The Bible Version Issue


When you join a good Fundamentalist church, the first thing you’ll find out is that most have a peculiar fixation upon the King James Bible. This needs to be investigated, because even though what they’re saying sounds odd, conspiratorial and extreme – it’s also true.

If we use the historical viewpoint, the true churches have been using the Greek Textus Receptus family of manuscripts since they were written. The so-called “oldest and best” manuscripts actually were never used until 1881.

There is a considerable amount of work written by James White and Doug Kutilek against the KIng James and in support of the modern versions – but they omit facts, grossly exaggerate, offer untrue facts as evidence, and raise straw man arguments that they expend considerable energy into knocking down.

As you grow in experience in your church, you’ll hear many sermons on this issue, I’m sure. A good way to find out the truth of King James Bible only-ists is to use the Scripture Compare feature in Logos, if you have it. You’ll see how modern versions omit crucial words, and change the meanings.

My old pastor used to say to me, “There may be many differences in the Bible versions, but no essential doctrine is changed.” He was wrong, because he never examined this issue. He did, for the last several years of his ministry, use only the King James to avoid offending me (that’s the kind of pastor he was).

The point is, the modern versions do indeed change essential doctrines. When you compare the NASB to the KJV, ask yourself, “What is the NASB saying? What does this verse REALLY mean, as the modern versions say them?”

The first time you do this, you will abruptly close your modern translation, and never open it again.

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (Philippians 2:6, KJV)

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,” (Philippians 2:6, NASB95)

“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5:6–8, KJV)

“This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (Missing: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one) For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement (Missing: in one).” (1 John 5:6–8, NASB95)

Advertisements

King James – Preserved Word?


I was prowling back on the 22nd, looking to see if there’s any other free Bible software worth looking at, and getting disappointed. I stopped at Costas Sturgios’ website for Theword Bible software, to see if it’s gotten any better. I know some people talk about how they love it – I despise it. When I first started this blog on my old laptop, I was alternating between E-Sword and theword, and kind of leaning toward Theword, but every time I tried to minimize the program, I’d close it, because Costas set the windows up slightly off from where the industry standard are, and the buttons slightly smaller.
It was irritating, but better than the incredible delays from E-Sword. Then someone bought me Bible Explorer, and I stopped using both, and got rid of Theword.
Anyways, while poking around his web site, I did see that there was a new free book offered on the main website, with a title along the lines of “Pure TRanslation?”
Okay, I know where you’re getting at with that. I read the blurb, and knew where the book was going. Apparently the author claims to have been King James Only for “many years”, and “researched the Bible Version issue”, and “discovered the truth behind the false claims”, and a disparaging comment about not being “deceived by cults” any longer.
There’s King James Only, and then there’s KING JAMES ONLY. I don’t know which of them you refer to. Were you part of the Ruckman cult, the Riplinger cult, or were you convinced of the truth of the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic text?
If you’re part of the first and/or second, then I can’t address that. Yeah, you were in a cult. Seriously. And what you were researching mostly was backlash against that cult.
Here’s the facts, that I’ve never seen disputed. People bring up Ruckman (who has passed away) – but to quote David Cloud, “I believe Peter Ruckman has done more damage to the King James Bible issue than good.” He’s destroyed any credibility we could have had. And Sam Gipp is fond of saying, “Ruckmanite is what they call you when they’re losing the argument.”
Gail Riplinger’s bizarre teachings on the King James are some of the shoddy scholarship you see out of some Christians – you know, the “He was published by Zondervan, and you know who else is published by Zondervan, so there’s a connection, and they’re undoubtedly doing goat slayings together at midnight!”
She is utterly opposed to anyone writing any book, dictionary, encyclopedia, concordance or lexicon on the King James Bible – unless its her. If she does it, it’s okay. Her “research” on the Strong’s Concordance was embarrassing. Again, it’s a black eye for King James believers.

Let me answer someone I respect right now, because he’s got a personality quirk that’s just as bad. D. A. Waite is a stalwart defender of the King James Bible. But if you don’t agree with him, you run the serious risk of having pamphlets printed about you where he lambasts you publicly, frying you mercilessly and almost slanderously. Witness the recent revelations that there were some financial irregularities in the Dean Burgon society, and several long term members resigned over it. Waite promptly attacked them publicly. If you did some things wrong financially through ignorance, then you need to appoint a treasurer and solve the issue in good confidence. If you had a moral failing, then repent of it, hand the money to someone else and get on with the work! But don’t publicly attack those who resigned from the DBS over it! (I have never been a member, but I suppose I should join someday).

