CHANGING THE BIBLE
http://www.lorendavis.com/news_articles_chg_bible.html
by Loren Davis
God's Word, the Bible, is His covenant with mankind and applies to all generations. The religious practice of pointing out so-called errors in the Bible is what has produced Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Islam, and the massive schism in the Christian world today. This attitude has produced THE GAY TRANSLATION, THE FEMINIST TRANSLATION; translations that say nothing about the VIRGIN BIRTH of Christ; and versions that delete THE NECESSITY OF THE BLOOD for redemption. This list goes on into infinitum. Nothing makes a person angrier than for someone to take what he says out of context, twist his words and misrepresent him. If we, as people, feel that way when someone distorts our words, how do you suppose God feels when His words are distorted? The New Testament is THE NEW COVENANT between God and man. It is a legal document, the law of God that must not be tampered with. The Bible is God's unchanging, infallible Word
METHODS OF TRANSLATING THE BIBLE
Many translations were made by one man. Question? If one person is translating the scriptures, is it possible for him to make mistakes? Is it possible or even probable that he will taint the translation with his own doctrinal positions? The answer is obvious.
Other translations were commissioned by a denomination or a particular group. Is it possible that these translations will be tainted by their doctrinal beliefs? Knowing mankind, it is impossible to believe otherwise. For example, the Catholic Bible, the Duhey Version, totally deletes "Thou shalt not make before me any graven images" from the Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20. The reasoning behind this is not hard to figure out. Catholic churches are full of graven images.
WHICH BIBLE IS RIGHT?
Many translations come from corrupt texts, manuscripts that were scholastically proven to be inacurate. The Bible revisers, Hort and Westcott, did not even believe in the infallibility of the Bible. By developing such watered down Bibles, the world's religions will soon have a common book to rally around, a Bible that will deny the divinity of Christ and one that will be contrary to His teachings.
NEW AGE VERSIONS, FLUID BIBLES
The New Age Movement has impacted modern Bible translations and has given us New Age Versions of the Bible. Three of these are the NIV, NASB and The Message paraphrase. Using these many translations is doing nothing but making a "fluid" Bible, which is like water. It will take on the form of whatever it is put into. A New Age Bible is developing which can be used by all religions (even non-Christians). It is so fluid that it can be taken many different ways. The New Age Movement, by using these different translations, has even infiltrated most of Evangelical Christianity. It has SLOWLY BEEN CHANGING THE BIBLE AND ITS DOCTRINES TO LINE UP WITH the "One World" movement, the "New World Order".
THESE NEW TRANSLATIONS ARE GETTING THE APOSTATE CHURCH READY to accept the Antichrist, the Mark of the Beast, his Image, and the anti-Christ's religion, Satanism. 2 Thesselonians 2:3 The proliferation of so many translations of the Bible has done more to change the teachings of Christ than any other thing.
Some who worked on the NIV admitted that the translators own beliefs influenced their work.One quote from Palmer, the manager of the NIV translation, said that "the common error in the KJV was, namely that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be Born Again, man must accept Jesus as his Savior". If the manager of the NIV translation project has such an objection regarding "The Born Again" experience, how is his translation going to be untainted by his view? We know that many so called "Christian" denominations do not believe in being born again.
UNSUSPECTING CHRISTIANS
Despite the facts that many of these versions are based on corrupt texts, they are continually being sold to unsuspecting Christians in Christian bookstores. Accuracy is totally ignored as long as they will sell and make money for the retailer.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE AND IT'S INFALLIBILITY IS THE MAIN ISSUE FOR CHRISTIANS. OTHERWISE, HOW COULD ONE EVER BELIEVE IT? MANY VITAL ISSUES ABOUT MORALITY, ETERNITY, AND THE PROMISES OF GOD ARE AT STAKE.
The reason this issue is so critical is that without the Bible's integrity it is impossible to establish Bible doctrine and truth.
There are "favorite Word" people who attach themselves to certain scriptures, and either ignore or reject other scriptures. If, as they say, certain scriptures are not accurate, how do we know which scriptures are true? On that premise, John 3:16, the foundation for salvation may not be true. How can we know that the promises for healing and blessing are accurate? What if those scriptures were not translated correctly? The Bible is the only foundation we have to know about Jesus; salvation; and heaven. When faith in the Bible has been shaken, the foundation of our faith has crumbled. "Doctrines of devils"(1 Timothy 4:1) can then easily take the place of the doctrines of the Bible. Many who believe the Bible is full of errors particularly target the King James Version. No version has been attacked more than the KJV. The biggest assault on the KJV comes from inside Christianity. Is this attack justified? WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THE KING JAMES VERSION ( KJV)?
