary is vague and unclear. Westcott taught that the idea of “propitiating God” was “foreign to the New Testament.” He taught that salvation came from changing the character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement that, “A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian.”

Again and again, Westcott’s vague comments about salvation are easy to interpret as teaching universal salvation.

The Doctrine of Christ

It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms! To clearly deny the Deity of Christ was to jeopardize your position in the Church of England. Many High Church modernists learned to speak of the Deity of Christ in unclear terms as a way to avoid trouble.

Many statements by both Westcott and Hort fall into that category of “fuzzy” doctrinal statements about Christ. Westcott and Hort were brilliant scholars. Surely they were capable of expressing themselves clearly on the doctrine of Christ if they wanted to. At best they are unclear; at worst, they were modernists hiding behind the fundamental doctrinal statement of the Church of England.

Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort

There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the “Christian socialist” movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote “Christian socialism” and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).

Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.

There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.

IX. Were Westcott And Hort Saved Men?

The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hort are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England.

However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals.

While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.

Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave anyone any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.

 X. The Work Of The English Revision Committee

In 1870, the English Parliament authorized a revision of the King James Bible. Two teams of translators were hired. Most translators were from the Church of England but there were also seven Presbyterians, four Congregationalists, two Baptists, two Methodists and one Unitarian. The translators were instructed to make as few alterations to the King James Bible as possible.

A similar committee was developed in the United States at the same time. The two committee’s exchanged copies of their work. Several thousand Church of England preachers signed a petition protesting the inclusion of a Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, on the Revision Committee. They felt that only saved men should be involved in translating the Bible. Proper translation required the illumination of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Both Westcott and Hort defended Smith and lobbied for his presence on the committee. Westcott threatened to quit if Smith was not included. Westcott and Hort supplied everyone working on the committee with a private copy of their new Greek text. Hort lobbied (some would say intimidated) committee members to follow the Westcott and Hort text. Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Lightfoot pressured the committee to go beyond their mandate for doing a revision of the King James Bible. Dr. Frederick Scrivener opposed many of the changes to be made on the basis of the new Westcott and Hort Greek Text. Committee meetings were referred to as “… a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener”.

Arthur Hort described his father’s method for describing the right reading of the text as “to settle the question by the light of his own inner consciousness”. Dean Burgon spoke of Hort’s method as deciding by “the ring of genuiness”. Hort was far more concerned about his feelings than he was about the textual debate over any passage. Westcott referred to the debate over textual readings as “hard fighting” and “a battle royal”.

The original chairman, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, resigned after referring to the project as “this most miserable business”.

Westcott and Hort eventually won most of the debates. After the new English Revision was published, both Scrivener and Burgon published lengthy refutations of the Revision. Burgon attacked the Revision strongly, calling it “excursions into cloud land” and “blowing smoke”. The people of England largely rejected the new translation. Attempts to make it the new Authorized Version of the Church of England met with such protest that Queen Victoria abandoned the idea.

Neither the English nor the American Revision sold very well. They were both soon replaced by other versions. However, the multitude of new English versions were all based upon the same Westcott and Hort Greek text and upon the theories of Westcott and Hort. Their English translation failed but their principles won the day. Even though evangelicals rejected the English Revision and the Westcott and Hort text, it did find supporters. Modernists and rationalists, both within and without the Church of England, praised their work. Theosophy founder, Helen Blavatsky, wrote at great length in praise of the new Greek text.

The defenders of Westcott and Hort claimed that the evangelicals were too simple-minded and unlearned to understand the work of Westcott and Hort and other English “scholars”. Evangelicalism was presented as unscholarly. After a generation, many evangelicals began to feel uncomfortable at always being labeled as unscholarly and uneducated. Some evangelical leaders began to look for ways to reconcile the historic Christian faith with the theories of Westcott and Hort.

These theories and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort began to find their way into evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Two generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries in both the United States and England. Their theories were universally accepted in modernist seminaries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults bragged about having Bible translations based upon the Westcott and Hort theory.

Compromising evangelicals were suddenly proud of having “scholarship” accepted by the world. They used the same Greek text as the Roman Catholic Church, the modernists and the cults.

A relative handful of Bible believers refused to accept the Greek text and theory of Westcott and Hort. Such holdouts became an irritation to the “scholarly” evangelicals. As study of the issue increased, opposition to the Westcott and Hort theory grew. “Westcott and Hort only” no longer seemed an adequate reason for abandoning the King James Bible. The “scholarly evangelicals” began to react harshly to their “King James only” critics.

XI. Were Westcott And Hort Secret Practitioners Of The Occult?

In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement.

This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would “relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.”

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. – An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800’s. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew.

Westcott’s son refers to his father’s life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson’s son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800’s in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England clergymen, and Westcott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Westcott’s son, Arthur, Dr. Westcott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.

Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Westcott, Bishop Westcott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, “The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company.” Westcott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, ” I expect you do not feel alone?” “Oh, no,” he said, “It is full.”

Either Dr. Westcott’s children lied about him or Dr. Westcott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Westcott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members was Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Westcott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.

In 1872 Westcott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his séances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.

Westcott’s defenders point out that Westcott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.

Balfour and Sidgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?

Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).

The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger’s assertions is strong. Would Westcott and Hort’s defenders accept anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people who were “familiar” with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations, there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong suspicion of occult influence on both Westcott and Hort (especially Dr. Westcott).

XII. The Fundamentalist Defenders Of Westcott And Hort

There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)! J. B Williams writes, “I have three of Westcott’s commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine.”

Keith Gephart writes, “In reality, Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ, in no way was he guilty of heresy and apostasy.” In responding to a critic of Westcott and Hort, Gephart wrote this, “I cannot help but suspect that . . . some blinding presupposition . . .drives you to prove him a heretic at any cost.”

Dr. Stewart Custer writes, “Especially when these men have written in their mature years book after book defending the conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of.”

Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to “restore the original text.”

It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men believed and wrote?

It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions).

Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or fail to explain them).

Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian doctrines. Both of their sons admit that they were accused of heresy because of their books. This understanding of these statements in their commentaries are supported by several external facts.

Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party) within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and conservative Low Church, modernism found it’s home in the High Church Party.

Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin.

No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain!

Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more clearly then their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they had concerns that they could not afford to have all of their beliefs known by the general public.

The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had no King James only bias.

It is interesting that some men can’t face the real record about Westcott and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and Hort.

However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King James Bible has been based upon the work of Westcott and Hort only. To admit these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a major premise of their entire ministry.

Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not heretics at any cost. It appears that “scholarship” requires only a shallow reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and correspondence. Their defenders do not spend any time quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written by their sons.

