Westcott And Hort Exposed!

…FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS!

A selection of 

statements revealing the

attitudes of these two

most noted textual critics.

WE should always be reluctant to engage in ad hominem arguments, i.e. those that concentrate on personalities rather than issues, but the character and professed beliefs of those involved in such vital matters as the text and translation of the Bible cannot be overlooked. It is necessary that those handling the inspired word of God themselves be spiritual men. This is the teaching of Scripture itself (1 Cor. 2:11-16).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)

image

was born at Birmingham and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)

image

at Dublin. In 1851 Westcott was ordained an Anglican “priest” and Hort in 1856: their careers were spent mostly in academic positions rather than pastorates. As early as 1853 they began work on their Greek text of the New Testament: this project was to occupy most of their remaining lives. In 1870 the idea of a modest revision of the A.V. was sanctioned by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England, and this provided the opportunity for Westcott and Hort to introduce their radical changes. They defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee. “The New Testament in the Original Greek” was published in 1881, as was the Revised Version based upon it: this latter failed to gain lasting popularity, but the Westcott-Hort text and theory has dominated the scene since.
Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God (in FULLER, p.157).

Beliefs
The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.
1846 Oct. 25th – Westcott: “Is there not that in the principles of the “Evangelical” school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.44,45).
Oct., 22nd after Trinity Sunday – Westcott: “Do you not understand the meaning of Theological ‘Development’? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages,as the wants of men’s minds grow, grows with them – in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines.” (Life, Vol.I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd – Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany – Westcott: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory…It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.” (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th – Hort: “One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise…no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic…the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical…the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many ‘chapters’ seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary…still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us…I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants” (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th – Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Nov., Advent Sunday – Westcott: “All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a ‘heretic,’…I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?” (Life, Vol.I, p.94).
1850 May 12th – Hort: “You ask me about the liberty to be allowed to clergymen in their views of Baptism. For my own part, I would gladly admit to the ministry such as hold Gorham’s view, much more such as hold the ordinary confused Evangelical notions” (Life, Vol.I, p.148).
July 31st – Hort: “I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services.” (Life, Vol.I, p.160).
1851 Feb. 7th – Hort: “Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on ‘The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.’ I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.181).
1858 Oct. 21st – Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind…The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue…There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible” (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd – Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Oct. 15th – Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
1864 Sept. 23rd – Hort: “I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that ‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical.” (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).
1865 Sept. 27th – Westcott: “I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles“.
Nov. 17th – Westcott: “As far as I could judge, the ‘idea’ of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many.” (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).
Oct. 17th – Hort: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
1867 Oct. 17th – Hort: “I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles.” (Life, Vol.II, p.86).
1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.

Chronology of the Revision

image

1825 Jan. 12th – Brooke Foss Westcott born at Birmingham.
1828 Apr. 23rd – Fenton John Anthony Hort born at Dublin.
1851 Dec. 21st – Westcott ordained “priest” in Church of England.
1851 Dec. 29,30th – Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (Life, Vol.I, p.211).
1853 Jan.-Mar. – Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.
Apr. 19th – Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible.” (Life, Vol.I, p.250).
June – Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggests to Hort that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme.’ Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a N.T. Grammar and Lexicon. (Life, Vol.I, pp.240,241).
Sept. 29th – Westcott to Hort: “As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use…With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable – after Griesbach’s manner?…I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture (a reference to the A.V.?), and am most anxious to provide something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin wiil give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles…my wish would be to leave the popular received text except where it is clearly wrong.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.228,229).
Nov. 4th – Hort: “I went down and spent a Sunday with Westcott…We came to a distinct and positive understanding about our Gk. Test. and the details thereof. We still do not wish it to be talked about, but are going to work at once, and hope we may perhaps have it out in little more than a year.” (Life, Vol.I, p.264).
Westcott and Hort start work on their Greek text.
1856 Feb. ? – Hort ordained “priest” in Church of England.

Mar. 20th – Hort: “I think I mentioned to you before Campbell’s book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology” (Life, Vol.I, p.322).
1857 Feb. 23rd – Hort to Westcott: “I hope to go on with the New Testament text more unremittingly” (Life, Vol.I, p.355).

First efforts to secure revision of the Authorised Version by five Church of England clergymen.
1858 Oct. 21st – Hort: “The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.399).
1860 May 1st – Hort to Lightfoot: “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels.” (Life, Vol. I, p.420).
May 4th – Hort to Lightfoot: “I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do.” (Life, Vol.I, p.424).
May 5th – Westcott to Hort: “at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth – I reject the word infallibility – of Holy Scripture overwhelming.” (Life, Vol.I, p.207).
May 18th – Hort to Lightfoot: “It sounds an arrogant thing to say, but there are very many cases in which I would not admit the competence of any one to judge a decision of mine on a textual matter, who was only an amateur, and had not some considerable experience in forming a text.” (Life, Vol.I, p.425).
1861 Apr. 12th – Hort to Westcott: “Also – but this may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (Life, Vol.I, p.445).
1862 Apr. 30th, May 1st – Hort: “It seems to be clearly and broadly directed to maintaining that the English clergy are not compelled to maintain the absolute infallibility of the Bible. And, whatever the truth may be, this seems just the liberty required at the present moment, if any living belief is to survive in the land.” (Life, Vol.I, p.454).

1870 Westcott and Hort print tentative edition of their Greek N.T. for private distribution only. (This they later circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of N.T. revisers, of which they were members).
Feb. 10th – Southern Convocation of Church of England resolve on desirability of revision of A.V. Northern Convocation declines to cooperate.
May – Committee of 18 elected to produce a Revised Version.
The 7 members of the N.T. Committee invite 18 others, making 25.

May 29th – Westcott to Hort: “though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as ‘we three’ are together it would be wrong not to ‘make the best of it’ as Lightfoot says. Indeed, there is a very fair prospect of good work, though neither with this body nor with any body likely to be formed now could a complete textual revision be possible. There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin.” (Life, Vol.I, p.390).
June 4th – Westcott to Lightfoot: “Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should agreed. The rules though liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action at first.” (Life, Vol.I, p.391).
July 1st – Westcott to Hort: “The Revision on the whole surprised me by prospects of hope. I suggested to Ellicott a plan of tabulating and circulating emendations before our meeting, which may prove valuable.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.392,393).
July 7th – Hort: “Dr. Westcott and myself have for above seventeen years been preparing a Greek text of the New Testament. It has been in the press for some years, and we hope to have it out early next year.” (Life, Vol.II, p.137).
Aug. ? – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140). (Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott‘s suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee).
1881 Bishop Ellicott submits the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation.
May 12th – Westcott and Hort‘s “The New Testament in the Original Greek” Vol. I published (Text and short Introduction).
May 17th – the Revised Version is published in England, selling two million copies within four days. It fails however to gain lasting popular appeal.
Sept. 4th – Westcott and Hort‘s “The New Testament in the Original Greek” Vol.II published (Introduction and Appendix).
Oct. – first of Dean Burgon’s three articles in the Quarterly Review against the Revised Version appears.
1882 May – Ellicott publishes pamphlet in reply to Burgon, defending the Westcott and Hort Greek text.
1883 Burgon publishes The Revision Revised, including a reply to Ellicott.
1890 May 1st – Westcott consecrated Bishop of Durham.
1892 Nov. 30th – death of Hort.
1901 July 27th – death of Westcott.
1908 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia discusses the WestcottHort theory:

image

Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881.
This is still almost literally true.

References:
Hort, A.F., Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I,II.
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I,II.

image

Advertisements

A Rebuttal of James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy

James R. White

image
James R. White

By George R. Theiss

(with an extended evaluation and rebuttal)

Copyright © 2005 by George R. Theiss

PROLOGUE

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened” (i)

Irenaeus (2nd Century) on Marcion the Gnostic

The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” (ii)

Origen of Alexandria (3rd Century) Gnostic and Father of Arianism

I say ‘pure’ because all the ancient exemplars, which formerly were found among the Papists, were full of falsifications, which caused Beza to say in his book on Illustrious Men, in the chapter on the Vaudois of the Valleys that France today has the Bible in her own language.

This godly man, Olivetan, in the preface of his Bible, recognizes with thanks to God, that since the time of the apostles, or their immediate successors, the torch of the gospel has been lit among the Vaudois (or dwellers in the Valleys of the Alps, two terms which mean the same), and has never since been extinguished.” (iii)

Leger (17th Century) on Olivetan’s French Bible of 1537

So the present controversy between the King James Version in English and the modern versions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival sects; and later, between the Waldenses, and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still, between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century.” (iv)

Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D (20th Century)

(i) Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Scribner’s, 1953) Vol. 1, pp. 434-435 quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) pp. 2 and 187.

(ii) “Origen,” McClintock and Strong, Encyclopedia quoted by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) as it appears in David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 192.

(iii) Leger, General History of the Evangelical Churches of the Piedmontese Valleys (France: 1669) p. 165 quoted by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) as it appears in David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 205.

(iv) Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 188.

INTRODUCTION

The King James Only Controversy by James R. White seeks to answer the question, Can you trust the modern translations. The author states in his Introduction, I oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself.

White encourages Christians to purchase and use multiple translations of the Bible so that comparisons can be made between translations.[1]  He suggests Cross reference between such fine translations as the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version . . . .[2]

BODY

The book begins with Part One, which includes a description of different types of King James Only advocates and their arguments. He then discusses how we got our Bible.
White goes on to look at translational and textual differences in some depth. He devotes an entire chapter to charges by KJV Only advocates that the new Bible versions water down the Deity of Christ. White then draws our attention to problems in the KJV.