HOW WAS IT TRANSLATED?
Scholastically, the KJV IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER TRANSLATIONS. Consider these facts regarding how the KJV was translated. This will help you to gain total confidence in the integrity and scholarship that went into it so that you can be fully assured the KJV is TRULY THE WORD OF GOD. There is a major difference in a "professing" Bible, containing some of the Word of God, or the Bible that literally is the Word Of God. A TRUE BIBLE CANNOT BE PARTIALLY ACCURATE.
47 TRANSLATORS WERE INVOLVED IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE KJV
"Never in history had such an assembly of scholarship and spirituality been brought together on a project as these FORTY-SEVEN LEARNED MEN. Four were college presidents, six were bishops, and five were university professors who were all Greek and Hebrew scholars of rare scholarship. Three of them were eastern linguists who were well versed with Arabic. They were as at ease with the eastern languages as they were with their own English. "All of them believed in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Bible, the Divinity of Christ without equivocation, and all of them were men of prayer. Some prayed as much as five hours per day during the entire course of their Christian lives. Only God could have prepared this group of men for such a monumental task, the results of which were, in the providence of God, needed for the great evangelistic and missionary thrust of the succeeding centuries." 1
THEY WERE DIVIDED INTO 6 COMPANIES
Each person was assigned certain portions of the scriptures to translate. After he finished, he met with others in the group to compare results. Their combined work was then given to each of the other groups of companies for review and approval. Finally A SELECT COMMITTEE OF TWO OF THE BEST EXPERTS IN LINGUISTICS was assigned for THE TASK OF FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL. The results were that this gave the world an objective, unbiased translation of the Bible which was done with the highest degree of scholarship. Nothing in history can match the scholarship. It still stands as a masterpiece of scholarship and literary art, unexcelled in the history of the world." 2
To criticize the King James Version is to ignore how it was translated. That criticism is unfair. It is an objective, scholarly, and unbiased translation that has no doctrinal axe to grind. Therefore, it should be unwaveringly accepted as the Word of God and believed to be completely accurate. IF ONE BELIEVES THAT PART OF THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE, THEN REALISTICALLY, ONE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE WHICH PART IS ACCURATE AND BELIEVABLE, and which is not. Then the foundation of the Faith is destroyed, because...
*Romans 10:17 "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."
*Psalm 11:3 "IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, WHAT CAN THE RIGHTEOUS DO?"
Therefore, I submit that THE KJV MUST BE THE STANDARD BY WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUDGED.
ELIZABETHAN ENGLISH: KJV AND SHAKESPEARE
Many criticize the KJV saying it is hard to understand because it uses the old Elizabethan English. Yet, in the west, SHAKESPEARE is mandatory for students in schools. Shakespeare used the same Elizabethan English as the KJV. I have never heard a complaint that children can't understand Shakespeare. There are no calls to retranslate Shakespeare to put it into modern language. As a boy I read the KJV and had no problem understanding what "thee and thou" meant. To use modern English for the Bible wouldn't be an issue if while doing this, they wouldn't change the meaning of what the Bible is saying, but that is not what has happened. These newer versions change the very essence of the Bible's doctrines. The complaint about the KJV using Elizabethan English is just a subtil ploy to change the real message of the Bible.
The NIV is now the biggest selling Bible in the world. It is becoming very difficult to get a KJV Bible in bookstores.
COMPARING THE KJV WITH OTHER TRANSLATIONS
EXAMPLES:
Romans 1:20 in KJV," For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
The NIV and NASB change "GODHEAD" to "divine nature." This language does away with the concept of THE TRINITY.
John 3:15, KJV states..."Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life"
The NIV deletes "should not perish" and says "May" have eternal life instead of "Shall".
Colossians. 1:14, KJV, states..."In whom we have redemption through his blood..."
NIV and NASB state simply..."In whom we have redemption"... The blood is deleted. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Hebrews 9:22
Psalms 8:5, KJV... "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour".