Their defenders never recount the testimonies of their conversion because no such testimonies exist. 

 

XIII. In Conclusion

Dean John Burgon was a contemporary and acquaintance of both Westcott and Hort. He was a firm opponent of the Westcott and Hort theory, their new Greek text and the revision of the English Bible that they so heavily influenced. In an article entitled “The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort” Burgon wrote: “the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred autographs or the furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions, and there cannot exist any middle view.” In other words things that are different are not the same.

Millions of professing evangelicals have never heard of Westcott and Hort. None the less, their approach to the Scripture is based upon the theory of Westcott and Hort — Westcott and Hort only. No matter how many books, professors, colleges and denominational leaders these theories are filtered through, they are still the work of Westcott and Hort only.

Those who challenge the primacy of the King James Bible in the English speaking world depend on the work of Westcott and Hort.

Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best “suspect.” There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. There is more reason to believe that they were influenced by the occult than there is to believe that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps the “King James Only Controversy” is misnamed. It is really a “Westcott and Hort Only” controversy.

Are you willing to abandon the historic contributions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible for Westcott and Hort, Westcott and Hort Only. [1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEND THE PMI CENTER

THROUGH DISTANCE LEARNING

The PMI Center offers TUITION-FREE advanced distance education studies leading to degrees from co-op colleges in the following disciplines:

 

Apologetics – Biblical Studies – Nouthetic Counseling  Ministry  Prophecy (Jack Van Impe) – Religious Education – Scofield Bible – Theology (PhD)

 

Info available upon request!

 

 

 

 

 


FROM THE BOOK

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would “relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. – An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800’s. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

 

What You Have To Believe To
Accept The Westcott And Hort Theory

  1. You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
  2. You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
  3. You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
  4. You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
  5. You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
  6. You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLISHED BY

POB 177 – Battle Creek, MI 49016-0177 PmiMinistries.com

[1] Copied from a message was given at the 33rd Annual Meeting and Conference of the GraceWay Bible Society meeting, Saturday, October 27th, 2001, held at Brampton Ontario, Canada.

INTRODUCTION TO KING JAMES BIBLE APOLOGETICS

September 10, 2016 Leave a comment

 

 Dr. Mike Johnston, Editor

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)

INTRODUCTION TO KING JAMES BIBLE APOLOGETICS

Copyright © 2011-2014 by each author of each article. All rights reserved.

You may copy, quote, and distribute the material enclosed, as allowed by each copyright holder.

 

Published by

PMI Center for Biblical Studies

POB 177 Battle Creek, MI 49016-0177

PmiMinistries.com

 

All Scripture quotations are taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible unless noted when directly quoting or refuting another source.

 

 

We also publish and distribute dozens of doctrinally sound tracts and pamphlets specially suited for prison ministry. Chaplains and/or prison ministry workers may write for a Prison Ministry Tract Pack.

 

Bible students interested in college and seminary level degree studies in Bible, Ministry, Prophecy, Religious Education, and Theology, may request

application information.

 

 

COLLATERAL READING

ASSIGNMENT FOR PMI STUDENTS

 

Collateral reading and reporting is part of your required coursework. When summarizing material, refrain from opining or you will have to redo your assignments. I am not interested in your opinion; I want to see how well you can read, analyze, and then communicate the material- as it is presented- in writing.

 

  • Read and explain (don’t opine) each of the following sections in about 100 words each.
  • Prepare a final 300-500 word report entitled: My Defense of the King James Bible

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.. 4

FACTS ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPTS. 7

BIBLE VERSIONS. 11

WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE. 15

FACTS AND FABLES ABOUT  THE KING JAMES BIBLE. 20

A TRIBUTE TO MY KING JAMES BIBLE. 24

KING JAMES ONLY. 26

 

——————————————————————–

 

EDITOR’S NEEDED

 

I need your help editing this booklet. Please send me a list of any imperfections in the text and footnotes including typos, misquoted Scripture references, or any layout problems you think needs to be corrected. Your service to the Lord in this capacity will allow us to make the proper corrections for future students that will greatly benefit from your help. Thank you. Dr. Mike 2 Tim 2:2

 

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD

(Inerrant, Infallible, Inspired)

Scripture paints a drab picture of those living in the Last Days: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2 Timothy 4:1-4).

Using Paul’s inspired writing as our backdrop let me hasten to remind you, my friend, that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). However, as hard as we may try to convince the adversaries, not everyone will believe God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired Word because all men have not faith (2 Thess. 3:2).

 

Now, for our question at hand . . .  Question: “Is the Bible truly God’s Word?”

 

Answer: Our answer to this question will not only determine how we view the Bible and its importance to our lives, but also it will ultimately have an eternal impact on us. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and ultimately trust it. If the Bible is the Word of God then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.

 

The fact that God gave us the Bible is an evidence and illustration of His love for us. The term “revelation” simply means that God communicated to mankind what He is like and how we can have a right relationship with Him. These are things that we could not have known had not God divinely revealed them to us in the Bible. Although God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible was given progressively over approximately 1500 years, it has always contained everything that man needed to know about God in order to have a right relationship with Him. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, religious practice, and morals.

 

The question we must ask ourselves is how can we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not just a good book? What is unique about the Bible that sets it apart from all other religious books ever written? Is there any evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word? These are the type of questions that must be looked at if we are to seriously examine the biblical claim that the Bible is the very Word of God, divinely inspired, and totally sufficient for all matters of faith and practice.

 

There can be no doubt about the fact that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is clearly seen in Paul’s commendation to Timothy: “. . . from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word. The internal evidences are those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin. One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books serving as evidence of the divine origin of the words as God moved men in such a way that they recorded His very words.

 

Another of the internal evidences that indicate the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in the prophecies contained within its pages. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, to the future of certain cities, to the future of mankind, and to the coming of One who would be the Messiah, the Savior of not only Israel, but all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those done by Nostradamus, the biblical prophecies are extremely detailed and have never failed to come true. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament alone. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and what family He would come from, but also how He would die and that He would rise again on the third day. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible has.

 

A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is seen in its unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than the first two, it is no less a very powerful testimony of the divine origin of the Bible. The Bible has a unique authority that is unlike any other book ever written. This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by the supernatural power of God’s Word. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals have been set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats have been transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners are rebuked by it, and hate has been turned to love by reading it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.

 

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One of those evidences is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to verification like any other historical documentation. Through both archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best documented book from the ancient world. The fact that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim that it is the very Word of God.