Finally, the author concludes his book with some basic questions and answers and an exhortation for the reader to understand. In Part Two, White give us the textual data, a bibliography and indices.

COMMENTS

The author, James White, has obviously read A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix. He is better versed in the mechanics and terminology of Bible manuscript translation and transmission than many KJV Only proponents.

His explanation of honest copyist errors in the transmission of the Bible is altogether reasonable and probable in many cases. His explanation of how we got the KJV through Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza is thorough and interesting.

His allegations of misrepresentations on the part of some KJV Only advocates such as Riplinger and Ruckman deserve further investigation. Some appear to be true. If so, they should give our KJV Only camp some pause for thought.

We agree with White’s Sixth Chapter (Translational Differences). The exact same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase can often be translated accurately into English in more than one way.

Therefore, there are some cases where a different rendering (from the KJV) of the same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase may be legitimate in a modern Bible version. White gives some good examples of this in his Sixth Chapter.

We have no problem with comparing the KJV to modern translations to get a better idea of the meaning, if the word or phrase is translated from the identical Hebrew or Greek word or phrase in both the KJV and the modern translations.

We admit that some English words have changed meaning over the nearly 400 years since the KJV was first written. Some KJV words are now archaic.

White points out that, Many of the exact same arguments that are used today by KJV Only advocates were used against Erasmus nearly 500 years ago![3]  His point is well taken. In fact, many of his arguments against the King James Only position seem unanswerable, in our present state of knowledge. 

EXTENDED EVALUATION AND REBUTTAL (WITH SOME QUESTIONS)

But it does not necessarily follow that all James White’s conclusions are valid. In our extended evaluation, we question several (not all) of White’s assumptions.

We believe we can prove White to be in error in these particular assumptions and conclusions. We will show that these are fatal errors in White’s arguments against the KJV Only position.

NO TEST OF FELLOWSHIP?

James White states, You should never have to wonder if you are going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV (or vice versa!) Fellowship should never be base upon the English translation one carries and studies.[4]  Is White correct?

The startling news that NIV will become a unisex version was published in the March 29, 1997 edition of World Magazine. This change of the gender of God is not based on an accurate translation of the original Greek manuscripts.

Rather it is a theological change, a complete capitulation to feminism and the mother goddess worship of witchcraft and Mariolatry.  Should we not break fellowship with those who call this latest NIV perversion of God’s gender (from he to he-she) the Bible?

PSALM 12:6-7 DOESN’T REFER TO PRESERVATION?!?

White claims that Psalm 12:6-7 may not even refer to preservation of the words of the LORD.[5]  He points to the NIV translation of Psalm 12:6-7 that appears to support his point. Is White correct? Are we to believe that God has NOT promised to preserve His words from generation to generation?

Christ taught preservation of God’s word, right down to the smallest Hebrew letter (jot) and smallest decorative spur (tittle) till Heaven and earth pass away in Matthew 5:17-18. In Matthew 24:35, our Lord Jesus states, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

On the basis of Christ’s teachings, we may safely assume that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach preservation of God’s Word, as the KJV reading of that passage clearly indicates! We appeal to the providence of God and the logic of faith.

White says, Dr. Edward F. Hills represents the best of the KJV Only position. . . Hills does not ignore such things as the insertion of passages from the Vulgate into the text of Erasmus and hence into the KJV; instead he argues that since God preserved the rest of the TR, He must have preserved those readings, too.

White accuses Hills of circular reasoning.[6]  But White also begins with the conclusion of his argument that we can trust the modern translations[7] and then uses his conclusion in the course of his arguments.

White also charges Hills with a desire for absolute certainty.[8]  But our God promises absolute certainty in the preservation of God’s Word (Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35; Psalm 12:6-7; compare also John 14:26 and 16:13).

Christ teaches us that His words will be preserved forever. Where will they be preserved? His words are, and will be, preserved in the Holy Bible. Thus it is important for us to determine which Bible version is the preserved Word of God.

Logic tells us that two opposite statements cannot both be true. For example, two contradicting Bible versions cannot both be the preserved Word of God. Therefore, if one version is true, the other is false.
Such is the case with the KJV male gender (he) for God versus the new NIV unisex gender (he-she) for God. They cannot both be true. If the KJV is true, then the NIV is false.

Logic tells us that two opposite statements cannot both be true. For example, two contradicting Bible versions cannot both be the preserved Word of God. Therefore, if one version is true, the other is false.
Such is the case with the KJV male gender (he) for God versus the new NIV unisex gender (he-she) for God. They cannot both be true. If the KJV is true, then the NIV is false.

NO CONSPIRACY?

In his Question and Answers chapter White writes, The idea that there is some ulterior motive, some conspiracy, involved in trying to twist and change the teaching of Scripture is a common element of KJV Only writing. [9]

White apparently assumes that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God.[10]  Is White correct? Are we to believe that satan has no plan to question, misquote and contradict the pure Word of God (Genesis 3:1-5)?

The Bible clearly warns us of satan’s method of CORRUPTING the Word of God. We read about it in the Third Chapter of Genesis: satan questioned God’s Word (Yea, hath God said?) misquoted God’s Word (ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?) then flatly contradicted God’s Word (ye shall NOT surely die).

Can satan control unsaved men who dabble with demonic spirit-guides? The Bible states that they . . . are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:26).

Westcott and Hort were two such men, upon whose work the Critical Text is largely based. Westcott and Hort form the basis for both the ever evolving Nestle-Aland text and the constantly changing United Bible Societies text.

White asks, Were they occultists? Westcott’s involvement in a club called the ‘Ghostlie Guild’ has led to all sorts of such charges, but the club was formed to investigate strange occurrences, not engage in devilish activity.[11]

Perhaps White should re-read Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion exposé of the Men (pages 391-464) and her Appendix A (Summary: Westcott and Hort) a little more closely. What follows is my summary of what Riplinger says, with my own editorial comments:

WESTCOTT AND HORT

Westcott and Hort were Anglican priests and closet Catholics who lived in England in the 19th century (1800s). It was the same time in which there was a movement within the Anglican clergy to reunite with the Pope, led notably by Cardinal Newman, an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic prelate.

The beliefs and agenda of Westcott and Hort can be gleaned by reading their personal correspondence preserved in their biographies. While they were deciding what does and does not belong in their revision of the Greek New Testament, they were involved in:

Worship of the Virgin (Mariolatry).

Necromancy (spiritualism – calling up the dead in séances).

Speaking with ghosts (devils).

The Bible forbids all three activities. Worship of the Virgin violates both the First and Second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Necromancy, witchcraft, and consulting with familiar spirits are forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.

HERMES CLUB AND GHOSTLY GUILD

In 1845, as a Cambridge undergraduate, Westcott organized the Hermes Club. Hermes is the Greek god of magic, the Lord of death, cunning and trickery. According to Greek mythology, Hermes was a gifted speaker and a scribe.

Westcott’s friend, Madame Blavatsky, a key founder of the New Age Movement, wrote, Satan and Hermes are all one, in her book, THE SECRET DOCTRINE. She didn’t even pretend to be a Christian, she was a Luciferian.

In the 1850s Westcott, Hort and Benson (a future Archbishop of Canterbury) founded the Ghost Club (also known as the Ghostly Guild). It promoted channeling by which spirits speak through a medium.

As Gail Riplinger so aptly points out in her book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, The bitter fountain which springs forth from the new bible versions flows from the devils who seduced the scribes.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1)

The modern translations (RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NEV and even the NKJV) have one thing in common. They tend to agree against the KJV in omitting hundreds of words, phrases and entire verses.

These omitted words are not always archaic (old) words no longer used in Modern English. The omitted words are words like God (omitted 66 times in the New King James Version alone, and even more in other modern versions).

God is not an archaic word. Neither is Christ, blood, virgin or other frequently omitted words. As Gail Riplinger points out in her book, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, these changes are theological in nature.

Many of the basic doctrines of our faith are being attacked in the new versions. The deity of Christ, the virgin birth, our blood bought redemption, salvation by grace through faith are all omitted (or badly watered down) in the modern versions.

When you read a modern Bible version, you may be reading (in some places) exactly what the devils would like you to read, straight from their willing mediums, Westcott and Hort. Let’s look at some statements made by Westcott and Hort.

STATEMENTS FROM WESTCOTT

In 1842, Westcott wrote, In the evening I go with Tom to the wizard…. (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 9)

On a trip to view a New Testament manuscript, Westcott made a pilgrimage to a shrine of the Virgin. He commented about this, God appears in many forms.

In 1855 he wrote, How certainly I should have been proclaimed a heretic. (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 233)

In 1871 Westcott stated, I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes…I suppose I am a communist by nature. (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 309)

In 1881 he admitted, Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament: A General Survey, p. vii)

STATEMENTS FROM HORT

Hort referred to evangelical Christians at various times as dangerous, perverted, unsound and confused. He called America a standing menace to the whole civilization.

In 1848 Hort wrote, The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to truth than the evangelical. (Hort, Vol. 1, pp. 76-77.) Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary. (Hort, Vol. II, p. 31).
In 1856 he stated, Campbell’s book on the Atonement . . . unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology. (Hort, Vol. 1, p. 322.)

AGENDA OF WESTCOTT AND HORT

Westcott and Hort had a friend named Philip Schaff. He was the President of the Old and New Testament committees that formed the American Standard Version of 1901. He was a rank heretic and he advocated one world religion.

The University of Berlin calls him The theological mediator between East and West. Schaff mocked Christians, saying, They vainly imagine that they possess the monopoly on truth.

He further stated, The church must adjust…her doctrinal statements…to natural science. Churchman brought Schaff before the Pennsylvania Synod for heresy. The Living Bible and NASB used Schaff’s 30,000 alterations to the Bible.

Schaff’s Parliament of World Religions, called itself Babel. It first met in Chicago in 1893. Schaff called it the sum of my life and theological activity. It set the New Age movement in motion.

From Schaff, we can get a clearer view of the agenda of Westcott and Hort. Schaff used their corrupt text to give us the ASV of 1901. He followed their interpretation of theology and their view of one world religion.

WARFIELD, MACHEN AND ROBERTSON

The Westcott and Hort text unbelievably came into acceptance through the efforts of two Bible believing Calvinist Presbyterians who had studied in Germany. Both men rejected the higher criticism of the German liberals.

But both men came to accept “textual criticism” as scholarly and good. Both men later taught at Princeton Theological Seminary. Their names were B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. Their knowledge of Greek was impeccable.

Another professor, teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky also accepted the idea of textual criticism. His name was A.T. Robertson. He, too, was a master scholar of Greek.

Did these men have any sinister intent? Only God knows. They most probably had no idea of the personal beliefs and agenda of Westcott and Hort.

Warfield, Machen and Robertson seemed to sincerely believe that the New Testament needed to be updated in the light of modern historical research. Their ideas soon gained acceptance in a number of evangelical seminaries.

Many pastors are seminary trained. This eventually resulted in new versions of the Bible being accepted and used widely in evangelical and fundamental churches and Bible colleges.

Though Warfield, Machen and Robertson may have been sincere, we believe they were sincerely wrong. We need a return to the King James Bible.

NORMAN GEISLER ENDORSES WHITE’S BOOK

Norman Geisler’s endorsement of The King James Only Controversy is found on the front cover of White’s book. Geisler writes, This is the best book in print on a topic often riddled with emotion and ignorance.

Norman Geisler co-authored the classic General Introduction to the Bible with William Nix. It is used as a standard work on the subject in many evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges.

Geisler, writing about the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), states, This fourth century Greek manuscript is generally considered to be the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy and lack of omissions.[12] (Emphasis mine)

In writing about the Codex Vaticanus (B), Geisler says, The Codex Vaticanus is perhaps the oldest uncial on parchment or vellum (c. 325-350) and one of the most important witnesses to the text of the New Testament[13]

These two texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) form much of the backbone for the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, form the basis for both the ever evolving Nestle-Aland text and the constantly changing United Bible Societies text.

Based on a reading of Let’s Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 57-69, I offer my summary of Burton’s arguments against the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, with my own editorial comments.

THE VATICANUS

The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was in excellent condition. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation!!!

In other words, it omits much that was used by ancient believers to condemn Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions. For example, Paul’s Pastoral Epistles twice declare that a bishop should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6).

Paul also warns of devil doctrines like forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3). This contradicts Catholic demands that its bishops and priests be unmarried (celibate). It is therefore omitted in the Vaticanus.

Hebrews 10:10-14 condemns (by implication) the re-sacrificing of Christ done at the Sacrifice of the Mass as taught in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This passage is omitted in the Vaticanus.

The book of Revelation, chapter 17 clearly describes a religious whore headquartered in Rome (the city of seven hills that rules over the kings of the earth). Revelation 13 warns of the Mark, Name and Number of the Beast.

Both chapters are missing in the Vaticanus. Besides the above listed omissions, the Vaticanus, in the Gospels alone (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences.

THE SINAITICUS

The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!!! The Sinaiticus was found on a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery, near Mt. Sinai, in 1844.

It contains nearly all of the New Testament, but it adds the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas (contrary to Revelation 22:18). On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by ten different people.

Even worse, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas include commands to do things God has forbidden in His Word[14], including:

Take the name of the beast.

Give up to the beast.

Form a One-World Government.

Kill those not receiving his name.

Worship female virgins.

Receive another spirit.

Seek power.

Avoid marriage and permit fornication.

Abstain from fasting.

Here we see satan going beyond questioning and misquoting God’s Word. Here he is advancing to his third tactic. He is flatly contradicting God’s Word.

No wonder U.S. News and World Report magazine, in its 11-8-93 issue reveals plans by Canon Seminar scholars for a radical revision of the New Testament that will replace the Book of Revelation with other writings …[previously] dismissed by church leaders as unauthentic or heretical.

NORMAN GEISLER ENDORSES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Dave Hunt wrote the book A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (based almost entirely on Catholic sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Trent, Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, etc.) In this excellent exposé of the many anti-Christian doctrines (such as salvation by works) and bloody history of the Roman Catholic Church, Hunt writes:

One of the most highly regarded evangelical apologists, Norman L. Geisler, stated recently that Catholics believe in justification by grace and that differences between Catholics and evangelical are not as great as generally perceived and they are not crucial . . . [nor do they] involve heresy . . . the whole the theological core of historic Christianity is held in common.[15]

What a coincidence, that Geisler, who wrote the standard textbook (used in many theological seminaries and Bible colleges) on how we got our Bible, and who sees no problem with new translations of the Bible, also sees no problem with:

Salvation by works[16] (contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5).

Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass (contrary to Hebrews 10:10-14).

Worship of Mary as Queen of Heaven (contrary to Jeremiah, chapter 44).

Banning and burning of Bibles and those who translated or read them (the Albigenses & Waldenses, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and numerous others).

The Vicar of Christ (Anti-Christ in Greek) being called the Holy Father (contrary to Matthew 23:1-9).

Sale of indulgences (bogus tickets to heaven and paid licenses to sin).

Murder of Protestants (Bloody Mary’s Reign of Terror in England, the Anabaptists of Holland and Switzerland, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France, the Irish Massacre on the Feast of St. Ignatius Loyola in 1641, etc.)[17]

Deleting from Bible manuscripts (such as the Vaticanus deletion of the Pastoral Epistles and the entire Book of Revelation) contrary to Revelation 22:19.
The tortures of the Inquisition (northern Italy, southern France and all of Spain).

The stated purpose of the Jesuits to destroy Protestantism.[18]

Purgatory and prayers for the dead (found nowhere in the Bible).

What a coincidence, that Geisler (who sees no problem with the Catholic manuscripts that support such Bible versions as the NIV and the NASB) now sees no problem with the Roman Catholic Whore of Revelation 17.

Is it not interesting that Norman Geisler, who openly supports White’s book, The King James Only Controversy also supports the Roman Catholic Church? One of White’s main arguments is that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God. Yet Geisler’s endorsement of White’s work casts doubt on that argument.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH VERSUS THE KJV

Would the Vatican want to cast doubt on the KJV Bible?  Did not a Jesuit priest, Henry Garnet direct an assassination attempt (by Roman Catholic Guy Fawkes) on the staunch Protestant, King James I in 1605?[19]

Did not God bless the KJV in the language of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the modern missionary movement started by William Carey and the preaching of men such as C.H. Spurgeon and D. Martin Lloyd Jones? Didn’t these creeds and men identify the Pope as Anti-Christ?

Did not God bless the King James Version in the founding of America by Calvinist Presbyterians such as James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution) and the Lee family of Virginia? Were not 2/3 of the population and more than half of all the American soldiers in the Revolutionary War Calvinists?[20]

Did not the Vatican officially denounce democracy and the American concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of the press?[21]  Have not the Popes always fought liberty, equality and separation of church and state?[22]

Hear the supposedly infallible Pope Martin V (1427-31) command the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites (and his reasons why):

Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of the ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery; they call the people to liberty . . . .[23]

By what logic can White (or Geisler) argue that there is no plan, no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God?! In the light of Genesis 3:1-5 we may safely conclude that satan and his minions have such a plan.

By the open animosity of the Vatican to King James and his Bible (and to the pure Gospel preaching and liberty it brought to early Protestant America) we can conclude that the Vatican has every reason to question, misquote and contradict the KJV by the making of new versions based on corrupt manuscripts.

Westcott and Hort changed the Majority text until it mirrored the Vaticanus (B) text.[24] Pope Pius XII then declared, Translations could be produced in cooperation with separated brethren.[25]

The four wheels driving the current United Bible Societies (U.B.S.) Greek New Testament, Aland, Black, Metzger and Wikgren, were being steered by a fifth wheel, in the driver’s seat, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini.[26]

Cardinal Martini’s editorship appears only on the frontispiece of the edition for translators, lest Protestants panic.[27] Martini is a liberal Jesuit.[28]  His committee’s book, The Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, admits that Westcott & Hort formed the basis for the present U.B.S. edition.[29]

Now both Protestant and Catholic versions are based on the same Vaticanus (B) minority Greek text.[30] The Nestle-Aland and U.B.S. texts are now identical. [31]

A TRANSLATOR’S BELIEFS DO NOT AFFECT HIS TRANSLATION?

White argues that King James may have been a homosexual, but that did not make the KJV soft on homosexuality.[32] White’s argument is that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not affect his translation of the Bible.[33]

Although that might be the case sometimes, White can in no way prove that it was the case all the time. The truth is that we are all swayed by our beliefs and moral conduct.
For example, homosexuals often seek jobs that put them near vulnerable children, jobs such as Public School Teachers and Boy Scout-Masters. They often do it with the secret intent of seducing the children under their influence.

King James was raised a Calvinist Presbyterian. As King, he sought an accurate English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. He hand-picked the translators, and had the committees of translators periodically check each other’s work. He supported the translation from start to finish (1604-11).

It is unlikely that such a man as King James was a homosexual. The charge never came up during his lifetime. A known enemy, Anthony Weldon, first brought up the charge in 1650 (25 years after the death of King James).[34]

White observes that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, yet that did not affect his manuscript upon which the KJV is based. But Erasmus was hardly a traditional Catholic and in many ways he agreed with Luther.[35] The writings of Erasmus were later banned by the Pope.[36]

We believe that the hatred of evangelical Christianity, stated by Westcott and Hort in their own writings (see above) had an effect on their manuscript. We believe the same to be true of heretics like Origen (c. 250 A.D.) of Alexandria.

Origen sought a blend between paganism and Christianity.[37] He did not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and he felt free to change the Word if he did not like what it said.[38] His Alexandrian school later provided us with the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrian and other texts uses by Westcott and Hort.

ANTIOCH VERSUS ALEXANDRIA

Paul and Barnabas taught the Church in Antioch of Syria and the disciples were first called Christians there (Acts 11:26). There soon arose a school of learned Christians in Antioch who taught the Literal-Historical approach to interpreting the Holy Scriptures.[39]  They avoided the allegorism of the Alexandrians.[40]

The Jews of Alexandria in Egypt gave us the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. They lived in a thoroughly Greek culture brought to Egypt by Ptolemy (a top general of Alexander the Great).

Many Jews were so impressed with the Greek culture of Alexandria that they accepted the teachings of Greek philosophy.[41]  The outstanding Jewish allegorist was Philo (c. 20 B.C. to 54 A.D.) who mixed Scripture with Greek philosophy.[42]

Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm is a standard textbook on the subject of Hermeneutics in many theological seminaries and Bible colleges. This book gives us some valuable insight into the schools of Alexandria and Antioch.

Ramm states, The allegorical system that arose among the pagan Greeks, copied by the Alexandrian Jews, was next adopted by the Christian church . . . with such notable exceptions as the Syrian school of Antioch . . . .[43]

The school of Antioch in Syria avoided both the letterism of the Jews and the allegorism of the Alexandrians.[44] They held to both figures of speech and plain speech. They fought Origen of Alexandria in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method.[45]

BYZANTINE VERSUS ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS

White writes, Most scholars today (in opposition to KJV Only advocates) would see the Alexandrian text-type as representing an earlier, and hence more accurate, form of text then the Byzantine text-type.[46]

White goes on to observe, KJV Only advocates disagree with this summary . . . The Textus Receptus, the Greek text form with the KJV New Testament was translated, is ‘Byzantine’ in character . . .

They explain the lack of ancient examples of the Byzantine text by theorizing that those manuscripts ‘wore out’ from excessive use over the years, while the ‘Alexandrian’ texts were quickly seen as corrupt . . . Such a theory, of course, defies proof by its very nature.[47]

There were extremely ancient (2nd Century) translations of the Bible into Syriac (the Aramaic Peshitto) and Old Latin (the Italic Bible of the Vaudois, later called Waldenses). Both tend to agree with the Byzantine text and not with the Alexandrian text.[48] White denies this[49] but many other scholars confirm it.[50]

This would give some credence to the KJV Only advocates’ position that the Byzantine text is indeed ancient and copies wore out with use. For if the oldest translations agree with the Byzantine text, then there were earlier copies which we no longer have. They probably wore out with use, persecution and climate.

Zane C. Hodges, who served as a Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, in an article entitled The Greek Text of the King James Version, points out:
. . . all of our most ancient manuscripts derive basically from Egypt. This is due mainly to the circumstance that the climate of Egypt favors the preservation of ancient texts in a way that the climate of the rest of the Mediterranean world does not . . .

There is no good reason to suppose that the text found in Egypt give us an adequate sampling of texts of the same period found in other parts of the world. One might just as well affirm that to sample the flora and fauna of the Nile valley is to know the flora and fauna of Greece, or Turkey or Italy.[51]

Hodges goes on to observe, The manuscript tradition of an ancient book will . . . multiply in a reasonably regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants. . .

Hence, in a large tradition where a pronounced unity is observed between, let us say eighty per cent of the evidence, a very strong presumption is raised that this numerical preponderance is due to direct derivation from the very oldest sources . . .

Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text.[52]

Indeed, Helvidius, a northern Italian Bible scholar of the late 4th Century accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts to translate from Greek into a new version of Latin (the Latin Vulgate).[53]

Other 2nd Century Latin translations of the Bible (or portions thereof) used by the Christians of southern Gaul and (pre-Catholic, pre-Anglo-Saxon) Celtic Britain, also tend to agree with the Byzantine text against the Alexandrian.[54]

All these groups (Syrian Church, Greek Church, Waldenses, Albigenses, Welsh, Irish and Scottish Christians) were later in conflict with the Vatican over Scripture readings, dates, customs and the alleged authority of the Roman Bishop (later called the Pope).

All used Scriptures that tend to agree with the Byzantine text upon which the KJV is generally based. The Roman Catholics used the Latin Vulgate which is based mostly on Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text may descend from the school of Antioch of Syria which opposed the Alexandrian school from earliest times.

White also claims that the earliest Church Fathers when quoting Scripture, tend to agree with the Alexandrian manuscripts. But we believe that a careful reading of men like Irenaeus and John Chrysostom will prove White wrong.

Furthermore, why would God hide his Greek text in a Vatican library or in a monastery trash heap near Mt. Sinai to be discovered only in the 19th Century?  Would he not rather preserve it in the Greek-speaking churches of the Byzantine era (312-1454 A.D.)?

At the fall of Constantinople, would not God send refugees bearing precious Greek manuscripts to Western Europe where the Byzantine text soon became the text of the Protestant Reformation? Scripture, history and logic compel us to see the Byzantine text as pure.

ADDED OR DELETED?

White, in referring to some omitted phrases in the modern Bible versions, argues, . . . .[55]  Is White correct?

Burton points out, Satan can’t change everything in the Bible . . . He’s too smart for that. Have you ever heard of a counterfeit dollar bill that is ORANGE?[56]
satan is a master of deceit. For example, in some places, the new Bible versions will affirm the Deity of Christ, but in others they will deny it. Origen of Alexandria denied the Deity of Christ in his writings.[57]  He also deleted [58]

CONCLUSION

As fellow KJVO believers, we applaud James White’s scholarship and desire to educate others in Bible translation and transmission facts. We appreciate his desire to avoid invective. Some of his arguments against the KJV Only position are very good.

But we strongly disagree with several of White’s assumptions and conclusions. We believe that some changes in the new Bible versions reflect theological changes not justified by the original languages. Therefore, we believe that the use of a certain Bible perversion (with no justifiable translational reason) can (and should) be a test of fellowship.

We believe that the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35 support the KJV reading of Psalm 12:6-7 (and not the NIV reading that White uses to cast doubt on the KJV reading). God does preserve His Words in every generation.

We also disagree with White that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not influence his translating of Scripture. We believe that satan has a plan to corrupt the Word of God (Genesis 3:1-5) and that his minions are taken captive by him at his will (2 Timothy 2:26).

We believe that the enmity the Vatican has displayed toward the Bible (especially the Byzantine text) in its long history of banning and burning translations (and those who read them) gives further evidence of this conspiracy.

We have documented from history why the Vatican would have every reason to want to cast doubt on the KJV today. We have also documented that White grossly understates and minimizes Westcott and Hort’s involvement in the occult.

We have shown that the Byzantine text readings are older than the Alexandrian texts. We have given many reasons why the Alexandrian texts are corrupt (a charge that White denies).

We have shown that God blessed the use of the Byzantine text readings in various Christian groups who opposed the Vatican (from the earliest times through the Protestant Reformation to the founding of Protestant America).

We disagree with White when he says that God also blessed the Latin Vulgate.[59] It was almost exclusively the property of the Catholic clergy, the same ones who burned both Bibles and Bible believers down through the centuries.

Based on our extended evaluation of some of White’s arguments and God’s promise to preserve His Words (Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35) we believe that the King James Version is still the overall best translation available in the English language. We trust it as God’s preserved Word in English.

[1] James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,1995) page 7.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid, page 53.
[4] Ibid, page 5.
[5] Ibid, pp. 243-244.
[6] Ibid, page 92.
[7] Ibid, page 7.
[8] Ibid, page 93.
[9] Ibid, page 116.
[10] Ibid, page 146.
[11] Ibid, page 245.

[12] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968) page 273.[13] Ibid, page 271.

[14] G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion (Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications Corporation, 1993) pp. 556-557.

[15] The Southern Cross, January 13, 1994. p. 11 quoted by Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) page 406.

[16] Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) pp. 346- 366.
[17] Ibid, pp. 243-307.

and Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, rev. ed. 1967) pp. 248-250; 275-278; 331-334.

and Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pp.7-32.

[18] Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pp. 75-90.

and Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, rev. ed. 1967) pp. 376-377.

[19] Samuel C. Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians (Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989) Chapter 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at http://www.chick.com

[20] Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1981) pp. 382-384.

[21] Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days pp. 127-131.
[22] Ibid, pp. 54-56.
[23] Ibid, page 247.

[24] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion , page 141.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.

[28] Profile: Cardinal Carlo Martini, Article on Internet by Peter Gould, BBC News, Rome http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4459805.stm

[29] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion , page 142.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.

[32] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? , page 246.
[33] Ibid, pp. 244-245.

[34] Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians, Question 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at http://www.chick.com
[35] Ibid, Question 57 (Was Erasmus a good Catholic?).
[36] Ibid.

[37] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, page 535.

[38] Barry Burton, Let’s Weigh the Evidence (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 64-65.

[39] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 3rd ed., 1970) pp. 48-50.
[40] Ibid, p. 48.
[41] Ibid, p. 25-26.
[42] Ibid., p. 27..
[43] Ibid, p. 28.
[44] Ibid, p. 48.
[45] Ibid, p. 49.

[46] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 43.
[47] Ibid, page 44.

[48] Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) pp. 194-215.

[49] James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 153.

[50] Helvidius (4th Century) Tyndale, Olivetan and Beza (16th Century) Diodati and Leger (17th Century) Burgon and Bishop (19th Century) Fuller, Green, Hill, Hodges, Hoskier, Martin and Wilkinson (20th Century).

[51] Zane C. Hodges, The Greek Text of the King James Version, Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas Theological Seminary) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 28.
[52] Ibid, page 37.

[53] Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 206.
[54] Ibid, pp. 196-197.

[55] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 155.

[56] Burton, Let’s Weigh the Evidence , page 27.

[57] Ibid, pp. 64-65.

[58] Edward F. Hills, The Magnificent Burgon quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 95.

[59] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 247.

Part 2 of 2 THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION

#2: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS
The second reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior translators.
Let’s take a brief look at the superior translators of the KJV. Why do I say that the KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because they ARE superior! I think that there is no question about the expertise and ability of the translators who gave us our KJV. The new version people often say that the KJV translators were rather ignorant and didn’t know as much about translating as the “translators/paraphrasers” of today. This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic qualifications are unequaled!
The accomplishments of Lancelot Andrews. Let’s mention Dr. Lancelot Andrews. He was certainly a superior KJV translator. He had mastered fifteen languages. Someone said that if Dr. Andrews had been present at the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, he could have served as interpreter general. I don’t know any of the modern “translator/paraphrasers” who have mastered fifteen languages, do you? Send me their names, if you have proof of this.
The acumen of William Bedwell. How about Dr. William Bedwell? He was famed in Arabic learning. I don’t know how many of these new men who are “translating/paraphrasing” for these modern versions and perversions who have studied as much of the Arabic language as he had. In fact, he published in quarto, an edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. I don’t know how many men today could do that. Dr. Bedwell left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. In fact, he wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary which is among Archbishop Laud’s manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford today. I don’t think anyone among our modern “translators/paraphrasers” of today has done this or could do this! Do you know any of these men who have written an Arabic dictionary and begun a Persian dictionary, or done anything similar in the scholarly world that will even come close to the accomplishments of William Bedwell? If so, send me their names and the proof. In our day, many people watch too much television. They attend too many football games, baseball games. and basketball games. We are ignoramuses today compared to the scholars who gave us our KJV!
The acceptability of Miles Smith. Look at the acceptability of Dr. Miles Smith. He was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost as familiar to him as his native tongue. Dr. Smith went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers, making annotations on them all.
The activities of Henry Savile. Sir Henry Saville was proficient in both Greek and mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. I don’t know how many queens or kings our modern “translators/paraphrasers” have tutored, do you? Saville translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes. He published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on the Elements of Euclid. He was the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He was a profound, and exact scholar.
The academics of John Bois. John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. He studied at his father’s knee. In fact, at the age of five, he had read the whole Bible IN HEBREW!! At the age of six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. If you know anything about the Hebrew letters, it’s difficult to write in an elegant style, or in any style, for that matter. Much more could be said about John Bois.
The superior translators in general. Have you ever heard of Gulliver’s Travels? It tells of Gulliver’s adventures with the inhabitants of Lilliput. Do you remember what the Lilliputians did to poor Gulliver? They were tiny, tiny people, and Gulliver was like a giant to them. While he was asleep, they tied up Gulliver with tiny cords so he couldn’t move. I liken the KJV translators to the giant Gulliver and the “translators/paraphrasers” of today to tiny Lilliputians.
It states in Gen. 6:4: “There were GIANTS in the earth in those days…” It was true also from 1604 to 1611, when these profound scholars gave us our incomparable King James Bible! They had mastered English as well as the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. They also knew the cognate or brother-sister- cousin related languages that shed light on the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek such as the Aramaic, the Arabic, the Persian, the Coptic, the Syriac, and the others. When the modern “translators/paraphrasers” come upon a word they don’t understand, they throw up their hands in dismay. The KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. Our modern “translators/paraphrasers” are linguistically illiterate when compared to the men who gave us our KJV. They truly were “GIANTS”!!

#3: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE
The third reason for defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior technique of translation. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior technique of translation.
The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence–NOT dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and perversions have used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal equivalence.
Alleged exceptions.
1. “God Forbid“. Some people allege that the KJB translators used dynamic equivalence in their expression “God forbid“. Even if it were the case (and I do not accept that it is), it is found only fourteen times in the New Testament: Rom. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Cor. 6:15; Gal. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. It is a rendering of “mE genoito” which is “may it not be” or “let it not be“. This is perfect 1611 parlance for “God forbid“. It was quite literal in 1611. If you don’t believe it, consult the Oxford English Dictionary which gives you the meaning of “God forbid” in 1611. It is found only seven times in the O.T.: Gen. 44:7,17; Josh. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sam.12:23; 1 Chron. 11:19; Job 27:5. It is a rendering of “chalal” which is “may it be something profane” or “may it be far from me“. Again, “God forbid” is a perfect 1611- parlance for the Hebrew words used.
2. “God Save the King“. Another favorite allegation of dynamic equivalency in the KJV is the expression “God save the king“. Even if it were the case (and I do not accept that it is), it is only found four times in the O.T.: 1 Sam. 10:24; 2 Sam. 16:16; 2 King. 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11. It means “may the king live long” or “may the king be preserved or safe“. Well, if the king lives long, he is “saved” is he not? [Editor: The term “salvation” was used in a much broader sense in past centuries.] So why not let the 1611- parlance of “God save the king” alone? The fact is that such examples are very, very few in the KJV, whereas they abound in the modern versions and perversions because in those, the dynamic equivalent technique is the rule rather than the exception.
The King James Bible’s verbal and formal equivalence.
The KJV basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn’t transform the grammar. They didn’t take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper concept of what “translation” really is. It comes from translatus which in turn comes from two Latin words, trans (“across“) and latus which is the past participle of fero (“to carry“). It means to “carry across” from one place to another, or from one language to another. It does NOT seek to CHANGE, or to ADD, or to SUBTRACT!

Let me illustrate “translation.” If I have my wife’s pocketbook and I want to translate it from one side of the church to the other, I would simply pick it up, take it across the aisle, and put it on the other side of the church. I wouldn’t leave any of it behind, even though there may be some things in it I wouldn’t want to take over. I wouldn’t add anything to it, and I wouldn’t drop any of it in the center aisle. Now that’s translation, translatus. That’s what the KJV translators did. They just simply took the Hebrew words and put them into English. They picked up the Greek words and put them into English. That’s translation. That’s the superior technique.
The modern versions’ use of dynamic equivalence.
I have a computer print-out research of three of these modern versions–the New King James, the New American Standard, and the New International. When compared to the Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Words of God. In a similar study of the New American Standard Version, I found over 4,000 such examples. In a similar study of the New International Version I found over 6,653 such examples.
What is meant by dynamic equivalency?
Dynamic” means “moving or changing“. “Equivalence” means “the same or unchanging“. You can’t have it both ways! It is either changing or unchanging. Those who use this false technique in the various “translations/paraphrases” think it’s a great technique. The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to ADD to God’s Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God’s Words (which is sin), or to CHANGE God’s Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest possible CURSE on anyone who dares to do any of those three things to God’s Words!!
Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para (“alongside or beside“) and phrasis (“a word or phrase“). It means to use a word or phrase that is alongside the real meaning. It is to state something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators sought, to put into English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather than to give something that is “beside” or “alongside” the word or phrase.

#4: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR THEOLOGY.
The fourth reason for defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior theology. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior theology.
Some denials that theology is affected by Greek or English versions.
It is said by those who use the new versions and perversions of the Bible that there is no difference in any of them when it comes to theology. It is also said that there is no difference in any of the Greek texts in the matter of theology. This is even said by those who are looked up to as Bible believing leaders. There are two phases of their theological denial:
(1) These men believe that the Greek textual variants between the two basic Greek texts do not affect theology or doctrine. They believe that the false Westcott and Hort Greek text (when compared to the Greek text of the KJV) contains nothing that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is false.
(2) These men also believe that the modern English versions do not contain changes from the KJV that affect theology or doctrine. They believe that you can take any modern English version you wish and when you compare it to the KJV, that version does not have anything in it that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is also false.
Dr. John R. Rice stated: “The differences in the translations are so minor, so insignificant, that we can be sure not a single doctrine, not a single statement of fact, not a single command or exhoratation, has been missed in our translations“. (meaning the English Revised Version of 1881 or the American Standard Version of 1901)
This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: “The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine“. This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur‘s professor in his California Seminary, wrote: “No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading“. False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: “No doctrine is affected“. False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: “Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us“. False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: “Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine“. False again!
Some examples of theology that is affected by Greek and English versions. I have given 158 examples of the theological superiority of the KJV in my book. I selected these from Dr. Jack Moorman’s compilation of a total of 356 doctrinal passages that have been changed in the Egyptian heretical Greek texts of “B” (Vatican), “Aleph” (Sinai), and others. I’ll give you some examples of doctrines that are affected by these false Greek texts and new versions.
1. John 3:15. “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Do you know what the “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, “should not perish“? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there’s no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?
2. Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched“.
Because “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? [Editor: While it is true that verse 48 is retained in this passage in the modern versions, the power and authority is weakened by two- thirds. The God-honored Received Text says Jesus repeated this statement three times to emphasize the horrors of going to hell. The critical text removes two of these statements, thus weakening the force of the doctrine.]
When you take the “literal fire” out of hell, as many new- evangelicals (and even some fundamentalists) have done, and as all of the apostates have done, and as Mary Baker Eddy and all false cults have done, you are in serious trouble and in grievous doctrinal error! For centuries, many have removed the fire out of hell even though the KJV keeps it in. Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a “fireless hell“!
3. John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive “everlasting life.” But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, “on me.” Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes “on me.” So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you’re trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you’ll never lead them to Christ, because “on me” (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: “Whoever believes has everlasting life.Believes what? Their verse doesn’t say. Their verse merely says “believes.” According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That’s major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!
4. Romans 1:16. Here’s what it says in the accurate KJV: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
The heretical Greek texts of “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) remove the two words, “of Christ” in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. “Gospel” means “good news” or a “good announcement.” What “gospel” could be inserted there instead of the “gospel of Christ“? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It’s the gospel or good news about Christ. That’s doctrine! That’s theology!
5. John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, “Aleph” (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
According to the Greek text “Aleph” (Sinai), the word “yet” must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of “yet” makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!
Concluding remarks: I believe that in the King James Bible we have the Word of God kept intact in English. I believe we should defend the KJV for four reasons: (1) It has superior original language texts (Hebrew and Greek); (2) It has superior translators; (3) It has superior technique; and (4) It has superior theology.
We ought not to be ashamed of the Book of books that has stood the test of time and will continue standing. Let’s stand for it and with it. I hope the reader will secure for himself a copy of our book, Defending the King James Bible–A Four-fold Superiority–Texts, Translators, Technique, and Theology. In it we have elaborated on each of the above considerations. The KJV, which is being hammered and beaten on every hand today (by so-called “friend” and foe alike), can be very much likened to the “ANVIL” in that famous poem with which I close:
THE ANVIL OF GOD’S WORD
Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door
And heard the anvil sing the vesper chime;
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with blasting years of time.
“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he; and then, with twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”
And so I thought, the anvil of God’s Word
For ages, skeptic blows have beat upon.
Yet tho’ the noise of falling blows was heard
The anvil is unharmed–the hammers gone.
–John Clifford

READ PART 1 HERE
Continue reading “Part 2 of 2 THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION”

Part 1 of 2. THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION

By Dr. D.A. Waite
Dr. Donald Waite is a scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean Burgon Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects. The following study is a summary of Waite’s book Defending the King James Bible, which is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108. Waite presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: (1) SUPERIOR TEXTS (HEBREW AND GREEK); (2) SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS; (3) SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE; and (4) SUPERIOR THEOLOGY.
We begin with a couple of introductory thoughts about Bible translations:
Readability and the King James Bible. Many people say, “The KING JAMES BIBLE is too hard for people to read, they can’t understand it.” Well, if you consult the readability index called “Right Writer” (a computer program) that is absolutely neutral on this subject, you will find readabilities for the portions of the KING JAMES BIBLE examined as follows:
From this chart you can see that the KING JAMES BIBLE is NOT too difficult to understand–provided that you can read at a 6th to 10th grade level. Our son, D. A. Waite, Jr., has written a study he calls Six Bible Versions Compared on Readability–A Comparison of the KJB, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV. He took the first chapter of every book in the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation and compared the six versions of the Bible mentioned above. In this sampling, the KJV, over all, has a “Flesch Grade Level” of from 6.1 to 8.6. The NIV, on the other hand, has a “Flesch Grade Level” of from 6.1 to 11.0!! The NIV is not only less accurate by far, but also less readable than the King James! From this evidence, we see that it’s not too hard to understand the KING JAMES BIBLE.
I know hundreds of people whose intelligence and educational levels have not reached as high as some of these … people who say they can’t understand this King James Bible, yet these people do understand it. How do you figure that out? Remember 1 Cor. 2:14 which states, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This verse is still true, regardless of which translation is used.
Some people say they like a particular version because they say it’s more readable. Now, readability is one thing, but does the readability conform to what’s in the original Greek and Hebrew language? You can have a lot of readability, but if it doesn’t match up with what God has said, it’s of no profit. In the King James Bible, the words match what God has said. You may say it’s difficult to read, but study it out. It’s hard in the Hebrew and Greek and, perhaps, even in the English in the King James Bible. But to change it around just to make it simple, or interpreting it, instead of translating it, is wrong. You’ve got lots of interpretation, but we don’t want that in a translation. We want exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English.
Do we need more “translations” of the Bible? It can be asked: “Do we really need more `translations’ of the Bible? Are these new versions really necessary?

1. Complete English Bibles.
In the back of our book, Defending the King James Bible, there’s a chart that lists the number of “complete English Bibles” by years. From the 1300’s through the 1900’s, there were a total of 135 “complete English Bibles.” This is taken from a research that’s been done on English Bibles of all kinds. We notice that, on the average, there has been one complete English Bible every 4.4. years. Do you think we need more Bibles? In the last 604 years (from 1388 through 1991) complete English Bibles have increased in frequency. In the 1300’s, there were only three; in the 1400’s, there were none; in the 1800’s, there were forty-five; in the 1900’s, there were fifty-three (averaging one every 9.9 years).

2. Complete English New Testaments.
In the same book, there is a chart that lists the number of “complete English New Testaments” by years. From the 1300’s through the 1900’s, there were a total of 293 “complete English New Testaments.” This is, on the average, one complete English New Testament every 2.1 years. Do you think we need more New Testaments? Even if they were all presently available, imagine someone reading all of them. In the last 612 years (from 1380 through 1991) complete English New Testaments have also increased in frequency. In the 1300’s there was only one complete English New Testament; in the 1400’s, there was none; in the 1800’s, there were ninety; and in the 1900’s, there were 144 (averaging one every .69 years). That’s quite a jump–from ninety to 144!

3. Complete English Bibles and New Testaments combined.
If you put the charts together we can see that during the 612 years, from the 1300’s to the 1900’s, there were a total of 135 complete English Bibles, and 293 complete English New Testaments. This totals 428. It means that, on the average, there was either one complete English Bible or complete English New Testament published every 1.4 years. Do we need more complete English Bibles or complete English New Testaments? That’s the question. I believe that the major factor in the production of Bibles and New Testaments is money. When the publishers discover that a certain version no longer brings financial profit to their treasuries, that version runs out of print in a hurry! Very few churches are doing what the Berean Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana, is doing–printing Bibles and giving them out at low cost. In fact, they give many of them away without charge. To my knowledge, only those who have the real truth found in the King James Bible are doing this. You will find few, if any, publishers of these false perversions printing them at low cost or without charge!

Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible:

#1: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS.
The first reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior texts, both Hebrew and Greek. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek.
THE KJV HAS A SUPERIOR O.T. HEBREW TEXT. There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel’s BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHK) (1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well as in the Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHS) (1967-77) with all of their suggested footnote changes. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which our KJV is based is also available. It is called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). We carry this Hebrew Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in 1866. It has the Masoretic Hebrew text in the center and the King James Bible in the margins. This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of 1906 and 1912, used that texts and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a or “L”). He used this because he claimed it was the oldest single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about 1008 A.D.
Both of these false Biblia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page. This adds up to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. One or the other of these false Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used as the basis for the O.T. in all modern versions, as can be shown by reading their introductory pages. How many of these changes in the Hebrew text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,000? How about 20,000? 10,000? How about 5,000? How about 1,000? How many of you would like to accept 500 changes?
If you do not start with an absolute, where there is no doubt, you’re going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don’t want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the “closest to the original autographs,” but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can’t prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God’s Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years–to a “thousand generations.
The New Versions attempt to “CORRECT” The Hebrew Text in at Least 19 different ways. The NIV uses all nineteen of these, by the way. In effect, the new version “translators/paraphrasers” might say, “Oh, I don’t want to take this Hebrew word here. I want to take the Septuagint (LXX) reading instead.” But the Septuagint (LXX) version for the most part is worse than a Living Version. It is the Old Testament written in Greek. It is rotten. Its text is corrupt. Even the ISBE article, (the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) on the Septuagint (LXX) states that it has a very tattered and inferior Greek text. Remember, the ISBE is no friend of the King James Bible’s text. The use of the Septuagint (LXX) by these new versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error.
Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at all. It is pure conjecture. They might say, “I don’t have any proof, but I think it sounds better this way.” When this is done, they often print in the footnote an “L” which stands for “legendum,” meaning in Latin, “which read” I remember Dr. Merrill F. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written many books, including Unger’s Bible Dictionary. He was an apt and humble man, though he reminded me of an “absent-minded professor” at times. He taught us Isaiah in our second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way that differed from the Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, “Why did you read it that way? It doesn’t read that way in the Hebrew text?” Dr. Unger replied, “Well, I just thought it sounded better that way, so I changed it.” Dr. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins University for his Ph.D. work. He was taught by Dr. Albright who was far from sound in his theology. Perhaps Dr. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. What was Dr. Unger doing? He was “CORRECTING” the Hebrew text by conjecture.
Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with the Syriac Version. Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with just “a few Hebrew manuscripts” rather than the entire Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text. Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with the Latin Vulgate. Some “CORRECT” the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are a few problems.
Problem #1: How do you know which Hebrew manuscripts this heretical cult (called the Essenes) took with them when they left the temple of Jerusalem and went to the area of the Qumran caves?
Problem #2: How do you know the methods they used and the accuracy with which they copied and recopied those manuscripts? It just so happens that the Dead Sea Scrolls, probably 99% of the time, did concur with the Hebrew text that underlies the King James Bible. But, in the places where they don’t, we should stick to the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.
Some, like the NIV, use “quotations from Jerome” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use Josephus, an unsaved Jew, to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use a “variant Hebrew Reading in the margin” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use “words in the consonantal text divided differently” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or Symmachus to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use the Hebrew Targums, Theodotion, or the “Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for the Hebrew Word of God? Was he there? Still others use a “different set of Hebrew Vowels” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew text. Some use “an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition” to “CORRECT” the Hebrew. Some use the BIBLIA HEBRAICA of Kittel or Stuttgartensia to “CORRECT” the Hebrew. These are 19 of the different methods that other English versions have used to “CORRECT” the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, thus changing the very Words of God!
God authorized the Jews to be the exclusive guardians of His Words. The Jews were to be the guardians of the O.T. Hebrew text. God did not give that privilege and responsibility to any other race or people. “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2).
It was the Hebrew O.T. text that God preserved, not some text in Greek, Latin, or Syriac, or any of these other documents. It must be Hebrew. There were eight or more important, strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew scribes who copied and recopied the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text. These rules were to insure that each letter, word, and sentence of the Hebrew text was preserved exactly. The Jews were meticulous and reverent in the copying and recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. That’s why I believe that we should not change any of the Hebrew Words of God that underlie the KJV.
The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament Text is available today. I hope that the American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society keep printing and circulating this Letteris Hebrew text. That’s what they call it, the Letteris text of 1866. This came out before Kittel decided to scrap it for his false Ben Asher text. These same Bible Societies print the false Hebrew texts, too. If they stop printing the true Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament text, by God’s grace, we will do every thing in our power to see that it’s reprinted page by page and get it back into circulation. We’ll preserve the very O.T. Hebrew Words of God ourselves, if that becomes necessary. Sometimes this Hebrew Bible has gone out of stock at the American Bible Society, but it has always come back in stock by a shipment from England.

THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS A SUPERIOR NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. There is a simple table in our book which speaks volumes concerning the New Testament Greek text debate. Here it is:
The Greek Text that underlies the KJV.
If you examine this table carefully, you will learn much about the debate that is raging concerning the Greek N.T. On the left of the table are some facts about the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. The Trinitarian Bible Society has published this text and made it available to anyone. The TBS took this text from that of Dr. Frederick Scrivener who was commissioned in about 1885, by the Cambridge University Press, to come up with the exact Greek text that underlies the King James Bible. Scrivener set down all of the Greek words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version.
He inserted the exact alterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way. This Greek text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful tool. Scrivener’s Greek text is also available on the LOGOS Computer Program which enables the student to study more carefully. Dr. Jack Moorman counted 140,521 Greek words in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener’s Greek edition has 647 pages which would average 217 Greek words per page. That’s what the Textus Receptus has.
2. The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort that underlies the Modern Versions. Though there were some scattered opposition to the Received Text in years before, the concerted effort against the Received Text came in 1881, and after. In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a radically new Greek text. Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T.
You might rightfully ask, “How did you come up with this number of changes?” That’s a valid question. I took a copy of the original Scrivener’s Greek N.T. to a summer Bible Conference where I was preaching. During the afternoon, when there were no meetings, I studied that volume carefully, making notations on it as I read. When I indicate that there are 5,604 places in the Greek N.T. where Westcott and Hort actually altered the Greek Textus Receptus used by the KING JAMES BIBLE translators, it is because I actually counted that many places. I have the data in my copy of Scrivener’s Greek New Testament. These 5,604 places involve a total of 9,970 Greek words. How do I know that? Again, I counted them. I saw from the footnotes exactly how many Greek words each of the 5,604 places involved. As you might know, some of the plazces involve twelve entire verses (Mk. 16:9-20 and John 7:53– 8:11). In each of the 5,604 places, compared to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV, Westcott and Hort either added Greek words, subtracted Greek words, or changed the Greek words in some other way. You can see that the Westcott and Hort alterations amount to just thirty words short of 10,000 Greek words.
This means that there are almost 10,000 Greek words that are different in the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (and probably about the same or more in the Nestle/Aland 26th edition Greek text) as compared to the Greek text that underlies our KJV.
This FALSE Greek text, with its approximate 10,000 alterations, was the basis for virtually all of the modern English versions and perversions, including the ERV, ASV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV, LV and the rest.
Hort’s own three estimates on the extent of the Greek textual problems between his text and the Textus Receptus. In 1882, Hort wrote an Introduction to the so-called Westcott and Hort Greek Text of 1881. In his Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek–The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., Hort made an estimate of the differences between various Greek texts. His estimate had three parts. Let me quote each of the parts:
(1) Hort’s estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that was virtually accepted by everyone. He wrote: “With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is NO VARIATION or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism; . . . The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is VERY GREAT, not less, on a rough computation, than SEVEN EIGHTHS OF THE WHOLE. The REMAINING EIGHTH therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism” (Hort, p. 2).
Since the “whole” in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek N.T. as seen in our table, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort’s 7/8ths of the Greek New Testament virtually agreed to by all would be 122,956 Greek words (87.5%=566 pages). Hort’s 1/8th of the Greek N.T. that he claimed was in dispute would be 17,565 Greek words (12.5%=81 pages). In point of fact, as seen in the above table, the area of dispute between the Westcott and Hort Greek text as opposed to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV is only 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). So Hort’s estimate in this area is incorrect.
(2) Hort’s estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that would still be in doubt if his principles were followed. He wrote: “If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgement in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about ONE SIXTIETH of the whole New Testament” (Hort, loc. cit.).
Since the “whole” in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort’s 1/60th of the Greek New Testament still subject to doubt if his principles were followed, would be 2,342 Greek words. This represents 1.76% of the Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek New Testament if put all in one place. But we don’t follow Hort’s “principles” at all. Because of this, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are still disputing 9,970 Greek words (rather than only 2,342 Greek words). This represents 7% of the Greek words (rather than only 1.76%), or 45.9 pages in a Greek New Testament if the words were put in one place (rather than only 11.4 pages). So Hort’s estimate in this area is incorrect again. We still maintain that the of Greek words in dispute are vastly more in number than Hort has stated.
(3) Hort’s estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that contains “SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION.” He wrote: “In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than A THOUSANDTH PART of the entire text” (Hort, loc. cit.).
Since the “whole” in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort’s 1/1000th of the Greek New Testament that he thought could be called “SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION” would be 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647 pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the Greek N.T. This is extremely wide of the mark of truth! Since we don’t follow Hort’s “principles” at all, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are still disputing, either in “SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION” or otherwise, a total of 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). It is Hort’s last estimate that has been seized by his modern day puppets and grossly distorted in order to fool people into thinking that the problem is very tiny, when in reality, it is much, much larger!
The misquotation of Hort by his followers on the extent of the Greek textual problems between his text and the Textus Receptus. Modern disciples of this false Westcott and Hort Greek text have enlarged upon Hort’s estimates. They say, in effect: “If all of the variant readings between the Westcott and Hort-type text and the Textus Receptus-type text were assembled together in one place, they would amount to a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament.”
Hort’s pupils are either knowingly or unknowingly misquoting their teacher. They want to make the DIFFERENCES in the Greek texts very, very slight so as to minimize the arguments against the false Westcott and Hort-types Greek text. From the above quotations from Hort’s Introduction, his differences in Greek texts would be either 81 pages (1/8th), or 11.4 pages (1/60th), or .647 pages (1/1000th). Rather than merely “a little over one half a page,” Hort’s 1/8th of total differences would amount to 81 pages. In reality, we are faced with faced with 45.9 pages of difference!
A current illustration of this practice of distorting the facts in this area is found in a tape-recorded message given by Dr. Kenneth Barker, the chairman of the translation committee responsible for the New International Version. Dr. Barker spoke in the Sunday evening service, September 12, 1993, at the Southside Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina. A friend recorded the message and gave me a copy. Dr. Barker stated:
“There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and all of them are AGREED 98% of the time. So all of this debate that Carson refers to in The King James Version Debate, all of this debate, all of the hullabaloo is over less than 2% of the entire text of the New Testament. And in that less than 2%, you can select any reading that you wish among the manuscripts, (that’s not our approach, but you can) and it won’t change Christian doctrine one bit.”
Dr. Barker is wrong on TWO COUNTS! (1) His “less than 2%” difference between any of the Greek manuscripts would be 2,810 Greek words (12.9 pages). The truth of the matter is that there is a 7% difference between the Westcott and Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. This would be 9,970 Greek words (45.9 pages). This is a most serious error. It is a blatant falsehood that is being promulgated by the chairman of the NIV translation committee. It would give false confidence to the pastor and members of this church that had just recently given up the KJV in favor of Dr. Barker’s NIV. (2) The second serious error is Dr. Barker’s statement relative to the fact that variations in manuscripts “won’t change Christian doctrine one bit.” In our book, we specify 158 such passages. Dr. Jack Moorman lists 356 such passages. These two falsehoods, from someone who should know better, are the major ones used to lull Bible believing Christians into deep slumber concerning the Bible version controversy that has been raging.
The King James Bible’s Greek text is worth fighting for! The Greek Text of the New Testament is truly a BATTLEGROUND! Someone might say to you that there is really very little difference in the two Greek texts. They may tell you that you shouldn’t be fighting about these differences. It seems to me that almost 46 pages of the Greek N.T. ARE worth fighting about. 9,970 Greek words are worth fighting about. 7% of the Greek N.T. is worth fighting about. This is a BATTLEGROUND! We must not retreat. We must do battle for the Lord’s Words! We must stand fast. If we lose in this battle between truth and error, there’s no stopping the onrush of more error. In the tug of war with truth and error, there is no middle ground. Those of us who believe in standing up for the Lord Jesus Christ should remember His Words: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38).
THE KING JAMES BIBLE’S GREEK TEXT IS ATTESTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Here is a table that is printed on page fifty-seven of Defending the King James Bible. It gives us a summary of the manuscript evidence that is available to us today.
As of 1967, Kurt Aland, of Munster, Germany, counted a total of 5,255 Greek manuscripts still in existence. Though there are a few others since 1967, I use these figures which are still very close. Aland is the lead editor of the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament which is being used as the critical text of today. I am using Aland’s 1967 figures.
As you can see from the table, there are 81 (now 88) papyrus fragments. There are 267 uncial manuscripts. These are large, capital letter documents. There are 2,764 cursives manuscripts. These are the flowing hand manuscripts. There are 2,143 lectionary manuscripts. These are portions of Scripture that were read on certain days of the church year. This totals at least 5,255 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. that have been preserved and are available for us today.
The table gives the approximate number and percent of each type of Greek manuscript that supports the Westcott-Hort (WH) Greek text, as well as the number and percent of each class that supports the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text. These approximations are taken from the careful research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his book Forever Settled (see Bibliography). The WH figures are given first and those for the TR second. For the papyrus fragments the score is 13 to 75 (15% to 85%). For the uncial manuscripts the score is 9 to 258 (3% to 97%). For the cursive manuscripts the score is 23 to 2,741 (1% to 99%). For the lectionary manuscripts the score is 0 to 2,143 (0% to 100%). For the totals for all classes of manuscripts the score is 45 to 5,210. This is a ratio of less than 1% to more than 99%!
THE KING JAMES BIBLE’S GREEK TEXT HAS BEEN PRESERVED BY GOD. Which of the two kinds of Greek text has God preserved? How do you define preservation? The Scripture says:
“The Words of the Lord are pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep Them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve Them from this generation for ever” (Ps. 12:6,7).
Obviously God has “KEPT” and “PRESERVED” His Words in the 99% of the evidence, rather than in the 1%. By very definition, this is “PRESERVATION.” Suppose I had 100 million dollars to begin with and a thief stole it from me. Suppose I reported this to the police; and after long investigation, they were able to recover 99 million dollars out of the 100 million dollars. The thief would keep one million dollars. Which of the two parties could most accurately be described as having “PRESERVED” the 100 million dollars: the thief who had the one million dollars, or the police who recovered the 99 million dollars? The one million would be a “PRESERVATION” of practically nothing (1%) compared to the 99 million (99%). And so it is with the Greek manuscripts of the N.T. The fulfillment of God’s promise to “KEEP” and “PRESERVE” His Words is to be found in the more than 99% of the manuscripts we have today. And these support the Greek Text that underlies the KJV, and NOT the Greek text that underlies the modern versions and perversions!
THE FALSE GREEK TEXTS OF “B” AND “ALEPH” CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER IN OVER 3,000 PLACES IN THE GOSPELS ALONE. In the total numbers of manuscripts, you’ll notice that the Westcott- Hort type has only 45 manuscripts that go along with it as over against 5,210 that go along with the TR that underlies the KJV. This 45 includes “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) and forty- three of their little heretical puppets that follow them. The theory behind the acceptance of these less than 1% is that “The oldest are the best.” The oldest are not necessarily the best, especially if they have been tampered with by heretics!
Both Dr. Frederick Scrivener and Dean John William Burgon agreed that the greatest pollution of the stream of pure manuscripts was accomplished in the first 100 years after the New Testament was written! So the oldest are not necessarily the best! This is especially true since the heretics had their knives out “correcting” the Greek N.T. almost as soon as it was written. The Egyptian scribes and editors of “B” (Vatican) and “Aleph” (Sinai) were some of the most vicious “correctors” of God’s Words; yet these two Greek texts form the very bedrock of the new versions and perversions of our day. “B” and “Aleph” contradict each other, as Herman Hoskier has so accurately pointed out in his two volume work entitled Codex B and Its Allies, in over 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone! So, they are not good witnesses. They are false witnesses indeed!
READ PART 2 HERE

Heresies and Blasphemies

PLEASE READ THIS

The New Testament was written in Greek.
The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (*you will see this when you read their own words below).
Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.
Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for many of today’s modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)
Again, Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for today’s modern Bible versions . Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

image

FROM THEIR
OWN MOUTHS

A selection of
statements revealing the
attitudes of these two
most noted textual critics.
Westcott and Hort
Reprinted with kind permission
from the Traditional Text Pamphlets Homepage
and compiled by David Blunt of the James Begg Society
WE should always be reluctant to engage in ad hominem arguments, i.e. those that concentrate on personalities rather than issues, but the character and professed beliefs of those involved in such vital matters as the text and translation of the Bible cannot be overlooked. It is necessary that those handling the inspired word of God themselves be spiritual men. This is the teaching of Scripture itself (1 Cor. 2:11-16).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was born at Birmingham and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) at Dublin. In 1851 Westcott was ordained an Anglican “priest” and Hort in 1856: their careers were spent mostly in academic positions rather than pastorates. As early as 1853 they began work on their Greek text of the New Testament: this project was to occupy most of their remaining lives. In 1870 the idea of a modest revision of the A.V. was sanctioned by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England, and this provided the opportunity for Westcott and Hort to introduce their radical changes. They defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee. “The New Testament in the Original Greek” was published in 1881, as was the Revised Version based upon it: this latter failed to gain lasting popularity, but the Westcott-Hort text and theory has dominated the scene since.
Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God (in FULLER, p.157).

*Beliefs
The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.
1846 Oct. 25th – Westcott: “Is there not that in the principles of the “Evangelical” school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.44,45).
Oct., 22nd after Trinity Sunday – Westcott: “Do you not understand the meaning of Theological ‘Development’? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages,as the wants of men’s minds grow, grows with them – in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines” (Life, Vol.I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd – Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany – Westcott: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory…It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.” (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th – Hort: “One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise…no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic…the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical…the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many ‘chapters’ seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary…still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us…I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants” (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th – Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want (*lack) of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Nov., Advent Sunday – Westcott: “All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a ‘heretic,’…I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?” (Life, Vol.I,p.94).
1850 May 12th – Hort: “You ask me about the liberty to be allowed to clergymen in their views of Baptism. For my own part, I would gladly admit to the ministry such as hold Gorham’s view, much more such as hold the ordinary confused Evangelical notions” (Life, Vol.I, p.148).
July 31st – Hort: “I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services.” (Life, Vol.I, p.160).
1851 Feb. 7th – Hort: “Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on ‘The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.’ I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.181).
1851 Dec. 29,30th – Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (Life, Vol.I, p.211).
1858 Oct. 21st – “Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind…The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue…There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible” (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd – Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Oct. 15th – Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
1864 Sept. 23rd – Hort: “I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that ‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical.” (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).
1865 Sept. 27th – Westcott: “I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a Marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles“.
(*There is a lot more writings of these two but I posted the most eye-opening ones)

Chronology of the Revision

1825 Jan. 12th – Brooke Foss Westcott born at Birmingham.
1828 Apr. 23rd – Fenton John Anthony Hort born at Dublin.
1851 Dec. 21st – Westcott ordained “priest” in Church of England.
1853 Jan.-Mar. – Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.
Apr. 19th – Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible.” (Life, Vol.I, p.250).
June – Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggests to Hort that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive “New Testament Scheme“. Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a N.T. Grammar and Lexicon. (Life, Vol.I, pp.240,241).
Sept. 29th – Westcott to Hort: “As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use…With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable – after Griesbach’s manner?…I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture (a reference to the A.V.?), and am most anxious to provide something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin will give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles…my wish would be to leave the popular received text except where it is clearly wrong.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.228,229).
Nov. 4th – Hort: “I went down and spent a Sunday with Westcott…We came to a distinct and positive understanding about our Gk. Test. and the details thereof. We still do not wish it to be talked about, but are going to work at once, and hope we may perhaps have it out in little more than a year.” (Life, Vol.I, p.264).
Westcott and Hort start work on their Greek text.
1856 Feb. ? – Hort ordained “priest” in Church of England.
Mar. 20th – Hort: “I think I mentioned to you before Campbell’s book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology” (Life, Vol.I, p.322).
1857 Feb. 23rd – Hort to Westcott: “I hope to go on with the New Testament text more unremittingly” (Life, Vol.I, p.355).
First efforts to secure revision of the Authorised Version by five Church of England clergymen.
1858 Oct. 21st – Hort: “The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.399).
1860 May 1st – Hort to Lightfoot: “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels.” (Life, Vol. I, p.420).
May 4th – Hort to Lightfoot: “I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do.” (Life, Vol.I, p.424). (*For further quotes…)

1892 Nov. 30th – death of Hort.
1901 July 27th – death of Westcott.
1908 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia discusses the Westcott-Hort theory: “Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881.
This is still almost literally true.

References:
Hort, A.F., Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I,II.
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I,II.

The unmitigating emergence of unauthorized Bible versions is risen up to challenge and remove the Authorized Version of the Bible (which thing cannot be done for the Lord said that his words shall not pass away. There will be a true church awaiting His return. The Authorized Version of the Bible is the precepts of a mighty nation whose King is the LORD. This proliferating emergence of unauthorized versions is a full frontal attack launched (and sustained) against the word of God to remove it and replace it with something else. satan knoweth that he hath but a short time. As for the saints, we are exhorted to
Jude 1:3…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.