NIV and NASB.... "Yet thou hast made him ...a little lower than God".
Proverbs 8:18 KJV says..."Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness."
NASB and NIV state..."With me are riches and honor, enduring wealth and prosperity. Prosperity takes the place of righteousness.
1 Corinthians 8:4, KJV... "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world."
NASB... "There is no such thing as an idol". It denies the very existence of idols.
Luke 4:8 KJV Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan".
"NIV omits "Get thee behind me Satan."
Luke 4:4 says, "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
NIV, NASB, omits "by every word of God."
Daniel 3:25, "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."
NIV and NASB say... "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." (A son of the gods is much different than THE SON OF GOD).
John 9:35, KJV... "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
NIV, NASB, "Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
John 3:16, KJV "for God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life."
NIV ..."For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON IS DELETED.
Deleting "begotten" has a direct impact on the essential truth that Jesus was born of a virgin with a heavenly Father, which makes Him God in the flesh. He had the flesh of man, but the blood of God. He was sinless.
John 3:18, NIV "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's ONE AND ONLY SON.
Again, the NIV DELETES "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD."
The biblical concept of Jesus being God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON is foundational to salvation.
In John 1:14, and 1:18 the NIV also deletes ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
Matthew 1:23 , KJV says..."Behold A VIRGIN shall be with child."
Matthew 1:23, NIV "THE VIRGIN will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel", which means, "God with us."
The terminology THE VIRGIN was taken from Babylon and Egypt and is pagan.
1 Timothy 3:16,KJV..."GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH."
NIV "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."
The NIV DELETES the phrase, "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH".
If Jesus was not manifest in the flesh, there is no Gospel.
*2 John 1:7 "For many DECEIVERS are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. THIS IS A DECEIVER AND ANTICHRIST."
Romans 8:1 KJV "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
The NIV DELETES "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." That means that if one has accepted Christ, even if he doesn't live right he is not under condemnation. This is the doctrine of many denominations which believe one's behavior has nothing to do with his salvation. They finally got a Bible to substantiate their doctrine.
The words "SOVEREIGN and SOVEREIGNTY" are not found in the KJV one time.
The NIV uses the word SOVEREIGN 315 times and SOVEREIGNTY twice. This is a prime example of denominations influencing translations to taint it with their denominational doctrine of "The Sovereignty of God". This is blatantly changing the scriptures and ADDING to them in defiance of Revelation 22:18-19. The NIV translation and teaching on "The Sovereignty of God" negates all the Bible's teachings on the importance of having faith and believing God to receive from Him.
KJV speaks of "THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST".
*II John 9 states... "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."
KJV uses the word DOCTRINE 51 times.
The NIV uses the word DOCTRINE only 5 times. Is this not changing the Bible?
What about the "NEW" King James Version (NKVJ)?
NKJV omits the word ..."REPENT" 44 times; "GOD" 51 times; "LORD" 66 times; "HEAVEN" 50 times; "HELL" 22 times; "DAMNATION" entirely; "DEVILS" entirely; "JEHOVAH" entirely; the "NEW TESTAMENT" entirely.
(You can use the concordance on your computer comparing the KJV and the NKJV to verify this).
MANY TRANSLATIONS ARE BASED ON CORRUPT GREEK TEXTS
Here is a test to determine if a translation is based on corrupt Greek texts or not.
*Use 1 Timothy 3:16, which says, "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
If your version does not state this, you can then be assured that the translation comes from corrupt texts. Even many translations that accurately translate this scripture often change many others. Just because the cover of a book says Holy Bible doesn't make it a true Bible .
*Psalms 105:8 "He hath remembered HIS COVENANT FOR EVER, THE WORD which HE COMMANDED TO A THOUSAND GENERATIONS."