 

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of the human authors. As mentioned earlier, God used men from many walks of life to record His words to us. In studying the lives of these men, there is no good reason to believe that they were not honest and sincere men. Examining their lives and the fact that they were willing to die often excruciating deaths for what they believed in, it becomes clear that these ordinary yet honest men truly believed that God had spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6) knew the truth of their message because they had seen and spent time with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. The transformation of seeing the risen Christ had a tremendous impact on them. They went from hiding in fear to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God’s Word.

 

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still the most widely published book in the world today.

 

Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has established it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by science, psychology, and political movements, and yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. It is a book that has transformed countless lives and cultures throughout the last 2000 years. No matter how its opponents try to attack, destroy, or discredit it, the Bible remains just as strong, just as true, and just as relevant after the attacks as it was before. The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it, is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him. It should not surprise us that no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. After all, Jesus said, Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away (Mark 13:31).

 

After looking at the evidence one can say without a doubt that yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word. [1]

 

  1. MIKE’S NOTE: I agree with Dr. John R. Rice: “You see, this idea that the Bible comes from myths, legends, folklore and oral tradition is manufactured by wicked men who try to find a human explanation for rejecting the Bible and the Saviour of the Bible and going on in their sins.” These frivolous assaults on the Bible are a mere continuation of the devil’s original attack: Yea, hath God said (Gen. 3:1)?

FACTS ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPTS

Dr. Mike Johnston, Editor

In his essay Textual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: “The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries.”

Please hear me friend. There are scores of Bible versions available to English speaking people today which are in actuality good translations from the wrong manuscripts. While good men will probably always differ on the issue of Bible translations, we don’t believe this is an issue worth breaking fellowship over.

 

So what are manuscripts and why are they of such great importance when selecting a translation of the Bible to trust and study? A manuscript [2] is a hand-copied document which was the method employed for writing and duplicating existing literature prior to the invention of the printing press in 1440 AD. There are exactly 5,309 existing manuscripts of the Scriptures. Some of them contain a large portion of scripture, while others are fragments. There are two distinct families of Greek texts from which all New Testament Bible translations are derived. Discernment is necessary in selecting which of them you will subscribe to.

 

Dr. Sam Gipp writes: “The two Bibles, in manuscript form, and their corresponding ideologies originate in two vastly different locations in the Mid East. Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Syria. Discerning which location gives us the perfect Bible and the correct ideology and which gave us the devil’s bible and incorrect ideology is one of the easiest tasks imaginable.”

 

The Minority Texts from Alexandria

The first family we’ll discuss is called the “Minority Texts” because a small minority of less than 5% actually agree together. These include the Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. Strangely, when Westcott and Hort- more on them in a moment- wrote their Greek New Testament, they relied heavily on the Roman Vaticanus and Sinaiticus even though these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.

 

The Origen/Alexandrian Corruption

The Bible warns us about those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Cor. 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Cor. 4:2). Origen, a well known “apologist” fits this perfectly. Like religious liberals and theistic evolutionists, Origen was constrained to harmonize Christianity with pagan philosophy, especially that of Platonism, Stoicism, and Gnosticism. While he claimed a high regard for the Scriptures, He denied its inerrancy and historical accuracy (which has been gleefully adopted by atheists and liberals), the physical resurrection of Christ (adopted by JWs and Mormons), and the equality of the Father and the Son (adopted by many cults including Armstrongism, JWs and Mormons). He believed in universalism and the pre-existence of the soul (also adopted by Mormons). According to scores of trusted sources, Origen was largely instrumental in editing the so-called “Alexandrian” texts of the New Testament which of necessity carry his deplorable and divergent doctrinal proclivities clearly evidenced by the many word and passage omissions throughout the new versions which have been ultimately based upon his final edits. Benjamin Wilkinson summarizes this perfectly in his book Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness: “Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying.” And while all of this is sadly true about Origen, his real claim to fame may be in the legacy he left that was later used as the basis of every modern Bible translation in America since the mid 19th Century.

The Westcott and Hort Heresies

While Origen, intertwined in paganism, was arguably deceptive, Westcott and Hort- who some allege held occult ties- were demonstrably diabolical.[3] Moreover, their theological inklings were so far out of the mainstream of orthodoxy, they even surpassed that of Origen; according to the Lord Jesus, a surefire recipe for a wicked work:

 

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matt 7:18).

 

I believe when examined closely, the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament proves this by virtue of the manuscript family they chose to draw from: the Alexandrian Minority Texts with Origen’s editorial slicing and slathering. Since both men loathed the Textus Receptus, labeling it “perverse, corrupt; vile and villainous” [4] they never once consulted it even though 95% of manuscripts were in full agreement with it (more in a moment). Sadly, this shameful sham completed in 1881 not only continues to serve as the underlying basis for every Bible translation since then, but also as the seeming unassailable proof  cited by all those attempting to impugn the King James Bible with the following phrase, or one similar: “the oldest and most reliable manuscripts render this . . .”

 

The Majority Texts from Antioch

The second family- the family we trust authoritatively- is called the “Majority Texts” because the vast majority (about 95%) agree. These manuscripts were compiled by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Stephanus , Beza, the Elzevir brothers, and Desiderius Erasmus [5] (1466-1536). Erasmus was one of the greatest Bible scholars the world has ever known. In 1516 he assembled, edited, and printed the Textus Receptus [6] which was the first edition of Greek New Testament and thus became the framework for many Bibles following including the 47 scholars that translated the King James Bible in 1611. [7]

 

The Wide Acceptance and Use of the Majority Texts (Textus Receptus)

 

Admirers of Westcott and Hort’s are loathe to admit the superiority of the Majority Texts. But the fact is ancient Versions, which could have gone Alexandrian, followed the reading of the Majority Texts instead. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]. So also have all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526). These include Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]

 

The reason the early church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th  centuries chose the Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts is because:

 

 

  • Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,309 Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

 

  • Textus Receptus is not distorted by deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text. [8]

 

  • Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

  • Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from Scripture by the early church fathers.

 

  • Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

 

  • Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour’s miracles, His bodily resurrection, His literal return, and the cleansing power of His precious blood!

 

  • Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind. Would God Hide His Word behind a wall or in a waste basket?

 

Final Thoughts About the Manuscripts

The original autographs are without question the authoritative, inspired Scriptures. The question you need to answer before devoting your life to studying the Bible is which manuscript family do you trust? With 5309 manuscripts extant, the choice seems clear: on one side you have 97% of them that don’t agree and on the other side you have 95% that do agree.

 

Personally, after weighing the evidence of manuscript authority, I think the choice of which Bible to devote my life to studying is crystal clear. That’s why the PMI Center stands without apology in defense of the authority of the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures and wholeheartedly recommend it to all who desire to become serious students of the Word of God. [9]

BIBLE VERSIONS

David W. Daniels

Question: I know the New King James is said to be a “revision of the King James.” But were the Greek and Hebrew texts for the New King James the same as they were for the King James?