Okay, we’ve addressed the cultic claims. Now let’s address the research.
The scholarship has been done many times already. Elzevir, Erasmus, Stephanus… they went through and looked at the Bible manuscripts in Greek, and determined the proper readings out of the manuscripts used.
There’s your research.
When the VAST MAJORITY of the manuscripts belong to the Antioch family of manuscripts, and less than fifty belong to Alexandrian, it’s obvious that those 47 manuscripts are flawed, erroneous, or deliberately corrupted – not the vast majority. I did a series earlier this year on textual criticism, and some of you doubtless were shocked at the deliberate agendas behind the spurious and arbitrary hypotheses behind the textual criticism. I stated the origins, I stated the rules, and I examined those rules in light of accepted Biblical interpretation and logic, and those rules were found to violate accepted Hermeneutics.
By the way, if you’re looking for information for a dissertation or thesis on the Bible Version issue, I’ve got enough on this web site to pretty much write one.
Hmmm….
Anyway, The modern translations are based upon Wescott Hort, and that’s most definitely a red flag. They decided that out of the two manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Vaticanus was the most accurate.
Why?
A feeling. Yup, that’s what they said! A Feeling! Wow… amazing scholarship there! Was this the “scholarship” that the author of that book uncovered that convinced him?
Or was it the Textual criticism rule of “The most clear reading must give way to the most obscure”, which is the direct opposite of the Hermeneutic principle of “We accept the clear readings when they are majority, and interpret the obscure in light of the clear”?
Yessir, I’m convinced too! A “Feeling”! Wow! How come I never saw scholarship like this from Stephanus?
Ready for a truth? And I DARE, double dog dare any textual critic to deny this – but if the Textus Receptus source documents were even one tenth as corrupt and as heavily edited as Vaticanus, they’d be screaming that fact loudly. With many passages edited as many as six times by six different scribes, Vaticanus is as reliable as a witness who keeps changing their story. We acccept manuscripts that are a “true copy”. Heavily edited manuscripts are rejected, which is why Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers never bothered with Vaticanus.
Here’s an assertion, that accords with the Bible, which is inspired and inerrant… If the Alexandrian family of 47 manuscripts were indeed the ones preferred by God, they would have remained in constant use by the churches. The Christians copied their Bibles from other manuscripts – that’s why the Antioch family has so many thousands. I had one well meaning atheist or textual critic, I don’t know which, try to come on here and say authoritatively, “We don’t have 5,400 manuscripts… we have only a few hundred.” That’s incorrect. You have to compile the list of lectionaries, uncials, miniscules, papyri and codexes. If he was talking about just codexes, yes, he was right. If on the other hand he was talking about complete manuscripts in the various forms, then he’s completely wrong.
Since the Alexandrian family has ony 47 copies or so, then the Alexandrian manuscripts WERE NOT THE ONES PRESERVED BY GOD. Indeed, since they deliberately change words and remove entire verses that support the cardinal doctrines of Christianity (deity of Christ, vicarious atonement, the Trinity), the evidence supports the facts that these are heretical manuscripts, written by heretics such as Ebionites, the Arians, and the Gnostics.
So… why are the “scholars” pushing for manuscripts that deny the deity of Christ? That deny the Trinity? Was THIS the research that convinced that author???
Here’s the bottom line. Like me, he’s probably got some software with many, many cool translations. And the pressure to conform, to stop swimming upstream all the time is enormous. He caved. That’s it. He caved in to the pressure, to the temptation.
my seminary strongly advocates makiing sure before you accept the call to the ministry to make SURE your doctrinal stances. Know that you know that you know.
And now it’s out there that he caved. And if he ever repents, and REALLY examines the issues instead of trying to justify his compromising…
He’s going to lose all credibility forever.

Apostasy in the Christian Church


Apostasy in the Christian Church

Well thought out article. I skimmed it because I’m ridiculously busy this week.

i’ll try to comment on this next week if I can find time.

Not in the Original Manuscripts


Reading “Kept Pure in all ages” by Jeffrey Khoo was interesting.

I’ve got to say, there’s huge amounts of lying on the Bible issue, and it’s not on the King James side.

Khoo did the research on the issue, and in far more detail than I’ve done, including consulting copies of the ancient manuscripts.

We here that there are 5280 manuscripts. The anti-King James groups say there isn’t that many. Well… you’re lying or misled. There’s 5280 Greek Manuscripts. Scrolls, lectionaries, uncials, miniscules.

The anti-king james groups claim that the modern versions are the best renderings of the Old Testament… but a Rabbi was interviewed on the subject, and he said that the King James version was the most faithful rendering of the Hebrew. Funny, that issue is never brought up by James White or Doug Kutilek or Bruce Metzger.

We are told the last verses of Mark are not in the majority of manuscripts. Actually, it is. It’s just not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

The anti-King James crowd tells us that Erasmus claimed he would put 1 John 5:7 in the manuscripts if it could be found in just one Greek manuscript – and that finally one was found or created. Khoo looked for that quote, and can find it only in the claims of the anti-King James groups. In other words, they’re lying.

Another reason they’re lying is because – 1 Jhn 5:7 can be found in 8 Greek manuscripts, and in many of the Latin. So… if Erasmus was looking for it, he wouldn’t have had to look long to find it.

The Pericope (the woman taken in adultery, John 7:52-8:11) can be found in almost every one of the Codexes, Miniscules, scrolls, papyri and lectionaries… and is missing in TWO of the Majescules. Guess which ones? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Anti-King James crowd tells us that the Wescott-Hort Greek text was not used for the NIV – and yet, the Nestle-Aland was. The N/A (good name for it) is actually a revision of the Wescott-Hort, differing in only a few words. As is the UBS synthetic Greek text.