THE CHANGING OF SCRIPTURES
The changing of scriptures by these varied translations has no end. THE SIN IS ADDING TO and/or TAKING away FROM THE BIBLE, GOD'S WORD. By doing this the translators are blatantly distorting the scriptures. These translations are no longer Holy Bibles, but fraudulent imposters. If I were the devil I would rewrite the Bible and get into the Bible translating and publishing business. He needs no advice regarding this,however, because this has already happened. This strategy of using translations to change the Bible is so diabolical that it had to come from Satan himself. This tactic has even deceived many of the very elect. It is the work of The Deceiver! Revelation 18:23
God is jealous over His Word and will not tolerate it being tampered with. To attack the integrity of the Bible is to attack the integrity and infallibility of God. The Bible is not an ordinary book. It is supernatural. God gave His Word by the Holy Ghost, and He knows how to keep it generation after generation. It was not given just to an exclusive club of clerics who are Greek scholars. That is how the Catholic church operated for years. For a long time, itt was even illegal for the laity to even have a Bible. They needed a priest to tell you what the Bible said and what it meant. Now the protestants, by using so many translations and the heavy usage of the Greek, are virtually doing the same thing.
THE PRACTICE OF USING MANY TRANSLATIONS
Many ministers use several translations to develop their messages. Is there a problem here? Since most translations disagree with each other to varying degrees, this leaves it to the judgment of the minister which one he thinks is translated correctly. I have often heard preachers comment after reading from the KJV, that "this scripture was translated wrong." Then he goes to another translation and says that it was translated the right way in this one! In preaching a message, they often jump from translation to translation. This is what I refer to as the eclectic way of finding truth. If you don't like what you are reading, just go to another translation that you like better. Jumping from translation to translation now makes the preacher the final authority of faith and not the Bible. This practice actually destroys faith in the Bible by causing the congregation to doubt that what they are reading is accurate. Now we are left with the notion that we can't understand the Bible without the preacher interpreting it for us. This practice is deadly.
The abuse of the Greek to privately interpret scriptures is very intimidating. Some will read the Bible, then tell their congregants that the Holy Spirit told them that this was how it should have "really been interpreted".
*2 Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
God is jealous over His Word and will not tolerate it being tampered with. To attack the infallibility of the Bible is to attack the infallibility of God. John 1:1 says "...the Word was with God and the Word was God." The Bible is not an ordinary book. It is supernatural. God gave it to men by the Holy Ghost, and He knows how to keep it generation after generation. 2 Timothy 3:16, Psalm 105:8
A WARNING FOR THOSE WHO WOULD CHANGE THE BIBLE
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." KJV
A WARNING FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE A LIE
II Thesselonians 2:11-12 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE A LIE: That THEY ALL MIGHT BE DAMNED who BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH," To trust in a corrupt translation will cause you to believe a lie and can lead you to be damned for eternity.
PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE IS DANGEROUS
http://www.lorendavis.com/news_articles_pdl.html
THE FIVE POINTED SIRIUS STAR
http://www.lorendavis.com/news_articles_sirius.html
THE ENEMIES OF CHRISTIANITY
http://www.lorendavis.com/news_articles_pagan1.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is an excerpt from my book "The Paganization of Christianity" which can be ordered online at www.lorendavis.com
1 New Age Bible Versions, Gail Riplinger
2 Bible Versions, Eldred Thomas; New Age Bible Versions, Gail Riplinger
SECOND ARTICLE
A Creationist's Defense of the King James Bible
by Henry M. Morris*
In this day of rapid change, when many Christians have suddenly started using one of the many modern English translations of the Bible (NASB, NIV, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, etc.), abandoning the long-used King James Version read and loved by English-speaking people of all ages and walks of life for over ten generations, it may be appropriate to review a few of the reasons why many creationists, including this writer, still prefer to use the latter.
The King James Translators
One reason is that all the fifty or more translators who developed the King James Bible were godly men who believed strongly in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and who, therefore, believed in the literal historicity of Genesis, with its record of six-day Creation and the worldwide flood. This has not been true of many who have been involved in producing the modern versions.
The spiritual motivations and convictions of the King James translators are indicated by their fascinating preface, entitled "The Translators to the Reader." The flavor of this impassioned essay can be illustrated by the following brief excerpts
The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we be not content with them? . . . It is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. . . . a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life, and what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the Editor, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that shall never fade away; happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.
Furthermore, the King James translators were also great scholars, every bit as proficient in the Biblical languages as any of those who have come after them. They were very familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous translations. They worked diligently on the project (assigned to them by King James) for over seven years, completing it in the year 1611.
The professional qualifications of the translators were all extremely high. There were 54 scholars originally assigned to the project by King James, though some died early in the project. There were evidently 47 who were active throughout the project, all of whom were exceptionally well qualified both academically and spiritually.
For example, John Bois, who kept the most complete account of the proceedings of the translators, was extremely skilled in both Hebrew and Greek. In fact, it is reported by his biographer that he was reading through the Hebrew Old Testament when he was only five years old. He was expert in all forms of Greek, including the Koine Greek of the New Testament, and compiled one of the largest Greek libraries ever. Dr. Bois became Dean of Canterbury in 1619.
Lancelot Andrews, a leader of the Old Testament translators, had been chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages, as well as Hebrew, Greek, and the cognate Biblical languages. He served as Dean of Westminster and later as Bishop of Winchester.
Dr. William Bedwell was expert in Latin, Arabic, and Persian, preparing lexicons in these languages, as well as in the Biblical languages. Edward Lively, who died after only a year, had been Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge and had an unequaled knowledge of the Oriental languages. Dr. John Harding was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Miles Smith was a noted Orientalist who became Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. He was the last man to review the translation and was selected to write the Translators' Preface.
Dr. Andrew Downes spent forty years as Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford University and was on the final checking committee of the translation. George Abbott became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. Sir Henry Saville was Provost of Eton and was a scientist as well as Bible scholar. His works included an eight-volume edition of the works of Chrysostom. And on and on. All the translators were great scholars, deeply fluent in the Biblical languages, the cognate languages, the writings of the church fathers and other relevant materials, as well as accomplished writers in English. It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team.
The result of their consecrated labor was that the so-called "Authorized" version eventually displaced all those that had gone before and then has withstood the test of wide usage in all English-speaking countries ever since. To suddenly abandon it in just one over-stressed, pseudo-intellectual, largely apostate generation may well prove to be a decision with sad and entropic consequences.
Which New Translation Could Replace It?
This is not a new question. As a matter of fact, there have been no less than 120 English translations of the complete Bible published since the King James, as well as over 200 New Testaments. Even in my own lifetime there have been at least 45 Bibles plus about 100 New Testaments, and I have tried to use at least 20 of them.
My wife and I were given an American Standard Version for a wedding present when we married in 1940, and I later bought a Berkeley Version, then a Williams, and a Phillips - each time thinking the latest might be the best. I was especially pleased when the Revised Standard Version was finally marketed in 1952 with great publicity. Each time I was disappointed, however, and soon went back to the KJV. Later came the Amplified and the Expanded and the Basic English and the Living Bible and many others. I even studied some of the older translations (Afford, Weymouth, Goodspeed, etc.).
Each of these provided interesting variations in wording, as well as updating the archaic expressions and old-style English, but something always seemed missing, so I continued using the King James in my writing and speaking, and God continued to bless its use, in spite of its Elizabethan-age English.
But other new translations kept on appearing. The New English Bible, Good News for Modern Man, the Anchor Bible, New American Standard, New International Version -- even the New King James Version. There were numerous others, most recently one called God's Word.
On one of these -- the New King James Version -- I was even a member of the North America Overview Committee, reviewing the proposed translation of Genesis in particular, even though I cannot read Hebrew. The men who worked on the NKJV were, so far as I know, all godly men committed to Biblical inerrancy, and many of them, at least, to literal creationism, and I do believe it is the best of the modern translations. Even so, after trying to use it and endorse it, I finally went back to the "old" King James, convinced that it is still the best, in terms of poetic majesty, spiritual power, and over-all clarity and reliability.
Therefore, even if one really feels keenly that he ought to switch to a modern translation, how does he decide which? With apologies to Judges 9:25, it seems today that "every man does that which is right in his own eyes," as far as selecting a Bible is concerned. But how can he decide which, if any, best preserved the inspired, authoritative Word of God? After all, God did say that His Word had been "for ever settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89) and had given sober warning to any who would presume to supplement, delete, or distort any of the words of Scripture (Revelation 22:18,19; II Peter 3:16).
Is God the Author of Confusion?
For a long time, the "official" English version used in each Bible-believing church was the King James, with the others used occasionally for reference study by teachers and pastors. Now, however, confusion reigns. Congregational unison reading is no longer possible, and church members often don't even bring their Bibles to church. The pastor preaches from one version and the people in the congregation each have their own, so they can't follow the pastor anyway, and thus they just listen, and soon forget.
Scripture memorization, which has been an incalculable blessing in my own Christian life, is almost a lost art these days. I remember back in 1943 when Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, first got me and others in our Gideon Camp back in Houston, to start memorizing Scripture, he used to stress that the verses should be quoted "word perfect," with their respective "addresses" cited fore and aft. But such meticulous attention to the very words of a Scripture verse becomes anomalous when even the supposed authorities all disagree on what it says, so why bother? In addition, the musical phrasing in the King James makes it easier to memorize than the more ponderous English of the modern versions.
And what becomes of our long-cherished belief in verbal inspiration? If it's only the "thought" that counts, then the words are flexible. Yes, but then the thoughts themselves easily become flexible also, and we can adjust the words to make them convey whatever thought we prefer. We forget that precise thoughts require precise words.
Another fast-vanishing form of Bible study is that of comparative word studies, comparing the various usages and contexts of a given key word or phrase as it occurs throughout the Bible. This has been a highly fruitful means of obtaining many precious insights into the mind of the divine writer who inspired all of them. A given word may have been rendered in various ways by the King James translators, of course, but they have assured us (in their preface) that this was always done very carefully and in accord with context and the known range of meanings carried by the word itself. A Bible student may easily discern and compare all of these -- usually with real blessing to his mind and heart -- even without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, simply by using one of the complete concordances based on the King James translation (Strong's or Young's). But this type of study is far more difficult, if not practically impossible, with most modern versions in which the translators have often either resorted to paraphrasing the supposed thought of the writer, or even to using their own interpretation of what they think he would have said if he were aware of our modern scientific knowledge of things.
One can only wonder -- and speculate -- about why our ecclesiastical leaders have felt it necessary to keep producing so many new English translations all the time. The Bible, of course, is the best selling book of all time, but surely publishing profits and translators' royalties don't have anything to do with it. Anyway, in spite of the rising popularity of many modern versions, there are still more King James Bibles and Testaments being printed and distributed today than any other.
Which Version Best Renders the Original Manuscripts?
Even many King James Bibles now have added footnotes referring to what are said to be "better manuscripts" which indicate that certain changes should be made in the King James text. The most famous such changes are the omission of the last twelve verses of Mark and the first eleven verses of John, chapter 8, but there are many other important omissions, as well as some additions and many word changes that have been incorporated in these new versions, with the implication that all these changes have been derived from these "better" ancient manuscripts.
But what are these better manuscripts, and are they really better? The whole subject of New Testament criticism is too complex to discuss here (or for me to try to discuss anywhere!), but it is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text, or some modification thereof (such as the Nestle-Aland text), whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine Greek text). As far as the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is concerned, the King James is based on the Masoretic text, while the modern versions rely somewhat on the Masoretic but also on the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various others, especially the Kittel Hebrew reference text, Biblia Hebreice, in its "Stuttgart" edition.
The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament by the Masoretes, who were groups of Hebrew scholars dedicated to guarding and standardizing the traditional Hebrew text as "handed down" (the basic meaning of "Masoretic") from the earlier Hebrew scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error. There seems no good reason why the Masoretic text as preserved and codified in its present form by about 600 A.D., which has served as the basis for the King James translation, should not continue to be accepted as the most accurately preserved Old Testament portion of the Bible.
Most scholars would agree that neither the Greek Septuagint nor the Latin Vulgate are comparable to the Masoretic Text in accuracy or reliability. As far as the Hebrew text changes proposed by Rudolf Kittel are concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism. The Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by a heretical Jewish sect called the Essenes, but for the most part they do agree with the standard Masoretic Text.
The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials and nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were Gemman theological liberals.
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as did those 19th century revisers. Schaff was twice tried for heresy by his denomination and taught at the very liberal Union Seminary. As chairman of the revision committee, Schaff not only was greatly influenced by Westcott and Hort, but also by the Unitarians Ezra Abbot and Joseph Thayer, of Harvard, as well as other liberals whom he placed on the committee.
Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland) Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century. Since these are both supposedly older than the more than 5000 manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus, they were accepted as "better." This was in spite of the fact that they frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Textus Receptus, and also contained many serious and obvious omissions. The Vatican manuscript, for example, leaves out most of Genesis as well as all of Revelation, in addition to the pastoral epistles of Paul, 33 psalms, and over a third of Hebrews.
The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside and not used because of their numerous gross errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly and thus wore out sooner.