Answer: The NKJV is not a revision of the King James Bible. It is a subtle perversion of the King James Bible. Though years of extensive research have shown that the Greek and Hebrew texts used for the main NKJV text were similar to those used for the KJV, there is a subtle and deadly poison injected into the NKJV: it changes the meaning of God’s words and it lifts up other texts that disagree with the King James.

A History of Preservation


There is a big difference between God’s preserved words and man’s perverted words. And keep in mind that two things had to be preserved through the centuries: the accurate text of God’s words, and the correct translation of those words.

 

Old Testament

God preserved the words of the Old Testament by the Levitical priests, who faithfully copied them through the centuries. The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the “Bomberg Text.” This faithful Rabbinic Old Testament, used for the King James Bible, was rejected by the NKJV committee in favor of a Vatican-published text. But it still takes a careful eye (and a parallel Bible) to spot the differences.

New Testament

God preserved the words of the New Testament by His faithful Christian disciples, from Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to the Vaudois people of the French Alps about AD 120. From the 150s on they passed this Old Latin Bible (called “Common Bible” or “Vulgate”) throughout Europe and the British Isles. The Vaudois people were regarded by the Protestants and Baptists as “pre-Reformers,” passing down the gospel message till the Reformation of the 1500s. Their Bibles and others translated from them, were so accurate they were included in translating the King James Bible. The NKJV committee unwisely used none of these Bibles when deciding the meaning of God’s words and how to translate them into English.

 

The Preserved vs. the Perverted “Vulgate”

Please remember: the Vaudois’ Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois’ Vulgate is God’s preserved words in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God’s words with the perverted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern “scholars” falsely declare there’s only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the perverted (Roman Catholic).

 

A Mixture of Perversion

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and “new version” errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don’t be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:

  • The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the “scholars” rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim for an “older” (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the “Ben Asher text”). The BHS states:

“…it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute,Rome….” –Prolegomena, p. XII

  • The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called “Septuagint” is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus – the same exact codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from!
  • The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV “scholars” consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
  • The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth” (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.
  • The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The “Majority Text” is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by “pro-Alexandrian” liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden’s team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.

So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with “the Majority Text.” Who cares? The “Majority Text” is not the majority of texts! The “Majority Text” is a big fake. Don’t believe it. And don’t trust any Bible that does.

If It Looks Like a Duck and Talks Like a Duck…There is another side to the New King James that reveals its ugly alliances.

In most places where the NKJV disagrees with the King James Bible, it agrees with the translations of modern Alexandrian perversions, whether Prostestant like the NIV, NAS, RSV, ASV, etc., or Roman Catholic like the New American Bible. The King James Bible is God’s preserved words in English. The NKJV is just man’s most subtle perversion of God’s words. Don’t be deceived. Insist on the King James Bible, not “New” King James, “Modern” King James, King James “2” or “21” or “Millennium,.” Even though it is very similar to a King James Bible, it is not a King James Bible. Insist on the one you can stake your faith on, the genuine King James Bible. God will bless you.

Verse King James NKJV Perversions agreeing with NKJV
Acts 3:26 God, having raised up his Son His Servant NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB), etc.
Acts 17:22 I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. very religious NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie who exchanged the truth of God for the lie NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. who are being saved [This teaches the Roman Catholic lie that salvation is a process.] NIV, NASV, NASU, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.

 

WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE

I do not read the King James Bible because it sounds pretty. What I care about is getting ALL the verses  … the whole Word of God. I read KJV because the other English modern versions have omitted key verses and changed certain important words and names. Years back, I used to read all the different versions out there but now I read the KJV exclusively. I have found that since reading only the KJV for the past 10 years, my understanding of the Scriptures improved tremendously.

When I was a teen, I was always confused when people in church sang;  “Jesus, you shine like the bright morning star.” I was confused because my NIV bible called Lucifer the morning star.

 

In Bible College, we were required to use the NIV and it was not until I returned back to the KJV that I gained a better understanding of doctrine.

 

Since the beginning, Satan in the garden of Eden attempted to twist the Word of God. In the past, he burned Bibles and tortured people who owned one and in some countries, he still does.

 

Do you think the devil has changed his plans?

 

Has he given up in the free world? If the devil cannot burn the Bibles, what is his plan? He corrupts, twists and changes key verses and omits certain  passages in these new translations right under the nose of the Christian community. Burning the Bible or omitting verses from it…same thing. The end result is the same.

 

If you cannot see that something is wrong with the picture, then take a look at this:

 

Words completely omitted in the Newer Versions: This is just a taste of what has been omitted. There are many more examples that I have posted online.

 

  • 6:13, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
  • 17:21. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
  • 15:8, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth”
  • 18:11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
  • Mark 15:28. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
  • I John 4:3, “Christ is come in the flesh”
  • I John 5:13, “and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God”
  • 1:11, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”

 

NOW LET’S LOOK AT JUST A FEW VERSES IN THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS:

 

I John 5:7 reads as follows:

  • NIV- For there are three that testify:
  • NASV- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
  • NWT- For there are three witness bearers,
  • KJV- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

The verse in the KJV completely coincides with Jesus saying; “I and the Father are one.”

 

And Genesis chapter 1, as well as so many places in the Old Testament that refer to God as being three persons. To delete this verse is so dangerous because you alter the meaning and three that bear record in heaven is VERY important. Some scholars might say;  “we leave it out because it is not found in the original manuscript.”  Well, I would much rather leave it in than take it out. It coincides with all of Scripture. To change the Trinity is to delete God’s essence of who He is. God said in Genesis; “Let us make man in our image.”

 

Isaiah 14:12:

  • NIV- How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star …
  • KJV- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

In this NIV passage, “Lucifer” has been changed to “Morning Star”.

This is so frightening because the Bible defines the Morning Star as Jesus Christ.

 

Revelation 22:16 says:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

2 Cor. 2:17:

  • KJV- “For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God”
  • NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV- “For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God”

 

PEDDLING????? COULD THEY SOFTEN THE VERSE MORE? CORRUPT MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS SO WHY CHANGE IT?

Mark 10:24 :

  • NIV- Jesus said again, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! Verse Ends
  • KJV – Jesus answered again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

 

Hmmmm…..do you smell a rat in the NIV? I sure hope so. If you cannot, then you better pray to the Lord for discernment. OMITTING THIS PART OF THE VERSE IS VERY DANGEROUS BECAUSE BY OMITTING IT, THE READER DOES NOT GET THE WHOLE THOUGHT OF WHAT JESUS WAS SAYING.