This brings up a good question… why are we using synthetic texts lately to mis-translate the Bible??? Why do we not simply use the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that Christians have used for thousands of years? Literally, there has been one Greek text that we have used since 38 AD, when Matthew wrote the first Gospel. The discovery of “so many” new Greek texts (just under 50) should not put aside the majority of texts that the churches have been using (5280). The facts are, those texts were put aside and not studied for a reason. Dean John Burgon claimed that they were written by the followers of the heretic Marcion. Certainly Eusebius and Origen had their hands in it – and these men did not literally believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture.

The case is made that these men deliberately chose words they did not want in the Bible, because it did not match their beliefs.

I think Khoo is correct in that. I couldn’t find anything about it I had problems with.

Here’s the facts… and they should get the anti-King James crowd of Kutilek, White, and the rest all riled up (because its true and they can’t refute it)

  • Sinaiticus is either a forgery dating from early in the 19th century by Constantinus Simonides, or it’s a unused butchered manuscript written by a Arianist heretic – your choice
  • Vaticanus is completely unreliable, and the 42 hours of study under difficult conditions that Tischendorf did on the original was completely insufficient. That kind of study required six months, not six days.
  • Both manuscripts disagree with each other in more places than they agree
  • Both manuscripts show large amounts of editing and redacting, some by as many as ten men. If Sinaiticus was a forgery, then Simonides either was trying to correct mistkaes, changing his mind, or else the monks at the monastary he left it at were trying to fix it, and gave up, deciding to burn it instead.
  • If ANY manuscript of the TR showed as much editing and redacting as does Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then the Textual Critic crowd would be dancing and singing in the streets! Realizing this, they are silent on the vast inaccuracies, tamperings, redactings, crossed out words and lines, pumiced sections, etc.
  • There is absolutely zero proof for Textual criticism. It is based wholly upon theory, conjecture, and “I just think so”. If anyone in the King James Only crowd were to offer theories as facts with the same proof or methodology, James White would be ripping us apart in his radio show.
  • What Textual Criticism and the King James issue is boils down to is – the King James crowd believes that the Bible is inerrant, and the Textual criticism crowd does not. And it may well boil down to a litmus text of, “saved (King James Only) vs. Not Saved (textual Criticism crowd)”. How can I say that? Simple. If you do not believe the Bible is without error, I kind of worry about your eternal salvation more than a little bit. If you do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, I worry about your salvation more than a little bit. If you think men are smarter than God, I worry about you a LOT.

Khoo brings up the question of, “Who was smarter? The monks who wanted to burn Sinaiticus, or Count Tischendorf, who frantically rescued it three days before his grant money ran out in his search for a theoretical original Bible manuscript?”

Khoo insinuates that the monks were smarter. I agree.

Weakening The Christian Mind


The Bible says…

1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Romans 2:1 (KJV)

Here’s where it gets weakened.

Romans 2:1(RSV)

1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Romans 2:1(NASB)

1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:1(NKJV)

1Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:1(TLB)

1“Well,” you may be saying, “what terrible people you have been talking about!” But wait a minute! You are just as bad. When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are talking about yourselves, for you do these very same things.

Romans 2:1(TMSG)

1Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. It takes one to know one. Judgmental criticism of others is a well-known way of escaping detection in your own crimes and misdemeanors.

See how at first the separation is in “wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself” to finally, absolving you of the guilt? “THerefore thou art inexcusable” becomes “therefore you have no excuse” (reducing it) to “What terrible people have you been talknig about (in other words, I’m not without excuse, I’m no longer making excuses, to terrible people…)

to “those people are on a dark downward spiral.”

A Christian without a Bible is weaponless,and ineffectual.

Get back to the King James Bible.

The NKJV Part 1


Philippians 2:5-11(NKJV)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11(KJV)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is interesting to me. The New King James literally denies the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Look at verse 8.

From what training I have in lifesaving (I went through the Red Cross Emergency CPR-AED-First Aid training over two days, which requires refresher courses it seems every other month or so!), I can tell you that anyone’s respiration or heartbeat brought at the point of death, means they are still alive.

No kidding. If you’re doing CPR and STOP when someone is at the point of death, depending on the state you’re in and the circumstances you could be held liable for abandoning CPR while still alive.

Arrythmic heart beat and greatly reduced respiration is still alive. Apparently, the New King James holds to the “Swoon” theory, which was disproved by incredulous doctors over a century and a half ago.

The NKJV says Christ was obedient to the point of death. That’s alarming, as it’s either saying he did not die, or that Christ ceased to be obedient at that point.

The NKJV really frightens me. So many people read it, without stopping to analyze what it is saying.

The BIBLE says Jesus Christ died on the cross. The Bible says Jesus Christ is always obedient to the Father, whom He is equal to.

The NKJV is saying either that Christ did not die… or that He ceased to be obedient when he was almost dead.

The translators and everyone who worked on that translation will have to answer to God for it.

I would not want to be them.