The Sinaitic manuscript was reportedly rescued from a wastebasket in a monastery on Mount Sinai by another German evolutionist theologian, Friedrich Tischendorf. The Orthodox monks evidently had long since decided that the numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript had rendered it useless and had stored it away in some closet where it had remained unused for centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and vigorously as representing a more accurate text than the thousands of manuscripts supporting the traditional Byzantine text. Furthermore, he assumed that it came from about the fourth century, but he never found any actual proof that it dated earlier than the 12th century.
A similar mystery applies to the famous Vatican manuscript, which had been kept in seclusion in the Vatican Library since 1480 or earlier, though no one seemingly knows for sure when it was originally written or how it was acquired by the Vatican. Again, it was only conjectured to date from around the fourth century. Tischendorf learned of its existence and again was instrumental in promoting its antiquity and superiority to the Textus Receptus.
There are a few other old manuscripts, even including fragmentary Greek papyri, whose textual character seems to conform more to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings than to the Textus Receptus. These all have been traced, by liberal and conservative scholars alike, to a probable source in Alexandria, Egypt, in the second or third century. At that time, Alexandria was a great center of both philosophical and theological scholarship, including a relatively large population of both Jews and Christians.
The most influential man among the Christian community of Alexandria was the learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental in developing the so-called "Alexandrian" text of the New Testament, of which the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative, in contrast to the "Byzantine" text, from which the Textus Receptus has largely come. It is barely possible, some think, that Origen may also have been involved in developing the final form of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
With all his immense learning and zeal, however, it is sad that Origen's views of theology and Biblical interpretation were heretical in respect to numerous key doctrines. Like modern theistic evolutionists, he felt constrained to harmonize Christianity with pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato and the Stoics. This led him into excessive allegorization of Scripture, especially Genesis, and into denigrating the actual historical records of the Bible, even that of the bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the literal creation of the world.
Whether or not Origen and his associates were first responsible for the differences in the Alexandrian text from the Byzantine, the fact remains that significant differences do exist, and that practically all modern English translations have been heavily influenced (via Westcott/Hort, etc.) in favor of the former, whereas the King James translation has its basis primarily in the latter.
In many cases, the differences are minor, but it is true that far too many do involve significant watering down of even such basic doctrines as Biblical inerrancy, the perfect divine/human nature of Christ, and the Trinity. On the other hand, they certainly do not eliminate these doctrines, so it is still happily possible to discern these doctrines and to find the true gospel and way of salvation in almost any of the new texts or translations.
In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Are we to believe that God would entrust the preservation of His eternal Word to men such as these? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?
What About the Archaic Language in the King James?
The beautifully poetic prose of the King James is a great treasure which should not be lost or forgotten. It has been acclaimed widely as the greatest example of English literature ever written. Apart from a few archaic words or words whose meaning has changed, which can easily be clarified in footnotes, it is as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago. That is why the common people today, especially those without higher education, still use and love it. It is usually the "intelligentsia" who tend to favor the modern versions. These modern translations commonly tend to use long words and pedantic rhetoric, but the King James uses mostly one and two-syllable words. Formal studies have always shown its readability index to be 10th grade or lower. There is nothing hard to understand about John 3:16, for example, or Genesis 1:1, or the Ten Commandments, in the King James.
There are some sections of the Bible, of course, that are quite complex in the original language and thus a faithful translation should preserve that same complexity (after all God inspired it that way), but all the basic histories, doctrines, and precepts are easy to follow by anyone who can read at high school level. Many sections can easily be read by children as soon as they learn to read at all. In fact, in earlier times here in America, children were actually taught to read by means of the King James Bible.
It is also noteworthy that the King James was produced during the period when the English language and literature (as well as knowledge of other languages by English-speaking people) had reached their zenith of power and expressiveness. That was the age of Shakespeare, for example. Modern English, on the other hand, has become merely a decadent remnant of its former beauty and clarity.
This phenomenon seems to be a universal characteristic of languages as well as people, cities, and institutions of all kinds. A period of youthful growth and vigor reaches a zenith and is then followed by a gradual decline and eventual death. Albert Baugh, in a widely used textbook on this theme has said:
The evolution of languages, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.... Language may reintroduce previously lost complexity but over-all the superfluous and redundant aspects are systematically streamlined from the complex structure of language. (A History of the English Language New York. Appleton Century-Crofts, 1957. p. 10.)
This trend is exactly opposite to any evolutionary concept of language origins, but is analogous to the law of entropy in the physical realm.
With respect to the English language, the authors of a more recent study, companion to a PBS television series, note the literary accomplishments of the Elizabethan period in England as follows.
The achievements of these astonishing years [i.e., 1558-1625, the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I] are inescapably glorious. Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558 at the age of twenty-five. William Shakespeare, her most famous subject, was born six years later in 1564. Her successor, James I, who gave his name to another famous masterpiece, the Authorized Version of the Bible, died in 1625. During their reigns, about seventy years, the English language achieved a richness and vitality of expression that even contemporaries marveled at. (Robert McCrum, William Cray and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English New York, Viking. 1986. p. 91.)
These writers call the King James Bible "probably the single most influential book ever published in the English language" (ibid., p. 109). They also make an important observation concerning the beautiful simplicity of the King James Language.
The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words-God's teaching in homely English for every-man. From that day to this, the Shakespearean cornucopia and the Biblical iron rations represent, as it were, the North and South poles of the language, reference points for writers and speakers throughout the world, from the Shakespearean splendor of a Joyce or a Dickens to the Biblical rigor of a Bunyan or a Hemingway (ibid., p. 113).
It is no wonder that a Bible translation produced at that special time in history has (except for changes in spelling and letter form) endured for almost 400 years, meeting the needs and guiding the culture of over ten generations of English speaking peoples. In fact, it has been very instrumental in standardizing the language itself, providing a common bond among its millions of readers, and restraining what would otherwise have been a more rapid deterioration of the language.
We have abandoned today many fine points of English grammar commonly used in 1600. For example, we forget that "thee," "thou," and "thine" were used to express the second person singular, with "you," "ye," and "yours" reserved for second person plural. Today we use "you" indiscriminately for both singular and plural, thereby missing some of the precise meaning of many texts of Scripture. The same applies to the "th" and "st" endings on verbs associated with second-person pronouns; they also contribute significantly to the musical quality of the language, especially as used in the King James Bible.
The translators were not only Biblical scholars but accomplished writers, and one of the deliberate goals, in fact, a part of their assignment, was to produce a Bible that would "sing" with beauty and power, and would also retain literal faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew texts, which had themselves been written with majestic musical beauty.
This they did accomplish, most admirably, and modern versions are without exception inferior to the King James Bible in this regard. The King James is also the most reliably accurate of all translations, seeking to translate the words of the original rather than "dynamically equivalent" thoughts. This aspect allows detailed word study and comparisons which are hardly possible in most other versions.
With all these factors in mind, do we not most honor the Lord and His revealed Word by having it read and used in that form of our language which was in use when the English language was at its best, instead of in our modern jargon? So what if it does not sound like a modern newspaper or novel? The fact is, it should not sound-like that, for God is speaking! His Word should be distinctly different from that in some current novel or newspaper.
Conclusion
I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians -- especially creationists! -- need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it in the history of England and America, in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together.
The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns.
Postscript
This brief article is only a very inadequate introduction to a large and important subject. Many excellent books and journal articles have been written on this vital theme and much of the discussion in this booklet is based on material covered in these other more authoritative publications. I have no training or experience personally with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and do not wish to argue the subject with any who disagree with my reasons.
Many other Bible-believing creationist Christians also prefer to use the King James, but we do not regard its use as a test of salvation or spirituality. This essay is intended merely to answer questions as to why I, as well as many others, will continue to use the time-tested King James Bible in our writing and speaking.
*Dr. Morris was Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_kjv/
Further Reading
Bible versions Your Questions answered
http://www.chick.com/search/searchask/questionans.asp?Srch=EKJB
THE DEVIL IS COUNTEFEITING OUR ONLY WEAPON
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2007/04/devil-is-counterfeiting-our-only-weapon.html
THE NEW KING JAMES COUNTERFEIT
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-king-james-version-nkjv-devils.html
Did the Catholics give us the bible
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_from_catholics.htm
The Roman Catholic cult
http://www.biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html
History of Roman Catholicism, heresies and scandals of Rome
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2006/12/history-of-papacy-heresies-of-rome.html
CULT INVASION
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2007/03/cult-invasion-preacher-calls-himself.html