 

Acts 3:13:

  • NASV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus
  • KJV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;

 

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in meaning. Son means a son, a servant is a servant.

 

  • NASV- …For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. 12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.
  • KJV- …for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

 

Jesus has been given the authority to judge. The Judgment Seat of Christ is different than the White Throne Judgment but you would not know this by reading the NASV.

 

Daniel 3:25:

  • NIV- He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
  • KJV- He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

 

There is only One God! To add an “s” at the end of the word completely distorts the meaning!

 

Luke 23:42:

  • NIV- Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
  • NASV- And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.
  • NWT- And he went on to say: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.”
  • KJV- And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

 

By the thief calling Jesus, “LORD”, he acknowledged Jesus as being God;  Superior. Many called Jesus by His name but did not believe on Him. Those that call Him Lord acknowledged who He was and is. To call him Lord was to give Him honor.

 

Luke 2:43:

  • NIV- After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.
  • KJV- And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

 

hmmmm…Joseph is bundled up into the words  “his parents.”

 

Luke 2:33:

  • NASV- And his father and his mother were marveling at the things which were spoken concerning him;
  • KJV- And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.

 

Joseph is not Jesus’ father is why it is so WRONG to put that in the Bible. Joseph was Jesus’ step-father. Jesus is God’s Son, not Joseph’s son. Do you see how the devil likes to steal and twist the Word of God? Trying again to strip the Deity of Christ verse by verse and passage by passage until subtly the reader has doubts to the existence and character and person of Jesus Christ.

 

Those Thee’s and Thou’s

Dr. Henry M. Morris

 

“And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.” Exodus 4:15

 

These words of God, spoken to Moses concerning the mission he and his brother Aaron were to undertake at Pharaoh’s palace are one of numerous examples in Scripture where the King James translation uses several different forms of the second-person pronoun. In this one verse, we see the words “thou,” “thy,” “you,” and “ye,” all fulfilling this function. Most modern translations would translate this sentence. “You shall speak to him . . . and I will be with your mouth . . . and will teach you what you shall do.” Why would the King James translators use four different forms of the pronoun when only “you” and “your” are used in modern versions?

 

The fact is that the Elizabethan-age English was able to make much finer distinctions than modern English. That is, “thou,” “thee,” “thy,” and “thine,” were used for the second person singular, whereas “ye,” “you,” “your,” and “yours” were the corresponding words for the plural. Different words also were used for subject, object and possessive modifiers, as is still true for first and third-person pronouns.

 

In our text, God was telling Moses that He (Moses) was to speak to Aaron, and that He (God) would teach both of them, not just Moses, what they were to do. This distinction is clear in the King James English, but not in modern English. This is one of the numerous examples where such fine points in the King James language are lost in modern translations.

 

In the Lord’s Prayer, for example, “Yours is the kingdom” could suggest that many will possess the kingdom, where “thine is the kingdom” clearly recognizes one God alone. Clear words are important for clear meanings, and Jesus said, “My words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).[10]

 

PMI EDITOR’S NOTE: Please hear me once again, friend. There are scores of Bible versions available to English speaking people today which are in actuality good translations from the wrong manuscripts. [11]While good men will probably always differ on the issue of Bible translations, we don’t believe this is an issue worth breaking fellowship over.

 

So what are manuscripts and why are they of such great importance when selecting a translation of the Bible to trust and study? A manuscript [12] is a hand-copied document which was the method employed for writing and duplicating existing literature prior to the invention of the printing press in 1440 AD. There are exactly 5,309 existing manuscripts of the Scriptures. Some of them contain a large portion of scripture, while others are fragments. There are two distinct families of Greek texts from which all New Testament Bible translations are derived. Discernment is necessary in selecting which of them you will subscribe to.

 

Dr. Sam Gipp writes: “The two Bibles, in manuscript form, and their corresponding ideologies originate in two vastly different locations in the Mid East. Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Syria. Discerning which location gives us the perfect Bible and the correct ideology and which gave us the devil’s bible and incorrect ideology is one of the easiest tasks imaginable.”

FACTS AND FABLES ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

James Melton

Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes and have actually started believing that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible. It’s very sad that most Christians today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see what is really happening.

Originally we published only one tract about the King James Bible. The tract is titled How I Know The King James Bible Is The Word Of God, and it presents some rather strong arguments for the KJV. Then we offered a second tract, titled Let’s Compare Bibles. This tract shows how the modern Bible translations are literally attacking God’s word! Both of these tracts are still available, and are free upon request.

 

Now, by the grace of God, we are able to offer a third tract on the King James issue. We call it Fables And Facts About The King James Bible. It’s purpose is to better educate Christians about the KJV by clearing up some of the fables that have been spread by the critics. Far too many Christians are accepting the Authorized Version by faith alone, rather than working and studying to become more grounded in some of the basic FACTS about this important issue. The following information should be helpful to the believer who desires to be readily armed with TRUTH.

 

FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King James Bible of 1611.

 

FACT: The so-called “revisions” of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn’t start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.

 

FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.

 

FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. It’s also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, “Has God honored these ‘older’ and ‘better’ manuscripts throughout Church History?”

 

The modern translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England–B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the “older” and “better” manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.

 

The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work of such pagan Greek “scholars” as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of “the Bible” from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origen’s work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the “Egyptian” or “Hesychian” type text) found it’s way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new “Bible” versions in your local “Christian” bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone “correcting” the King James Bible with “older” or “more authoritative” manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.

 

FABLE: New translations are needed to correct the errors and contradictions in the King James Bible.

 

FACT: No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. Many “Christian” colleges and preachers have a nasty habit of pointing out APPARENT contradictions to their people, but these arguments have been disproven so many times that it is nothing less than disgusting to hear them still being used.

 

FABLE: New Translations are needed to bring the archaic Old English language up to date. People have trouble understanding the language of the King James Bible.

 

FACT: The King James language is NOT hard to understand. Most of the so-called “archaic” words are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other passages in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent the King James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn’t in tune with their high-minded vocabulary. In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says the King James language is EASIER to understand than the new versions.

 

We certainly agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn’t it be? It’s the WORD OF GOD!

FABLE: The King James Bible cannot be infallible because the translators were only men, and all men are sinners. The human element prevents the KJV from being infallible.

 

FACT: If this is true, then even the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS in Hebrew and Greek were not infallible, because they too were penned by men!

 

The fact of the matter is that the King James translators were only INSTRUMENTS of preservation (which is exactly what they called themselves in the Dedicatory to the A.V. 1611). God has always been the Divine Preserver of His word (Psa. 12:6-7), but He has used men as tools and instruments of preservation, just as He uses men to teach and preach His words. When men humbly yield themselves to the will of God, God can use them to accomplish His will (Rom. 12:1-2), and this is precisely what happened between 1604 and 1611.

