By
Brian K. Kautz
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the
land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of
the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the
east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find
[it]. Amos 8:11-12
Prologue
The discussion over
bible versions is an emotionally charged issue. It can raise walls faster than
they fell at Jericho. This paper is not an attempt to raise any walls, but to
explain why I feel as I do on this issue. There is no malicious intent. I do
not question the sincerity of those who disagree, although I believe that they
are incorrect. I am also not calling into question anyone's salvation or
spirituality, those are personal matters between the reader and the one, true
God. It should be noted that throughout most of this paper the Hebrew
manuscripts are not mentioned as much as the Greek. This is because the major
point of difference is in the Greek Texts.
Introduction
A phenomenon began in the 1960's. By the 1970's the centuries
old standard of truth was "taking it on the chin" by newcomers. The great bible
version wars had begun. The rash of new, "modern" English versions began around
1880 with Westcott and Hort's new Greek text and the Revised Version Committee of
which they were prominent members. Acceptance was low and only occasional
skirmishes prevailed in the United States until this time. Suddenly
advertisements began touting the "more accurate" versions for the "serious
student." The more liberal churches seemed to join the new crowd the fastest.
Eventually the fundamental groups also accepted newer texts. Conservative
Baptists, particularly independent Baptists, were some of the last to move. Few
churches, independent or denominational, remain that adhere exclusively to the
old standard. Proponents of the KJV only position are viewed as pariahs. What should we make of all of this? Is it significant? I endeavor to explore
this and more. The intent of this paper is not to present the many hundreds of
altered verses, or list their kind and category. This work has already been done
by many others, who are much more able than I. What I do intend to present are
my thoughts regarding the data already presented so well by others.
Doctrine or Conviction
This is an important
issue. Is the version of the Bible you read a doctrinal issue or one of
conviction? If it is doctrinal, then there is a right and a wrong side and the
matter applies to the whole body. If it is a conviction, it is the way the Holy
Spirit has personally impressed an individual, but it may not apply to the body
as a whole. The Holy Spirit may indeed impress certain individuals to behave in
a certain manner, and for them it would be sin not to ("...for whatsoever [is]
not of faith is sin." Romans 14:23c). That is a conviction.
The Bible
Version debate centers around the Word of God. What is and what is not the Word
of God? Since "...faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"
(Romans 10:17), knowing what is, and is not, His Word is extremely important. It
is a matter of spiritual life and death. Psalm 12 tells us that the "words
of the Lord are pure words" and that God will "preserve them from this
generation for ever". I believe this is literal truth. I believe that God
inspired the scripture writers and that the exact words of the Lord were
preserved for all generations from the recording of the same, until this day.
Nothing has been hidden, nothing will be uncovered because God divinely, as he
promised, preserved his Word for all generations because he is willing that none
perish (2 Peter 3:9). God is also no respecter of persons (Col 3:25). To allow
some generations only corrupted or incomplete scriptures would be a form of
cruelty, affecting their ability to have faith through hearing the Word of God.
I believe the following discourse will show that the bible version debate is
a doctrinal issue, because the propagators of the new versions deny God's
supernatural preservation of the scriptures. In his book attacking
fundamentalism, James Barr says: "Once the unique primacy of the Authorized
Version has gone, the implication is that there can be many translations. Less
and less can any English form of words be taken as a direct transcript of the
mind of God. More and more must the question be put, what can we know of the
mind of the author that can decide the questions of interpretation? For, once
the idea has been lost that the Authorized Version is the direct transcript of
the mind of God, it will be found that even the Greek or Hebrew text cannot be
taken as the direct transcript of the mind of God either. Thus the change of
attitude to the English translations in the last decade or so may typify and be
proleptic of a yet greater shift of emphasis in conservative faith."
(Fundamentalism, 1978, James Barr, Page 212 - emphasis mine)
A
Little Background
Most people are told that modern versions are
merely the Holy Bible in updated English. People assume that they are basically
the KJV with out the thee's, thou's, ye's and yea's. But there is more, and most
people don't know it.
All new bible versions are based on the foundational
work (although not all are based on their actual Greek Text) of two men, Wescott
and Hort. These men were clergy in the Church of England and sought to
reconstruct a Greek text to the Bible. They believed that the KJV was flawed and
they directly sought to change it. They produced a New Greek Text, which became
the foundational work for all new bible versions, including the misnamed New
King James bible.
What they constructed was really nothing new. Since the
time of Paul, people were corrupting scriptures (II Cor 2:17). The chief enemies
of the scriptures were the gnostics in Alexandria, Egypt. In a very rough and
much paraphrased form, it can be said that soon there were two basic sets of
manuscripts. Out of Antioch came what was to become the Textus Receptus. (The
term Textus Receptus, or Received Text, comes from the 1633 edition of the Greek
Text which says in Latin "The text which is now received by all" without either
alteration or corruption. The term is now generally applied to the Greek texts
underlying the KJV and the earliest printed editions of the Greek texts -
[History of the Bible in English, 1978, F.F. Bruce, Pages 127-128]) Out of
Alexandria, and on to Rome, came the Roman Catholic manuscripts.
From day
one the Catholic hierarchy sought to destroy the followers of any text but their
own. Groups throughout history, and well before the Protestant Reformation,
defied the Papal system and studied what they believed were the preserved words
of God. For this they were persecuted, tortured and killed in manners which will
not be discussed in this forum.
When the Reformation came, each and every
group that left the Catholic Church (of which I am aware) turned immediately to
the Textus Receptus and threw away their Catholic bibles. Did all of the
reformers act out of spite? Or was there a spiritual reason for this move? I
believe it was spiritual.
Catholicism was and is the avowed enemy of any
Bible based on the Textus Receptus. It was placed on their forbidden book list
and remains there, as far as I know. Ironically, the Textus Receptus, was
compiled from the Antiochian manuscripts by a Catholic named Erasmus. It was
first published as such in 1516. This compilation was unique only in that it
pulled together in one place all of the manuscripts already being used by bible
believing Christians. Erasmus believed that the Bible was God's Word.
Like
the Roman Catholic Church, Westcott and Hort did not like the Textus Receptus.
When they went to reconstruct a new Greek text, the two biggest documents that
affected their changes to the TR were the Vaticanus and Sinaticus - two Roman
Catholic documents. These manuscripts contain thousands of variant readings from
the TR. Unfortunately, for the revisers, they hardly agree with each other.
Nonetheless, our "biblical scholars" picked and chose the readings they would
use in their new text. Writing about the Revised Version Committee and Westcott
and Hort's New Greek Text, F.F. Bruce says:
"...Westcott and Hort ...
ardently espoused the claims of the two great uncial manuscripts, the Vatican
and Sinatic codices, to reproduce the original text in as pure a state as could
be attained."
"... the text of the two great codices did not seem to them
(Westcott and Hort) to stray from what they believed to be the norm ..."
"
They (Westcott and Hort) placed their critical work (New Greek Text) at the
disposal of their colleagues on the revision company, and to a very large degree
their findings on the text were approved by the majority ..." (All three
quotes from History of the Bible in English, pp.139). Many of the thousands
of additions, deletions and changes exist in only one or a handful of extant manuscripts. These men decided which were most reliable for their new
manuscript. Out of this, the New Greek Text was born. Its research has been used
to change your bible.
Spiritual or Spiritualist
But what of these bold men who would uncover the truth of God's
Holy Word. They were clergy of the Church of England. Well learned men of the
best schooling and upon this they rested their ability to reconstruct God's Word
for us, since it was not accurately in English print. Westcott and Hort were
not holy men. They were spiritualists. While they were working on their text of
a lifetime, a text that would change English and American Protestantism, they
were busy conjuring spirits. Westcott and Hort were college buddies who
founded the Ghostly Guild. This group studied paranormal phenomena. A favorite
pastime was to talk to dead spirits. They never left this "hobby." Westcott
and Hort both retained ties throughout their lives with spiritualist groups.
Some of the groups they founded grew to become the foundation for our modern
"New Age" movement. Hence the calling of the new bible versions, by some, as New
Age Versions. Westcott and Hort, two men you would never, ever let into your
pulpit now lurk in the recesses of your bible.
Creationism vs.
Intellectualism
Much has been written and said of the
Christians who accept evolutionary theory, in spite of God's obvious Word on
creation. It is said that they have bowed down to the intellectuals. Scientists
intimidate them with "finds" and the Christians who are intimidated cower and
twist the scriptures to fit new teachings. Until Darwin's theory was
published, no one thought the seven days of creation were ages, eons, or allegorical. All Jews and Christians accepted the words as they were: six
days of literal creation and one day of rest. God used this for an example in
Exodus when instituting the Sabbath (Exodus 20:11). The Holy Spirit apparently
never whispered to anyone in the thousands of previous years that true meaning
was ages, eons, or etc.
Clearly God meant what He said. Clearly those who
say otherwise are doctrinally in error. They weaken the faith by casting doubt
upon God's Word and caving in to the intellectuals of the world. The same
case can be made against modern versionists. They have been duped into believing
that these new versions are updates of language only, but they are not. They are
alterations to God's Word. Modern versionists have placed their faith in
linguists with PhD's who have dubious spiritual backgrounds. These
"experts", starting with Westcott and Hort, take the work of the Holy Spirit into
their own hands. They believe that the bible has not been accurately preserved.
Hence they search out the latest scrap of paper, looking for older and older
manuscripts with which they may alter their new Greek texts.
The state of
modern Greek texts is in flux. Ever since Westcott and Hort's groundbreaking work
the text has been altered. New "oldest" manuscripts are found (much like the
"new" discoveries scientists make to confirm evolution) year after year and
"experts" sift and discuss their relevance. They determine if the new
information changes the text. God no longer preserves His Word. A band of
men must do the work for our weak God. The popular NIV bible is already
hopelessly outdated, based on its own underlying new Greek text (Nestle/Aland). In fact many variant readings in the text underlying the NIV
have reverted back to the KJV rendering since its publication. F.F. Bruce points
out that "at the present time (1978)" scholars agree with the underlying Greek
text to the NIV, but, as this wishy-washy quote implies, it will (and did)
change. (History of the Bible in English, p 266)
Standard or
Moving Target
The Holy Bible is no longer a standard, it is a
moving target. New modern versions are being created all of the time. Each are
sold as the "most accurate" based on the newest Greek text available from the
scholars of the day. Unfortunately, the Greek texts keep changing.
Once upon
a time, lost and saved knew where to turn for the true Word of God. I read in a
book about the great evangelists in the 1800's and how everyone revered the
Word. Even the tough characters that wanted nothing to do with God, at least
knew where to find him if they wanted. Today, even our ministers don't know.
Polls show that shockingly many protestant preachers no longer believe in the
infallibility of God's Word. How can they, when modern seminaries teach them
that the new versions are "more accurate", which is a statement that presumes
that the KJV is "less accurate". If it is not 100% accurate, then God never
bothered to preserve His complete Word anywhere in English, in fact He did not
even bother to preserve it in the original tongues.
Bruce M. Metzger sums it
all up for the new versionists in the title of his 1964 work, "The Text of the
New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration". In the preface to
his book he defends the practice of textual criticism (whereby scholars look at
manuscripts and decide what stays, goes or is added to the ever-changing new
Greek Texts) by stating: "The necessity of applying textual criticism to the
books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the
original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one
another." Professor Metzger is correct in his two statements - no original
documents exist and some manuscripts do differ. The reviser's response to this
truth is different from mine though. The revisers see this "evidence" and claim
that they must reconstruct the original by scholarly means. I propose that God,
through the Holy Spirit, miraculously preserved His Word. Professor Metzger also
fails to state that the differing manuscripts are far in the minority. They
obviously result from corruption in Paul's time and later as mentioned earlier.
English, English
Why would God preserve His
Word in English in 1611? Isn't it the English of Shakespeare and Queen
Elizabeth? No. The Bible dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and used by the playwright
was the Geneva Bible. Both famous individuals where dead in 1611. God choose
the time when the English language had matured. By this time English was a
mature and relatively stable language. The written word of 1611 could be
understood by English speaking peoples from then until the end of time.
The
language of 1611 was precise. It holds its precision even unto this very day.
The same things that many people say are reasons for having modern bibles, are
the very reasons they should retain the KJV. The cliche of all objections is
the thee's and ye's. With a little effort and study, a bible student will find
the value in these over the general word you. If I said "I say unto you, you
must be born again", to whom am I referring? Perhaps to a crowd of people,
perhaps to one. The KJV English would read, "I say unto thee, ye must be born
again." The word thee is singular. We know that the sentence is directed to the
person to whom he is speaking. But the latter part of the sentence starts with
ye, which is plural. Now we know that not just one person must be born again. It
is directed to all of us, plural. Modern English is not so precise.
Doctors
and Lawyers all have their own special language subsets to ensure precision and
accuracy. The Holy Spirit has done the same in the English language. In
actuality very few archaic words exist in the KJV.
And the few that do can
be easily found in a dictionary. Isn't it worth a minute in a dictionary now and
then to hear what the Holy Spirit has to say?
Reverend D. A. Waite, ThD, PhD
and Director of the Bible for Today Incorporated, went to the trouble of
examining the 1611 KJV version with our current edition of the KJV. His
fascinating facts are as follows: In comparing the versions phonetically
(looking for sound differences, not spelling differences), from Genesis to
Revelation, he found a total of 421 phonetic changes out of 791,328 words. Only
136 of those 421 were substantial changes involving different words. The
remaining 285 were minor changes of word formation. That is a total of 136
substantial word changes out of 791,328 words in almost 400 years. Now that is a
standard! Up until the mid-twentieth century, the KJV was almost universal
in American Protestantism. At the same time the church and society were much
more godly than today. Massive groups of people were not calling out for new
English versions. The new versions were foisted upon us by intellectuals. They
created the market for their wares, the market did not create the wares.
Somehow, the masses were able to understand the KJV - suddenly they are not.
Translation vs. Interpretation
We now know that
the new versions are not just English updates. That is a matter of fact. New
versions are based on new (and ever changing) Greek texts. The KJV is based on
the time honored Textus Receptus and its underlying manuscripts. But what about
translation techniques? The word translation means "to bring over". In other
words, when one translates he is bringing the words of one language into the
words of another. Interpretation, on the other hand, conveys the thought.
Interpretation is higher level of translating. In the case of the bible, a
translator would get a Greek word and bring it over as closely as possible. An
interpreter would try to bring over the thought - not necessarily the words. The KJV was translated by the finest assortment of men ever assembled for
such a task. I encourage all to read about it. The methodology used and the
number of fully competent translators used has never been duplicated. Most
modern version work is done in secret, many times by secret committees. Some
versions have never released the names of their translators (NASB is one). The
work on the KJV was public and the men behind it were known. Why new versions
must work in secret is unknown.
The NIV makes a big deal about its large
team which encompasses many denominations. Other versions have used this
approach as well. But in the end, generally only one or a handful of men
actually do the work. The rest are editors, not translators. Compare this
approach to the meticulous methods employed by the KJV. All new versions are
really interpretations of the bible and not translations. They are not as
concerned with actual words as they are with the thoughts. If you read the
preface to the NIV you will see that stated boldly. It says they were after the
thoughts. Bible interpretation is the work of saints, and it can be accepted or
rejected. But God's Words are pure and holy. They may not be rejected. I may
agree or disagree with an interpretation of a given scripture, but I dare not
deny God's Words. The new versions admit to having built in interpretations, if
this is so then it contains man's words with God's.
A Mingled
Seed
God commanded His people not to sow a mingled seed (Leviticus
19:19). Since scholars are telling us that we can not trust the purity of God's
Word, then God's Word must include some of man's word in it. And with
interpretation substituting for translation, even more of man's word is in God's
Word. How can we keep from sowing a mingled seed? Can God confirm a mingled
seed?
Our Precious Lord Jesus Christ
Nothing is
more precious than the deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If He was not
God, then we are yet in our sins and we will all go to Hell. For some reason,
all of these new and "more accurate" versions attack the deity of the Lord Jesus
Christ. The words Lord and Christ are removed over and over. John Anwyll of
Lemoyne, PA counted over 100 instances where the lordship or the deity of Jesus
Christ is reduced or removed. Why does the move toward "accuracy" always
diminish our Lord?
The deceptively named New King James Version Greek text)
"translates" the exact same Greek word as son and servant (and it can mean
either). When dealing with Jesus it translates the word as servant of God (with
a footnote saying that it may be son), but when dealing with a man, he has a
son, not a servant (and no footnote saying it may be servant). This is a blatant
attack upon our Lord. Either translate the word consistently or footnote
consistently. We must contend earnestly for the faith, but the enemy must
destroy Jesus. The one world church which will be built and will usher in the
antichrist, will only be able to be formed on a Christ-less bible, a bible that
ravages the deity of Jesus.
In keeping with the stated purpose of this
paper, I will not list examples of the many cases where our Lord is attacked. I
refer all readers to other fine works on the subject which would present the
verses much better than I.
Twisted Meanings
If
all versions are God's Word, then we would expect to find them in agreement.
They should just use more modern "hip" language while conveying the same
message. Let's look at a few scriptures side by side. I will compare the KJV
to the NIV since it seems to be the most popular and most promoted new version.
2nd Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any
private interpretation" (KJV).
2nd Peter 1:20 "Above all you must understand
that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation"
(NIV).
Here we change what some interperate as a blanket prohibition against
private interpretation of the Scriptures and turn it into a statement about
the prophet's mind set and motivation exclusively. There is no prohibition on
private interpretations. These verses say two different things. Does God or does
He not prohibit private interpretations of scripture? It depends what version
you read.
Galatians 5:12 "I would they were even cut off which trouble you"
(KJV)
Galatians 5:12 "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole
way and emasculate themselves!" (NIV)
Is this the same? In the KJV, Paul says
that the legalistic trouble makers should be cut off. This is an easy phrase for
any non-scholar to understand, it is used often, and means that they should be
disassociated. The NIV rendering has Paul cursing the legalists and wishing they
would cut off their genitals. Is this a thought from Christ through Paul? Is
this a Christ-like example? These verses say two different things. Would Paul
wish for the legalists to mutilate themselves, or that they were separated from
the believers until they changed their minds? It depends what version you read.
Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through His blood, [even] the
forgiveness of sins" (KJV)
Colossians 1:14 "in whom we have redemption, the
forgiveness of sins" (NIV)
Unfortunately modern English readers don't
understand that nasty word blood, so we will just strike it out of the text. It
is not important anyway, is it? In the defense of the NIV they do retain most
references to the word blood, but why not here in such an important context? I
examined all New Testament blood references in the KJV to the Today's English
Version (TEV) and found all relating to Christ's redemptive blood were missing.
In other contexts the word was ok, but not when dealing with His sacrifice. I
may be out of touch with modern reality, but doesn't everyone know what the word
blood means?
Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou
comest into thy kingdom. (KJV)
Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me
when you come into your kingdom." (NIV)
In both versions this is followed by
Christ assuring the thief that he would be in Paradise that day with Him. But
wait! Where is the thief's profession of faith in the NIV? It does not exist. In
the NIV this particular thief gets a free ride. Why should he go to be with the
Lord and not the other thief? What is going on? If you look at the KJV the issue
is clear, the thief called upon the name of the Lord and was saved. He called
Jesus his Lord. He recognized Him as Lord and Savior.
I have mentioned this
verse to Mormons and Catholics in defense of our position that one need not be
baptized in water to go to heaven. The Mormon said the thief was baptized in his
death and the Catholic said this guy did not go to heaven - he went to paradise
and stayed there. Without the word Lord, we are defenseless and can not say why
this thief should go to heaven. Without the word Lord, this verse could help
prove universal salvation.
1st John 5:7-8 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. (KJV)
1st John 5:7-8 For there are
three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in
agreement. (NIV)
In the KJV, we find one of the clearest evidences of
the Trinity in the scriptures. It is torn from the pages of the NIV and
suggested in the footnotes that it was added to the scriptures in the 1500s.
(F.F. Bruce says the verse was added by the Spaniard Priscillian before his
execution for heresy [by the Catholic Church] in 385 A.D. - History of the Bible
in English, p 141) These verses are drastically different. Clearly one is wrong
and the other is correct. If the NIV is correct, then the KJV is in error and
should be discarded as corrupted. If the KJV is correct, then the NIV is guilty
of removing parts of God's Word - a serious offense.
Which is
the True Word of God?
I will only expound on one more of many
possible examples. This one is near and dear to me because it cemented my
opinion on this entire subject. When I found this difference during my personal
study time, I was angered at what they had done to the scriptures. There is a
very good and beautiful portion of scripture which clearly illustrates the steps
to salvation in a nut shell. I have read them to people before to
demonstrate what I believe. I am referring to Phillip and the Eunuch. In Acts
8:26-40 the conversion of the eunuch is related. Phillip is led by the Spirit
and approaches a man reading Isaiah in his chariot. Phillip explains the message
of the Gospel to the man. He immediately asks: Why shouldn't I be baptized?
(NIV). In the NIV the chariot is stopped at once and the eunuch baptized.
Missing in the account is verse 37 (KJV) where it is stated: And Phillip said,
If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This powerful profession of
faith is no longer needed (in the new versions) for one to be baptized. Baptism itself leads to salvation. Why should this verse be stripped from my
bible? Did generations of English reading believers err in their reading and
interpretation of this encounter? F.F. Bruce says, "This (Acts 8:37) represents
an attempt to bring the Ethiopian's baptism into line with what soon became
regular church procedure ..." (History of the Bible in English p 195 - emphasis
mine). Again the two bibles are not the same. They convey different meanings.
Either God is double minded or one of them is wrong. The one that is wrong is
not the whole and complete Word of God.
Footnotes, Footnotes, Footnotes
The new versions
are filled with impressive footnotes referencing manuscript evidence and the
ever popular "ancient witnesses" (who are never named). What are the
footnotes for, what do they accomplish? Plain and simple, they call into
question the Word of God. When a scholar blocks off a portion of Scripture
or footnotes it with "Some late Manuscripts", "some manuscripts", et cetera, he
is placing doubt on that scripture. How am I, a simple believer, to interpret
John 7:53-8:11? In the NIV and most new versions it is bracketed off, caged like
some evil wild animal with a warning posted on the bars:
"The earliest
and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John
7:53-8:11"
What does that mean? Are these scholars telling me it is or is
not scripture? Should I believe it? Should I throw it out? Should my Pastor be
allowed to preach from these sections of scripture? Clearly this type of
handling of the Scriptures promotes disharmony and disbelief.
Mark
16:9-20 has a similar warning plastered before it:
"The most reliable
early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."
I ask the same questions again. And, if these scholars who compiled
these new versions believe that only unreliable early manuscripts and late
manuscripts contain these verses, then why are they
maintained? Are they
afraid of the uproar if they just blatantly remove them? Probably so. The bible
revisers follow a cowardly path of casting doubt in one version, footnoting in
another, and then
removing without notation. In future, more accurate,
modern bibles, you will find many of these sections missing.
[It should
be noted that Irenaeus quoted from the these late, corrupted verses of Mark in
about 150 AD, the "superior", "most reliable" manuscripts date from 350 to 375
AD. What time machine did Irenaeus use to discover the corruptions 150 years
in advance?]
Unity
The rallying cry against the
KJV proponents is that they disrupt unity. This is foolishness. There was unity
in churches before the version controversy. People were not begging for new
versions to understand the bible better. Scholars wanted to build a better
bible based on their scholarly studies, and then foisted them upon the public as
updated English versions.
I remember, fondly, as a child the congregational
readings directly from the Word of God. It was a powerful way to impart the Word
to the whole congregation. It ensured that their thoughts were with the Pastor
as all eyes scanned the word and read them in unison. Try it today and the
result would be a mess. Everyone has their own version, each with its own
interpretation of the scriptures. I sat in a bible study once where the
leader was teaching from the KJV (although a proponent of new versions). We got
to Romans 8:1. He read the verse half way and asked for whom there is no
condemnation. The answer was the second half of the verse, those who walk after
the Spirit. He stressed that the second half of the verse was vital to
understanding the whole verse. In subsequent examination, I found that the NIV
eliminates the second half of the verse. If I was an NIV reader, what should I
have made of that
leader's statement? He must have been wrong, because that
last part of the verse is no longer considered part of God's Word.
The first
deception in this world came about because Satan questioned God's Word. In
Genesis 3:1 he said, "Yea. Hath God said...". Hey Eve, did God really say what
you thought He said? Eve, I've got some archeological research that says ...
Unity is not enhanced by modern versions and KJV proponents are not
the cause of disharmony. The cause is the agent of change and that agent of
change was and is the new versions which are being constantly created and
updated. New versions have created disharmony and confusion in the church.
A Spiritual Book
The Holy Bible is God's Word.
It is a spiritual book. God intends for it to be understood. If we read it
prayerfully, seeking God's wisdom and the Holy Spirit's divine guidance, we will
understand it. God has preserved His Word in understandable, intelligible
English. He has preserved it in the language of the Holy Spirit in English in
the KJV. English speaking peoples around the globe can understand it easily,
especially with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Reading the bible is not like
reading a how-to-manual. A common book is the word of man. It does not come with
its own spiritual interpreter and helper. The true Holy Bible does. People
will cry, but I know of people who have been saved through new versions! They
must be ok. Well people have been saved through many mediums: television,
tracts, pamphlets, etc. Just because something contains the Word of God, it does
not mean that it is entirely the Word of God. I believe new versions do contain
the Word of God, but in a mingled state.
Many are fond to point out that one
can be saved out of the Jehovah's Witnesses by their own bible (NWT). This is true,
but who would recommend that they continue to learn from it? In fact the NIV is more closely related to the
New World Translation (NWT) than the KJV. Just because something has
enough true scripture in it to save, it is not a reason to continue using it for
study. If I was saved from a Chick tract, should I use it as my bible
henceforth? It is interesting to note that three of the largest "Christian"
opposes of the KJV are the Mormons, Roman Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Most bible-based believers will admit that these three groups do not preach
salvation solely through the completed work of Jesus Christ. Since the Bible is
a spiritual book it will, by the Holy Spirit, convict people of doctrinal
errors. The Catholics have long since followed the Alexandrian manuscripts
to avoid this conviction. The Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for their NIV-like
New World Translation, which raises the ire of fundamentalists even though
they use the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, etc.
But the Mormons always stumped me. Everyone (including themselves) says they use the KJV. It did not add up to
me, how could they use this spiritual book and not have more Mormons falling
away from the false faith by the power of the Holy Spirit? As it turns out, the
Mormons use a kind of KJV called the "Inspired Revision of the Authorized
Version (By Joseph Smith, Junior) A New Corrected Edition, 1944". Mormon history
says that when Smith received his magic glasses and the Book of Mormon gold plates, he also received corrections to the KJV (A.K.A. the Authorized
Version). The Book of Mormon says, "For behold, they have taken away, from the
gospel of the Lamb, many parts which are plain and most precious." Joseph Smith
was to correct this. For some reason Smith kept his revision secret. He died in
1844 and his wife finally gave it to the Mormon organization which published it
in 1866. Unfortunately Smith's new "divine" additions had some problems and the
new "Inspired Revision" came out in 1944. When you set out to change God's Word,
it seems you just can't stop.
Another View
After writing the first version of this paper, I decided that
it was time to give the other side a chance. To be honest, all of the books I
had read on the subject of versions were written by KJV proponents. I set
out to find a scholarly book by a new versionist. I found "The Bible In The
Making" by Geddes MacGregor, a Scottish clergyman who worked in some capacity
with the RSV committee. He is a theologian with a Doctor of Divinity and a
writer of at least 10 books on religious/theological subjects. His book
traced the making of the bible throughout the centuries, highlighting important
works and the people behind them. He spent about four chapters on the background
and efforts of the King James Version. He confirmed many of the facts related in
the pro-KJV books about the quality of the KJV translation. Although he lauded
their work, MacGregor admitted that it needed replaced because of the corrupt
manuscripts upon which the KJV was based.
"Their [Westcott and Hort] Greek
text varied from the 'received text' in nearly six thousand instances. This text
was of great importance to the revisers. The King James translators had had nothing better than Beza's Greek text, which had been printed in 1598 and,
being largely based on the text of Erasmus, was fairly good in its way, yet
dependent on late and corrupt medieval manuscripts." (Page 210, emphasis
mine) F.F. Bruce confirms this opinion as well, "The principle defect of the
AV is one for which the translators cannot be held responsible.
In the New
Testament especially, the text which they used was an inferior one." (History of
the Bible in English, p127)
Furthermore, I have read numerous quotes in
pro-KJV books that show the reviser's distain for fundamental Christianity. At
the end of the book, MacGregor goes into a tirade against those who oppose his
views of the bible. The quote is long, but worthwhile. It seems that the
revisers are truly of one heart. "A word should be said here on the subject
of what is still called in America-very misleadingly-"fundamentalism." By this
is usually meant literalism in the reading of the Bible; that is, the practice
of attempting or claiming to attempt to read the Bible as though it contained no
figurative language. Since the language of religion is in the nature of the case
even more figurative than are most other kinds of language, though all language
is figurative to some extent at least, such a claim is absurd. It also betokens
a peculiarly non-religious frame of mind. It is true that some people are more
literalistic in their thinking than are others: imagination and intelligence are
not universal endowments. But to say that a person's thinking is literalistic is
to really imply that he has a
block against religious thought, a barrier,
indeed against even the beginnings of a religious attitude.
The so-called
"fundamentalist" is therefore the most irreligious of men. Not only is the
"fundamentalist's" arrogance stupid: it is fundamentally opposed to the
indispensable condition required for beginning to understand what religion is
all about. All religious men in every age have been in some sense poets,
though they have been also much else besides. To undertake to read the Bible
literalistically is to make certain of wasting one's time. To read the Bible one
need not be
learned, so long as one is humble enough and earnest enough to
make use of the helps the learned have so abundantly provided, often out of a
profound love of the Scriptures they have studied with unremitting care."
(Pages 309-310, emphasis mine)
Let's see, the Bible can not be read
literalistically (note the error he makes saying that fundamentalists say there
is no figurative writing in the Bible) and anyone who does so is stupid and
irreligious. We are also wasting our time! But even more dangerous than this
man's name calling is his real view of the Bible. Notice how it is to be read by
us "commoners". We must be humble enough to realize that we can not understand
the Bible without the helps of more learned men. This is dangerous heresy! We
are no longer priests (I Peter 2:5), can no longer hear from the Holy Spirit
himself. We less-learned must rely on the interpretations of the intellectual.
Where have I heard that before?
In fact, MacGregor writes in his book that
the Roman Catholics were correct in their hearts, if not their actions, in their
efforts to restrict good Catholics' access to the scriptures. They were only trying to ensure that they received proper interpretation. Notably
absent in MacGregor's book was any mention of the work of the Holy Spirit; how
can you write about the Word of God and ignore the Holy Spirit? He never speaks
of Jesus Christ as his Lord, either. Have you noticed that in new bible versions
the word lord, when used for Jesus, is being replaced more and more by Master?
The reader may note that Judas is never recorded as calling Jesus his Lord, but
he did refer to him as Master (I Corinthians 12:3 - "... no man can say that
Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."). "The Bible in the Making" was
written during the 1950's. During my research for version 3.0 of this paper, I
stumbled across a much newer work (1979) by Geddes MacGreggor. Curiously it was
titled "Gnosis" and was about Gnostics. In the inner leaf, the publisher's name
was given as The Theosophical Society of America - an occult book publisher!
MacGreggor is now pushing Gnostic thought, and accusing the early church,
particularly Iraneaus, of error in stopping the movement. He is enthralled by
the Alexandrian cults and believes that Jesus can only be understood within His
Gnostic setting. He calls for a twentieth century reformation of the church
along Alexandrian lines. This is not surprising. In majority, the texts used to
"correct" the Received Text are Alexandrian in origin. If we accept their
perverted versions of the Word, why not emulate them further?
Conclusions
It is my opinion that the reliance
on new versions will lead to apostasy. I am not saying that all churches which
adopt new versions will be instantly propelled to the gates of Hell. I am saying
that in the long term these versions will muddy the purity of the scriptures.
Since the versions themselves are sometimes contradictory and since new Greek
texts (and bibles based upon them) are continually being churned out, believers
will slowly turn to some man-made authority to interpret the scriptures for
them. Eventually, this will usher in a new-age, one world, one faith religion.
Satan can not deal with the Word of God. He must destroy it to prevail.
The
book "New Age Bible Interpretation" by the New Age Press says, "The keys to the
deepest mysteries of the Bible have been lost to the warders of popular
Christianity since the early centuries of our era. In this new cycle of power
and illumination they must be restored to the many. A new phase of Christianity
is due for unfoldment." (Vol. IV, Introduction). Amazingly similar to the beliefs of all Bible revisors, who believe that the scriptures were
corrupted and that now they are reconstructing it.
A recent article in the
Harrisburg Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA) entitled, "Scholar's Radical views may
lead to new Bible", discussed how new findings show that only about 20% of the
Gospels sayings of Jesus are true. They also have discovered that most of
Jesus' healings were of "psychosomatic illnesses." They wish to use their newly
found facts to form a council to make a "modern version" of the bible.
Reverend Bill Nelson (Editor of The Fourth, a publication of the Jesus
Seminar - the group forming the council and also Adjunct Professor at the
Pacific School of Religion) said, "It is a tragic fact that many people worship
their Bible rather than God. Their presumed perfection of the Bible's contents
forms an idolatry focused on the book rather than the reality of the book."
(emphasis mine) The article also states that the group probably will include
the Gospel of Thomas in its version because it predates any of the other Gospel
accounts. So this is where we are heading. God's Word is arbitrated by man.
The book is no longer perfect and preserved as promised in the scriptures
themselves. The new versions of the past and the present are only stepping
stones to the godless world bible soon to be created.
Of course any
"fundamental" Christian who likes new versions scoffs at this point. He thinks,
" I would never use such a gross perversion." Well, look back about a hundred
years and see the torrents that arose surrounding the new Greek texts of
those spiritualists Westcott and Hort. Bible believers of the day said the same
thing when they saw how the scriptures were perverted with changes,
additions and deletions. But, after enough time and the saturation of our
seminaries, new versions finally emerged triumphant. The readers of the
bible have been weakened by the new versions and soon they will be ready for the
next step. Perhaps the Jesus Seminar's work will be it. If not, it will be
something similar. Once you allow man to tamper with God's Word, how can you
tell him where to stop? Can you say ok, take out the verse 37 of Acts 8 but
retain John 3:16? Can you say go ahead and remove the Lord's encounter with the
adulteress, but retain His resurrection? Where do you draw the line?
I urge
each and every concerned believer to study this topic, to review the literature
and studies of others. But most of all, look at the scriptures. They do differ.
Many are similar, but there are many differences (omissions, deletions,
changes). Is God a double minded God? If not then only one of the versions can
be correct. I urge all readers to seek out that correct text, to study it with
the leading of the Holy Spirit, and to hold it dear. God gave us the scriptures
so that through them we might be close to Him. The scriptures are God's direct
revelation to each and every man.
The scriptures are by their very nature a
spiritually divisive entity (Hebrews 4:12). It must be noted that under no
circumstance can an individual claim that both new versions and the KJV are the Word of God. All revisers claim that the underlying texts to the KJV are
flawed and corrupted, it is their basic premise for using new Greek Texts. If
one feels that the new versions are accurate representations of God's Word,
then they are compelled to reject the KJV. On the other hand, if one accepts the
KJV as the Word of God, then they are compelled to reject the new versions. The
two stand on different foundations. The only way one can take the middle ground
and say that all versions are the Word of God is to take the position that no
underlying Greek text is accurate, and therefore one inaccurate,
unpreserved, kind-of, sort-of Word of God is as good as the next.
Any
version that detracts from the Sonship, Lordship, Godliness, perfection, or
primacy of our one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - I want no part of it.
Grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. God's Word
points us to Christ. It is vitally important.
Appendix A
A
Brief Example of 1611 KJV and our Current KJV
The following
example is from "The Bible in the Making". It was used by the author to show how
most of the changes were to spelling. Remember, MacGregor is a new versionist
and I am using his example - so I did not intentionally pull a rare example
to prove my case only. The comparison can be found on page 316 of his book.
King James Version 1611 - Hebrews 1:1-4
1 God who at sundry times, and in diuers
manners, spake in time past vnto the Fathers by the Prophets,
2 Hath in
these last dayes spoken vnto vs by [his] Sonne, whom he hath appointed heire of
all things, by whom also he made the worlds,
3 Who being the brightnesse of
his glory, and the expresse image of his person, and vpholding all things by the
word of his power, when hee had by himselfe purged our sinnes, sate down on ye
right hand of the Maiestie on high,
4 Being made so much better then the
Angels, as hee hath by nheritance obtained a more excellent Name then they.
King James Version (Present day wording)
1 God, who at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir
of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness
of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the
right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the
angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Copyright 1993, 1994, 1995 by Brian K. Kautz