 

FABLE: The King James translators added to the word of God, because the italicized words in the KJV were not in the originals.

FACT: The italics in the KJV prove that the translators were HONEST in their work. They set the words in italics so we’d know they were not in the manuscripts they were using.

 

Besides, no one has a copy of the original manuscripts today, so no one knows for certain that the italicized words aren’t in them. In fact, there are many cases where we know that the italicized words are justified. For example, notice in Deuteronomy 8:3 that the word “word” is in italics. However, when Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 4:4 he INCLUDES the italicized word! If the italicized word does not belong in the Bible, why did the Lord Jesus quote it?

 

FABLE: The original King James Bible included the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.

 

FACT: The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, not as scripture.

Dr. Mike has preached the Scofield notes over 30 years. We have these Old Scofield Reference Bibles in bonded leather, KJV, available for a gift to PMI of $30 + $4 s/h (prices can change) to help us minister to you and others. Please remember, when you order from us, you help support us. Stamps are welcome.

A TRIBUTE TO MY KING JAMES BIBLE

Dr. Don Jasmin

A

young lad was once asked to write a paper on his greatest treasure. The boy wrote one sentence: “My greatest treasure is my Bible.”  While this boy did not so state, he was undoubtedly referring to his KJB. The F. D. editor would like to re-echo that truth: My greatest treasure is my King James Bible!

 

(1) My KJB is a Complete Bible

The 66 books in this unique Scripture volume alone make up the divine written revelation of God. These 66 books compose the sacred canon of Scripture. While this writer has complete faith in the authenticity, integrity and veracity of the KJV, the KJB does not contain any “advanced” revelation as some of its misguided advocates errantly advocate. No additional divine revelations have been given since the completion of the New Testament canon in Revelation chapter twenty-two and none are forthcoming from heaven. Its inerrant contents are not only the supernatural and supreme Word of God for my life, they are my sole authority for faith and practice.

 

The contents of this divine treasure provide sufficient guidance for maturational growth in my Christian experience in bringing me to conformity to the image of Christ: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works—II Tim. 3:16-17.” “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth—John 17:17.”

 

(2) My KJB is a Correct Bible

The KJV Bible, that uncompromising Bible-believing historic Biblical Fundamentalists have used for 400 years is my reliable guide for Christian living and Christian service. My KJB is a trustworthy guide in which I can place my unquestioned confidence. It is reliable in every area of its extensive coverage from its grand commencement in Genesis chapter one to its glorious conclusion in Revelation chapter twenty-two. Its (a) translation is accurate, its text is authentic, and its truths are apostolic, a stark contrast to the satanic cultic Mormon view that the KJV is the Word of God” “only insofar as it is accurately translated.” I can have complete confidence in its words when I read in Luke 2:33 concerning Christ about “Joseph and his mother,” rather than the blasphemous statements of modern versions that talk about His “father and his mother.”

 

I do not believe that my KJB contains textual errors that need to be corrected or expunged from the Scriptural record as some New-Evangelicals advocate. “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever  (I Peter 1:23).”

(3) My KJB is a Conserved Bible

The genuine Word of God has been providentially preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Received Text [TR] in the New Testament. This text has been accurately translated in the King James Version of the Scripture.

 

This translation is a (a) preserved translation—Ps. 12:6-7. It is a (b) pure translation—Prov. 30:5, uncorrupted by the tampering hands of apostate liberal scholars and it is a (c) powerful translation—Heb. 4:12.

 

By contrast, the translators of modern versions can only wistfully conjecture, at best, that they possess most of God’s Word. They are still frantically searching for what I know already reliably exists in English form in my KJB translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts, not the corrupt manuscripts discarded in monastery garbage cans!

 

I do not believe that my KJB contains errors, but that I can read every verse with confidence, including such key verses as Micah 5:2, Matt. 9:13, Acts 8:37, Col. 1:14, and I John 5:7, having an implicit trust they are part of God’s genuine word, not like the modern versions which delete key phrases and  verses..

 

(4) My KJB is a Christ-Centered Bible

As I ponder my KJB, I remember that Christ is (a) the Source of this divine treasure—Col. 3:16, that he is also (b) the Substance of this divine text—Luke 24:27 and that He is (c) the Subject of its denominated truths—John 5:39.

 

My Saviour’s imprint is stamped on every page of its contents. From Genesis one to Rev. 22, He is the central person, message and theme. When I diligently search my KJB’s contents with a Christ-centered perspective, I can find him on every page and related to every event in Scripture. His identification is stamped on every book, His portrait silhouetted in every passage, His indentation stamped on every phrase, and His input superintending every word. Christ is the crux of my KJB, the core of my KJB and the center of my KJB.

 

(5) My KJB is a Companion Bible

My KJB is my written companion, accompanying me wherever I go. Its (a) instructions govern me—Ps. 119:9; its (b) illumination guides me—Ps. 119:105 and its (c) information guards me—Ps. 119:133. It is my constant companion through blessing and blight, amidst sunshine and storm, via rough pathways and smooth pathways and through both trials and triumphs. My KJB provides the spiritual bread I need—Jer. 15:16, the spiritual milk I require—I Peter 2:2 and the spiritual dessert I enjoy—Col. 3:16-17.

Truly, “I have a wonderful treasure, the gift of God without measure, and so we travel together, my [KJB] and I.”

 

Congratulations—KJB—upon your 400th birthday! Via your use, millions of souls have been saved, multitudes of homes blessed, thousands of churches established and countless numbers of believer edified in the faith. When your 401st year begins, this writer promises not to trash you for some other unreliable translation, as many of your now professing honorees will undoubtedly do. You are the first and last English translation I ever want to obey and use. With the Holy Spirit’s help, I will worship the Son of God you exalt within your pages—John 5:39  D. J. [13]

 

KING JAMES ONLY

David Cloud

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term “King James Onlyism.” This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism. I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

 

I will accept the label of “King James Only” if it means the following:

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” I have spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is “King James Only,” count me in.

 

Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this century, call me “King James Only.” [14]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLISHED BY

POB 177 – Battle Creek, MI 49016-0177 – (269) 282-9381

 PmiMinistries.com

 

[1] Adapted from http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

[2] All of the manuscripts in existence can be divided into several different formats: Papyrus fragments — papyrus was relatively inexpensive compared to vellum (animal skins), and therefore was widely used. However, it was not very durable and copies would wear out rather rapidly through usage. This is the reason these manuscripts are newer because those preceding them simply wore out from use. The size of these papyrus fragments range from a few verses to large portions of an entire book. Unical — these are copies that were written in capital letters.  Cursive — those written in small hand.

[3] Of significance is the fact that Westcott and Hort were involved in the occult and spiritism and they both hated (“reviled” in their own words) the Textus Receptus.  So, what did they do? They basically “invented” their own Greek text, which was based primarily on two very corrupt 4th century Catholic manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1844 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery near Mount Sinai). Source: http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/older_better.html/

[4] Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211.

[5] Enemies of the TR have falsely accused Erasmus of being a committed Roman Catholic humanist monk when in reality he was branded a heretic by the church and heralded as an enemy of Rome most of his adult life.

[6] History records Erasmus’s first edition was a great success; some 3300 copies of his first two editions were sold.

[7] They used the Hebrew Masoretic text to translate the Old Testament.

[8] Modern translations are replete with many disturbing traits: missing verses, passages, key words, and important doctrinal truths.

[9] Adapted and edited from http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/

[10] Copied from http://www.cobblestoneroadministry.org/whythekingjamesbible.html

[11]  For further study, please order our tract entitled: Facts About the Manuscripts.

[12] All of the manuscripts in existence can be divided into several different formats: Papyrus fragments — papyrus was relatively inexpensive compared to vellum (animal skins), and therefore was widely used. However, it was not very durable and copies would wear out rather rapidly through usage. This is the reason these manuscripts are newer because those preceding them simply wore out from use. The size of these papyrus fragments range from a few verses to large portions of an entire book. Unical — these are copies that were written in capital letters.  Cursive — those written in small hand.

[13] Copied from http://www.fundamentalbaptistministries.com/archives2/APRIL-MAY-2011%A0.htm

[14] Republished November 29, 2005 (Updated and enlarged March 2, 2005; first published January 20, 1996) – David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143. fbns@wayoflife.org

God’s Preserved Word

September 10, 2016 Leave a comment

The Bible is the Word of God

September 10, 2016 Leave a comment

 

(Inerrant, Infallible, Inspired)

 

Scripture paints a drab picture of those living in the Last Days: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2 Timothy 4:1-4).

 

Using Paul’s inspired writing as our backdrop let me hasten to remind you, my friend, that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). However, as hard as we may try to convince the adversaries, not everyone will believe God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired Word because all men have not faith (2 Thess. 3:2).

 

Now, for our question at hand . . .  Question: “Is the Bible truly God’s Word?”

 

Answer: Our answer to this question will not only determine how we view the Bible and its importance to our lives, but also it will ultimately have an eternal impact on us. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and ultimately trust it. If the Bible is the Word of God then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.

 

The fact that God gave us the Bible is an evidence and illustration of His love for us. The term “revelation” simply means that God communicated to mankind what He is like and how we can have a right relationship with Him. These are things that we could not have known had not God divinely revealed them to us in the Bible. Although God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible was given progressively over approximately 1500 years, it has always contained everything that man needed to know about God in order to have a right relationship with Him. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, religious practice, and morals.

 

The question we must ask ourselves is how can we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not just a good book? What is unique about the Bible that sets it apart from all other religious books ever written? Is there any evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word? These are the type of questions that must be looked at if we are to seriously examine the biblical claim that the Bible is the very Word of God, divinely inspired, and totally sufficient for all matters of faith and practice.

 

There can be no doubt about the fact that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is clearly seen in Paul’s commendation to Timothy: “. . . from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

 

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word. The internal evidences are those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin. One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more that 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words as God moved men in such a way that they recorded His very words.

 

Another of the internal evidences that indicate the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in the prophecies contained within its pages. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, to the future of certain cities, to the future of mankind, and to the coming of One who would be the Messiah, the Savior of not only Israel, but all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those done by Nostradamus, the biblical prophecies are extremely detailed and have never failed to come true. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament alone. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and what family He would come from, but also how He would die and that He would rise again on the third day. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible has.

 

A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is seen in its unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than the first two, it is no less a very powerful testimony of the divine origin of the Bible. The Bible has a unique authority that is unlike any other book ever written. This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by the supernatural power of God’s Word. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals have been set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats have been transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners are rebuked by it, and hate has been turned to love by reading it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.

 

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One of those evidences is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to verification like any other historical documentation. Through both archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best documented book from the ancient world. The fact that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim that it is the very Word of God.

 

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of the human authors. As mentioned earlier, God used men from many walks of life to record His words to us. In studying the lives of these men, there is no good reason to believe that they were not honest and sincere men. Examining their lives and the fact that they were willing to die often excruciating deaths for what they believed in, it becomes clear that these ordinary yet honest men truly believed that God had spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6) knew the truth of their message because they had seen and spent time with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. The transformation of seeing the risen Christ had a tremendous impact on them. They went from hiding in fear to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God’s Word.

 

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still the most widely published book in the world today.

 

Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has established it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by science, psychology, and political movements, and yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. It is a book that has transformed countless lives and cultures throughout the last 2000 years. No matter how its opponents try to attack, destroy, or discredit it, the Bible remains just as strong, just as true, and just as relevant after the attacks as it was before. The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it, is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him. It should not surprise us that no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. After all, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). After looking at the evidence one can say without a doubt that yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word.

 

Recommended Resource: Taking a Stand for the Bible: Today’s Leading Experts Answer Critical Questions About God’s Word by Ankerberg & Burroughs. [1]

 

  1. MIKE’S NOTE: I agree with Dr. John R. Rice: “You see, this idea that the Bible comes from myths, legends, folklore and oral tradition is manufactured by wicked men who try to find a human explanation for rejecting the Bible and the Saviour of the Bible and going on in their sins.” These frivolous assaults on the Bible are a mere continuation of the devil’s original attack: Yea, hath God said (Gen. 3:1)?

[1] Adapted from http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

Bible Codes in the Torah

September 10, 2016 Leave a comment

 

As amazing as it sounds, scientist have discovered modern information coded into the first 5 books of the bible. This 3,000-year-old code, encrypted in the Bible, foresaw the lives of famous men in history.

 

According to Jewish history, God dictated the Torah to Moses one letter at a time. The Levites were instructed to copy the Torah under rigorous conditions and safeguards so that they wouldn’t lose a single letter. In this modern age of computers, we can now see why preserving the Torah, letter by letter, was so important. Imbedded in the Torah is information about people, places and events that happened much, much later than when it was written. Had copy errors been introduced into the document over the centuries, the information would have disappeared. The obvious intent of the coded information is to prove God’s divine authorship of the Torah and consequently proves that the information in Genesis is an accurate description of the history of how this planet came to be.

 

In order for me to help you understand what The Torah Codes phenomenon is all about, I need you to do something for me. I need you to write a 5,000 word essay. It can be on any subject, but I want you to find a way to imbed the names of every head of state alive in the world today. I do not want you to use their names as you normally would, but I want you to hide their names in your essay by sprinkling the letters that make up their names throughout the essay and follow an interval pattern. For one name you might decide to start his name 120 characters into the essay and then skip every 15th letter or every 9th letter. For the name of another head of state you might want to use every 20th letter. You can begin the name anywhere you want. Regardless of where you start it, you must use the same interval sequence for every letter in the name. Also, make sure that the name of the country and the capital where this head of state lives is also imbedded with an interval pattern so that it shows up near their names.

 

Writing the essay might be difficult, but given enough time, I’m sure you could do it. However, you would have to admit it would be very unlikely, after writing a 5,000 word essay, to have by chance, the name of every current head of state and their country and capital end up being imbedded with skip letter sequences in your essay.

 

Before I tell you more about the Torah Codes. I need you to write another 5,000 word essay, only this time I only want you to insert in it, using interval patterns, the names of the heads of state that haven’t been born yet. I want you to imbed the names of the heads of state that will be born sometime in the next 5 to 500 years. Also I want you to imbed the dates of their births or deaths using a special code assigned to the first 10 letters of the alphabet or any other code you can think of.

 

If you can do that, then you can do the same thing that scientist have been able to prove exists in the first 5 books of the Bible. And they have written computer programs that proves it is not by chance but is evidence of a divine signature. This validates in ways never before possible, the information contained in the first 5 books of the Bible including the Creation Account in Genesis.

 

(End excerpt from the debate Lydia participated in the September of 1994)

Defending the King James Bible- Dr. DA Waite

DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE By Dr. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D. Pastor of the Bible For Today Baptist Church Collingswood, New Jersey 08108

I. THE BIBLE’S PRESERVATION All of the apostate clergymen and other non-born-again people deny that God has both promised and also fulfilled His promise to preserve the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and the New Testaments. But, sad to say, most of the Fundamentalist Bible-believing pastors, professors, and schools have joined the apostates in this view. They also deny that God has promised to preserve His original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words. They also deny that God has kept that promise. This is an outright unbelief in the clear Bible verses that defend the preservation of the Bible’s original Hebrew, Aramaic, and GreekWords. (Consider the following verses: Psalm 12:6-7; 78:1-8; 105:8; 119:89, 111, 152,160; Proverbs 22:20-21; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Matthew 4:4; 5:17-18; 24:35; John 10:35; Colossians 1:17; and 1 Peter 1:23-25. These verses are explained in my book, Defending The King James Bible, pages 6-14).

II. THE KING JAMES BIBLE’S SUPERIOR TEXTS A. The Superior Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament Text. These are the Masoretic Old Testament Words which underlie the King James Bible. Over 99% of the other English Bible versions as well as the current foreign language Bible versions do not use the exclusive Masoretic Words. Instead, they use Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic Words which have been altered here and there by following the thousands of footnotes in their Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles that suggest possible changes in the original Hebrew and Aramaic Words. B. The Superior Greek New Testament Text. These are the New Testament Greek Words which underlie the King James Bible. This Greek Text is called either the Traditional, Received, or Textus Receptus text. It is found in Dr. Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament. These Words came, with few exceptions, from Beza’s Greek New Testament edition of 1598. These Greek Words are found in more than 99% of the Greek manuscripts that have been preserved to our day. About 99% of the other English Bible versions as well as the current foreign language Bible versions make use of the Gnostic, Critical Greek Text composed by Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort in 1881 and followed today in the Nestle/Aland and United Bible Societies Greek texts. These Greek Words are only found in less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts that have been preserved in our day. (The detailed discussion of these superior Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts is found in my book, Defending The King James Bible, pages 20-61).

III. THE KING JAMES BIBLE’S SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS These skilled translators worked in teams of six different companies located in three different cities in England–Cambridge, Oxford, and Cambridge. EveryWord of the translation was reviewed at least 14 times by these linguistic specialists. They worked in this translation for seven long years, from 1604 to 1611. Compared to the excellence, background, training, methods, and accomplishments of this team of translators, there has not been such a translating team that can even come close to the linguistic background, training and over-all superiority of translators who have worked on subsequent Bible translations from 1611 to our present year of 2016. (The detailed names, qualifications, and the unique methods used in the translators’ superior King James Bible translating process are found in my book, Defending The King James Bible, pages 62-82.)

IV. THE KING JAMES BIBLE’S SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE OF TRANSLATION The translators of the King James Bible followed the translating rules that were laid down at the beginning of their assignment. They followed two principle rules in the technique of Bible translation and scrupulously avoided a third principle that abounds in modern English translations and in the current modern other language translations around the world. The King James translators followed verbal equivalence (paying attention to accurate translation into English of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words) and formal equivalence (paying attention to retaining in English the forms of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words) throughout the Bible. They totally rejected dynamic equivalence translation (permitting the translators either to add to God’s Words, to subtract from God’s Words, or to change God’s Words in some other ways). (The detailed information about the superior translation techniques used by the King James Bible translators is found in my book, Defending The King James Bible, pages 83-130.)

V. THE KING JAMES BIBLE’S SUPERIOR THEOLOGY The King James Bible maintains superior theologybecause it was founded on the true preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words. As mentioned above, about 99% of the other English Bible versions as well as the current foreign language Bible versions make use of the Gnostic, Critical Greek Text edited by Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort in 1881. This text has been generally followed today in the Nestle/Aland and United Bible Societies Greek texts. Because of this, these English and foreign language Bible versions abound in theological errors. They follow the false Gnostic religion because their main New Testament Greek sources (the Vatican and the Sinai Greek manuscripts) were corrupted in over 8,000 places which include more than 356 doctrinal passages. These two Greek manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Gnostic religion’s was headquartered. After receiving the true Greek text, the Gnostics found that, in many places, the Greek New Testament did not agree with their false theology, so they changed spellings, words, sentences, and even whole verses in order to conform the New Testament to their false beliefs. (The detailed information about the superior theology in the King James Bible and the inferior and false theological words and phrases in 99% of the other English Bible versions and the other current language Bible versions around the world is found in my book, Defending The King James Bible, pages 131-185. In these pages, there are over 158 doctrinal differences noted. More information on this subject can be found in two books by Dr. Jack Moorman: (1) 8,000 Differences Between The Textus Receptus and the Critical Greek Text [BFT #3084] and (2) Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version [BFT #3230]. In this last book, all the 356 false doctrinal passages are listed and documented by Greek manuscripts.

%d bloggers like this: