by Martin A. Shue
(in loyal defense of the inspired King James Bible)
1st Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
Perhaps the most axiomatic of all the Fundamentals of the Christian faith is the Deity of Jesus Christ. One of the most explicit verses in the Bible testifying to the fact that Jehovah-God became incarnate in the flesh is 1 Timothy 3:16. In 1857 Jonathan Philpott (The Gospel Standard) prophesied that this very verse would be tampered with should any revision of the AV be attempted by anybody. Very ominously Philpott’s prediction was fulfilled by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort and the entire Revision Committee of 1881. Just as Philpott had foretold Hort convinced the Revision Committee to remove “God” from His own Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16.
In place of the AV reading, “God was manifest in the flesh” the Revised Version (RV) reads “He who was manifested.” Those that support such a reading along with the many omissions and changes in the modern versions purport that no doctrine has been effected. However, this is simply not true as you can see by the example set before us. One of the members of the Revision Committee, Dr. Vance Smith, certainly did not see it this way. Dr. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of St. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York, openly denied the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ yet he was permitted to work on the translation of the RV.
On June 22, 1870 Dr. Smith attended a Communion service with the rest of his fellow Revisers in Westminster-Abbey in Henry VII’s Chapel. Here at this service Dr. Smith partook of Holy Communion only to declare the next day “that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without ‘joining in reciting the Nicene Creed,’ and without ‘compromise,’ (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an ‘Unitarian.’” Despite what our modern textual critics and supporters of the modern versions say Dr. Smith positively believed that by changing 1 Tim. 3:16 they were changing doctrine. Dr. Smith made the following comments regarding this passage: The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…. It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifestedin the flesh’” (Burgon quoting Dr. Smith, Revision Revised, p. 515)
From Dr. Smith’s quote you can see very clearly that altering this verse does in fact affect doctrine. Because of this we will be examining the possible readings for 1 Timothy 3:16 in this article in order to determine which is the correct reading.
It would be to our advantage to first set forth and explain the possible Greek readings. There are in essence three possible Greek readings for this passage of Scripture: 1) qeos (Theos or God) 2) os (Hos or Who) 3) o (Ho or Which). In reality the two rival readings are Theos ephaneroth (‘God was manifested’) and to . (“the mystery of godliness, who”). We should also explain the “nomina sacra”, which simply means that words such as “God”, “Christ” and “Jesus” were routinely abbreviated in the Unicals. In the example set before us “Theos” would be abbreviated QC with a line written over both letters indicating that an abbreviation has taken place.
It should also be noted that “who” is written OC in the Unicals without the line above the letters. By now it should be growing increasingly obvious how some of the MSS (manuscripts) were corrupted to read OC (who) instead of QC (God) (remember the line above the letters) since the only thing that distinguishes the two are two horizontal strokes–one above the letters and the other a small stroke that distinguishes Q (Theta) from O (Omikron). One of the causes of such corruption is due to the fact that it was the custom by scribes to make these lines “so wonderously faintly” that on occasion they escape detection. To demonstrate what I am talking about we will look at the often disputed Codex A (Alexandrinus).
Bishop Ellicott, head of the Revision Committee of 1881, stated that “Os is read with A [indisputably; after minute personal inspection…].” In making this proclamation Bp. Ellicott joined Westcott/Hort, Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, et al. Ellicott claimed that the reason Codex A appeared to read (Theos) was because on the back of the page was found an Epsilon (E), which he professed had bled through the page thus making the Omikron (O) appear to be a Theta (Q). However, he was, as is common among the textual critics, long on theory but short on facts. Scrivener, Burgon and many others proved him to be wrong by a simple experiment, viz. by holding the MS. up to a very bright light proving that the sagitta of the Epsilon only covered one third of the Theta and as Prebentary Scrivener pointed out it “cuts much too high” to be mistaken for the diameter of the Theta (Q). In addition to this we have the testimony of others who have either collated A or have personally inspected the MS.
Patrick Young was the first to collate Codex A (1628-1652) and it is certain that he read “Theos” (God). For Young transmitted this reading to Archbishop Ussher, who in turn passed this reading on to Hammond before 1653. It is certain that the scholar Huish read “Theos” in Codex A when he sent his collation to Brian Walton, who published his New Testament in 1657. In 1659 Bishop Pearson unquestionably read “Theos” when he made the statement, “we find not os (who) in any copy”. Then 16 years later (i.e. 1675) Bishop Fell further witnessed to the fact that Codex A reads “Theos” when he published his New Testament. Another individual, Mill, who worked on the New Testament from 1677 to 1707 declares that he read “Theos” in this place in the MS.
Another who collated Codex A, Bentley (1716), knew no other reading than “Theos” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Still yet, one of the most resounding testimonies was made by Wooton in 1718:
“There can be no doubt” (he says) “that this MS. always exhibited QC [remember the horizontal line over the letters]. Of this, any one may easily convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with attention (Burgon citing Wooton, Revision Revised, p. 433).” [words in brackets mine].
In 1716 Wetstein relayed to the Rev. John Kippax that someone had apparently “retouched” the middle stroke of the Q but that the original stroke of the Q could still be seen protruding from each end of the correctors stroke. In addition to this Berriman, who gave Lectures on the authentic reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 in 1737-1738, reached the following conclusion
“If therefore” (he adds) “at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, and original reading of the MS. was QC: and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time (Burgon citing Berriman (1741), Revision Revised, p. 433).”
Many others who examined the Codex also testified that it read “Theos”, however, so as not to abuse the patience of my readers I shall only mention two more. Perhaps one of the greatest and most learned scholars of all time, F. H. A. Scrivener, had this to say concerning Codex A:
I have examined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years and seeing (as every one must) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads QC (Scrivener, Introduction, p.553)
The next and last witness we shall call is Adam Clarke. In his commentary on this verse Clarke makes the following observation:
This is very frequent in the oldest MSS., and is continually recurring in the Codex Bexae, and Codex Alexandrinus. If, therefore, the middle stroke of the “Theta”, in “Theos”, happened to be faint, or obliterated, and the dash above not very apparent, both of which I have observed in ancient MSS., then QC, the contraction for “Theos”, God, might be mistaken for “os” which or who; and vice versa. This appears to have been the case in the Codex Alexandrinus, in this passage. To me there is ample reason to believe that the Codex Alexandrinus originally read “Theos”, God, in this place; but the stroke becoming faint by length of time and injudicious handling, of which the MS. in this place has had a large proportion, some person has supplied the place, most reprehensibly, with a thick black line. This has destroyed the evidence of this MS., as now it can neither be quoted pro or con, though it is very likely that the person who supplied the ink line, did it from a conscientious conviction that “Theos” was the original reading of this MS. I examined this MS. about thirty years ago, and this was the conviction that rested then on my mind. I have seen the MS. several times since, and have not changed my opinion. The enemies of the Deity of Christ have been at as much pains to destroy the evidence afforded by the common reading in support of this doctrine as if this text were the only one by which it can be supported; they must be aware that John 1:1, and 14, proclaim the same truth; and that in those verses there is no authority to doubt the genuineness of the reading. We read, therefore, God was manifested in the flesh, and I cannot see what good sense can be taken out of, the GOSPEL was manifested in the flesh; or, the mystery of godliness was manifested in the flesh. After seriously considering this subject in every point of light, I hold with the reading in the commonly received text (Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. 8, ppg.151-152).
I couldn’t agree more with Clarke as to the enemies of the Deity of Christ going through “much pains” to destroy the evidence that this verse offers. It would seem obvious that these enemies have succeeded in destroying this evidence in the many modern versions. I would also concur with Mr. Clarke that the reading of the modern versions makes no “good sense” and that the reading of the “commonly received text” is the genuine reading. With this we will dismiss ourselves from the discussion surrounding Codex A.
We will now turn our attention to the evidence afforded us by the whole body of Greek manuscripts. In order not to confuse the reader I will deal with each of the 3 variants separately: 1) We will begin by looking at the evidence for the reading “HO” or “which” as it is translated into English. There is very little evidence attesting to this particular reading. It has the support of five ancient versions, viz. the Latin, the Peshitta, the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic Versions. This type of support is certainly not to be overlooked but if it is to be considered authentic it should also have the support of the Greek MSS. as well as Patristic support. This is where the support for the reading “which” breaks down severely. Of the mass of Greek MSS. the reading “HO” is found in only Codex D (Claromontanus)(6th century). Further it is only cited by two Church Fathers, viz. Gelasius of Cyzicus (A.D. 476) and an unknown author of a homily in the Appendix to Chrysostom. Thus, with such support, or rather lack of, it would seem obvious that “HO” (“which”) is not the original reading of 1 Timothy 3:16. We pass on to our next variant. 2) We will now look at the evidence for the reading “HOS” or “who”. The fact of the matter is “HOS” doesn’t fair much better than “HO” in its support. Among the ancient versions it receives the support of only one version, the Gothic. Interesting to note it does not receive support, in the way of a citation, by a single Greek Church Father. Likewise, it is only to be found in six Greek extant MSS., Aleph (Sinaiticus), Paul 17, 73; Apostolic 12, 85, 86. It may be of some interest to the reader to note that the revered B (Vaticanus) is silent concerning 1 Tim. 3:16 because it does not contain the book of 1 Timothy at all. Considering the reading “HOS” (“who”) rests on such scant evidence it has no doubt found its way into the modern versions due to it being found in the other adored MS., Aleph. It is simply unfathomable how any serious textual critic or any translational committee would even give earnest consideration to this reading. Yet, it was adopted by Westcott and Hort in their Greek Text. In like manner it is the reading found in the Nestle/Aland Greek Text and the UBS Greek Text. Therefore, nearly all of the modern versions have rejected “Theos” (God) in favor of “HOS” (who). Some of the popular translations read as follows: New International Version– “He appeared in a body,” New American Standard Version (Bible)– “He who was revealed in the flesh,” New Revised Standard Version– “He was revealed in flesh,” American Standard Version– “He who was manifested in the flesh,” Today’s English Version– “He appeared in human form,”
As you can readily see most of the modern versions don’t really follow ANY Greek Text in this passage. In a weak attempt to avoid using “Theos” and to make sense out of an unintelligible sentence most versions have erroneously inserted the word “He”. This shows willful intent on their part because “He” is not found in ONE SINGLE GREEK MANUSCRIPT. As Dean Burgon said,
“And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced that your substitution of “HOS” for “Theos” in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else but a calamitous perversion of the Truth (Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 485)?”
It has already been noted that 2 of these cursive copies (Paul 17 and 73) read “who”. I am happy to say that the other 252 copies read “Theos” (God). Consider that for a moment—out of the 254 cursive copies 252 copies read “God” just as the Authorized Version does at 1 Tim. 3:16. In addition to these 252 manuscripts we have already established that the Unical Codex A exhibits “God”, to this we can add K, L and P (all of the 9th century) and we would not think ourselves dishonorable to also claim for our side C (5th century), F and G (9th century). We can also add to this number 33 ancient copies of the ‘Apostolus’. The ‘Apostolus’ is simply the book of the Lectionaries which contains Paul’s Epistles. These Lectionaries are significant in that they reflect the Ecclesiastical Tradition. In the early church the various Scripture readings where divided up into lections and were read in the churches based on the lectionary schedule. As you can see these Lectionaries reflect the text the early church used and consider original. Again, Burgon demonstrated that there are 36 known copies of the ‘Apostolus’–out of these 36 copies “God” is found in 33 of the copies and “Who” survives in only 3 copies. It is plain to see that the Ecclesiastical Tradition is clearly against the readings “who” or “which” being almost unanimously in favor of “God” in this passage.
Now we will examine the evidence provided us of the Early Church Fathers. In his Dissertation on I Tim. 3:16 Dean Burgon cites no less than 23 Fathers who support the reading “Theos”. A few of these follow:
Ignatius (A.D. 90) writes:
“There is one physician, both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made; God in the flesh” (Ephesians 2:7) and “God himself being made manifest in the form of a man.” (Ephesians 4:13).
It is of particular interest to note that Ignatius uses the Greek word for God (theos), and for flesh (sarki) in the first citation and the Greek word for manifest (using the form peanerasas) in the second, as does the Greek text of the KJV in 1 Timothy 3:16.
Hippolytus (A.D. 190) writes:
“A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject,” and “And even as He was preached then, in the same manner also did He come and manifest Himself, being by the Virgin and the Holy Spirit made a new man; for in that He had the heavenly (nature) of the Father, as the Word and the earthly (nature), as taking to Himself the flesh from the old Adam by the medium of the Virgin, He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man” (Hippolytus, Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, viii and xvii)
Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 370) writes:
“How is it that he who speaks thus fails to understand that God when manifested in flesh did not admit for the formation of His own body the conditions of human nature, but was born for us a Child by the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest;” (Gregory, Against Eunomius, 2:7)
Gregory of Nyssa is found to quote this place at least 22 times, each time he quotes “Theos” (God).
The ancient versions that attest to “Theos” are, the Georgian Version (6th century), the Harkleian Version (7th century) and the Slavonic Version (9th century). This reading is also authenticated by the following English translations: Tyndale 1534—God was shewed in the flesshe. Great Bible 1539—God was shewed in the flesshe. Geneva N.T. 1557—God is shewed in the fleshe. Bishops’ Bible in 1568—God was shewed manifestly in the flesh. Young 1862—God was manifested in flesh.
Here we will bring to a close our discussion of 1 Timothy 3:16. I believe as one surveys the evidence set forth that no other conclusion can be reached other than the fact that “Theos” was the word penned by the beloved Apostle Paul. It must also be concluded that the modern versions (NIV, NASV (NASB), NRSV, NLT, etc.) have indeed erred at 1 Tim. 3:16 by rendering this verse “He who” etc. and by doing so have altered one of the most fundamental of all Christian doctrines. Further, this reading makes no logical sense in the context of the verse. For there is no “great mystery” in a man being manifest in the flesh. I concur with Dr. Berriman who concluded:
“From whence can it be supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That “Theos” is the genuine original reading of this Text” (Burgon quoting Berriman, Revision Revised, p.446)?”
The readings of the modern versions are so absurd that even James White
(The King James Only Controversy p.207ff),
who is certainly no friend of the Traditional Received Text nor of the Authorized Version, admits that “there is much to be said in defense of the KJV rendering,” and that he “prefer[s] this reading, and feel[s] that it has more than sufficient support among the Greek manuscripts.”
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth,” John 17:17
“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.
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. He suggests Cross reference between such fine translations as the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version . . . .
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.
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! 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. 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. 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. But White also begins with the conclusion of his argument that we can trust the modern translations and then uses his conclusion in the course of his arguments.
White also charges Hills with a desire for absolute certainty. 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.
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. 
White apparently assumes that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God. 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.
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. (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
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 was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was in excellent condition. Yet it omitsGenesis 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 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, 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.
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.
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 (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.)
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.
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?
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?
Did not the Vatican officially denounce democracy and the American concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of the press? Have not the Popes always fought liberty, equality and separation of church and state?
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 . . . .
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. Pope Pius XII then declared, Translations could be produced in cooperation with separated brethren.
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.
Cardinal Martini’s editorship appears only on the frontispiece of the edition for translators, lest Protestants panic. Martini is a liberal Jesuit. 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.
Now both Protestant and Catholic versions are based on the same Vaticanus (B) minority Greek text. The Nestle-Aland and U.B.S. texts are now identical. 
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. White’s argument is that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not affect his translation of the Bible.
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).
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. The writings of Erasmus were later banned by the Pope.
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. 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. 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. They avoided the allegorism of the Alexandrians.
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. The outstanding Jewish allegorist was Philo (c. 20 B.C. to 54 A.D.) who mixed Scripture with Greek philosophy.
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 . . . .
The school of Antioch in Syria avoided both the letterism of the Jews and the allegorism of the Alexandrians. They held to both figures of speech and plain speech. They fought Origen of Alexandria in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method.
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.
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.
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. White denies this but many other scholars confirm it.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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, . . . . 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?
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. He also deleted 
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’sinvolvement 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. 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.
 James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,1995) page 7.
 Ibid, page 53.
 Ibid, page 5.
 Ibid, pp. 243-244.
 Ibid, page 92.
 Ibid, page 7.
 Ibid, page 93.
 Ibid, page 116.
 Ibid, page 146.
 Ibid, page 245.
 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968) page 273. Ibid, page 271.
 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.
 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.
 Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) pp. 346- 366.
 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.
 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.
 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
 Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1981) pp. 382-384.
 Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days pp. 127-131.
 Ibid, pp. 54-56.
 Ibid, page 247.
 Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion , page 141.
 Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion , page 142.
 White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? , page 246.
 Ibid, pp. 244-245.
 Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians, Question 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at http://www.chick.com
 Ibid, Question 57 (Was Erasmus a good Catholic?).
 Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, page 535.
 Barry Burton, Let’s Weigh the Evidence (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 64-65.
 Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 3rd ed., 1970) pp. 48-50.
 Ibid, p. 48.
 Ibid, p. 25-26.
 Ibid., p. 27..
 Ibid, p. 28.
 Ibid, p. 48.
 Ibid, p. 49.
 White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 43.
 Ibid, page 44.
 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.
 James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 153.
 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).
 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.
 Ibid, page 37.
 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.
 Ibid, pp. 196-197.
 White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 155.
 Burton, Let’s Weigh the Evidence , page 27.
 Ibid, pp. 64-65.
 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.
 White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 247.
Deuteronomy 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
Dr. James R. White is a Calvinist theologian based out of Phoenix, Arizona . . .
White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a presuppositional apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Th.M., a Th.D. and a D.M. from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Seminary). …
Unfortunately, James White is a big opponent (enemy) of King James Onlyism. White endorses using the modern corrupt Bible versions (although he admits he doesn’t support all of them). Nevertheless, James White is bad news for promoting counterfeit Bible versions (there are some YouTube videos of White debating the issue if you’d like to watch them). I’ve noticed that nearly all the apostate religious leaders who support the new Satanic counterfeit Bible versions also teach the heresy of Lordship Salvation. It makes sense, because it’s the new corrupted Bible versions which promote a false understanding of what it Biblically means to “repent.” Instead of “a change of mind” (which is Biblical), the new perversions redefine repentance to mean “a change of lifestyle.” This is human effort and a form of works salvation. Biblical salvation is a free gift, without works of self-righteousness, and is not a form of probation requiring our good behavior. The person who BELIEVES the Gospel has eternal life, which can never be forfeitesaved lost.
If you understand that salvation comes ONLY by the imputed righteousness of God in response to one’s faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then it becomes woefully clear just how Satanic and corrupt all these new Bible versions are. All modern versions attack the deity of Jesus Christ. Check what I say and you will discover it is true, that every religious leader (they aren’t Biblical Christians) who teach Lordship Salvation also support the corrupt modern Bible versions. I don’t know even one King James Bible Only preacher who teaches Lordship Salvation.
And don’t buy into the nonsense from any pastor or Bible college (e.g., Moody Bible SINstitute and Bob Jones PANTSiversity) who say they prefer and mainly use the King James Bible, but they’re ok with the new Satanic Bible PERversions!!! They are compromised and pulling on the same rope as the Devil. It is a big issue! If our spiritual milk and meat (food) is corrupted, then we are in BIG TROUBLE! If you are in a church that uses multiple Bible versions, get out of there before you’re corrupted!!! God only wrote one book, not 200 different English versions! Every month another new Bible version comes out of the pits of darkness!
I did not write this article to be unkind, nor do I have anything personal against James White. Albeit, as born-again Christians we are commanded in Jude 1:3 to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” There is nothing more important in this universe than the purity of God’sWords. Our text verse is a warning from God not to add or subtract from His Words. The King James Bible is unique, standing alone against all the Westcott and Hort modern translations from Hell. Westcott and Hort were unsaved heretics and pro-Catholics. Only the King James Bible hasn’t been tampered with!
JAMES WHITE TEACHES LORDSHIP SALVATION HERESY
White also teaches the heresy of Lordship Salvation and misrepresents the heart of the debate. In this video White alleges that critics of Lordship Salvation don’t believe repentance is necessary for salvation. That is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, because I am 100% against Lordship Salvation and I absolutely DO believe that repentance is required for salvation. So anyone who tries to portray critics of the Lordship Salvation heresy as not believing in repentance is ignorant. Repentance is essential in order to be saved.
The truth is that there are two drastically different views of what it means to “repent.” And this is where the conflict arises today in the churches. I believe the problem has been caused by the hundreds of corrupt new Bible versions, which have redefined repentance from “a change of mind” to mean “a change of lifestyle.” Case in point, consider the Satanic “Easy-To-Read” Version of the Bible, which redefines the word “repent” in Mark 1:15 to require changing your life and your heart in order to be saved. That is total heresy! You change your mind about sin (John 3:20), admitting that you’re a guilty sinner (Romans 3:19), and you believe the Gospel to be saved (Mark 1:15).
Here is an excellent 17:21 minute video by Dr. Hank Lindstrom explaining the simple Gospel and how you can be saved without works. Beware of Dr. James White’s heresy of Lordship Salvation, which requires a change of lifestyle to seal and validate one’s salvation. In sharp contrast to the heresy of Paul Washer, John MacArthur and James White, please read the beautiful words of Romans 4:5-6 about the imputed righteousness of God, which is without works of any sort, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” Whew, that’s good stuff!!!
I do not believe that adherents of Lordship Salvation are saved, because they confuse salvation with discipleship. Acts 15:1, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” The false prophets in Acts 15:1 were not saved. They were still hellbound in their sins, advocates of a false plan of salvation. This is no different than the heresy of Lordship Salvation, which requires a person to follow Christ (discipleship) in order to be saved. Here are some helpful quotes between salvation and discipleship END
According to one source that I have found – by men’s ‘wisdom’ – as of Oct 2014 – there are 395+ different ‘versions – translations – paraphrases’ of “the word of the Lord” ~ the Holy Bible in the English language http://www.net-comber.com/bible-year.html
How important are each and every word to “the Lord God Almighty”? It is written in “the word of the Lord” in Proverbs, Chapter 30 ~ KJV:  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
One example – Words ending with *eth ~ KJV – which means continued action – NOT just a ONE TIME OCCURRENCE *eth – an ending of the third person singular present indicative of verbs, now occurring only in archaic forms or used in solemn or poetic language: doeth or doth; hopeth; sitteth. – from – Dictionary.com @ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eth
Old Testament = 3,662 Occurrences ~ in 2,663 Verses ~ in 732 Chapters ~ in 37 Books of 39 Books
Obadiah = 0 | Jonah = 0
New Testament = 1,423 Occurrences ~ in 998 Verses ~ in 239 Chapters ~ in all 27 Books
The Holy Bible ~ KJV = 5,085 Occurrences in 4,086 Verses ~ in 971 Chapters ~ in 64 of 66 Books
It is simple – how many truly “believeth” in faith, and “know the certainty of the words of truth” (Proverbs 22:21 ~ KJV) as they are clearly written in “the word of the Lord”, the Holy Bible ~ KJV?
How many men follow other men – rather than having the desire that: “we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:28-29 ~ KJV) Modern Bibles have used the Alexandrian Texts, which serious theologians of many years ago, agreed were corrupted and manipulated texts. They even went so far as to call them heretical. Problems with NIV translators:
In 1991, Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollencott, a lesbian, wrote a book, “Sensuous Spirituality Out From Fundamentalism”. In the “Episcopal Witness, June 1991, she states, “My lesbianism has always been a part of me.” She moved away from literalism within the Scriptures, categorizing the literal as allegory, metaphors, etc.
Her homosexual book, “Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?” echoes her NIV’s assertion that the Bible censures only criminal offenses like “prostitution” and “violent gang rape”, not sincere homosexuals drawn to someone of the same sex.
KJV: I Cor. 6:9 effeminate (soft; pliable; nothing to do with criminality) Compared with: NIV, NASB et al: male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
KJV: Deut. 23:17; I Kings 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7 calls the “offenders” sodomites. Compared with: NIV, NASB et al: merely labels them as shrine prostitutes, thereby excluding the rest of the homosexuals!
In her first book, Dr. Mollencott speaks of using Tarot cards and I Ching (two forms of Occultism) and doing “automatic writing”, in which the spirits take control of her writing hand and do the actual writing. This is one of the translators of the NIV! Doesn’t that make you feel comfortable and eternally secure?! It gets worse…
The most important member of this translation team was Dr. Woodstra, Chairman of the Old Testament Committee. In the 1950’s he inspired the idea of the NIV and pushed it through during the 1960’s.
In the January 1992 edition of “The Record” (a pro-homosexual newspaper), it was stated, “Woodstra was a long-time friend of the E.C.” (Evangelicals Concerned). These are homosexuals who believe it is OK to be a homosexual Christian. He said the Holy Bible said nothing about censuring homosexuality and therefore, his bible doesn’t either.
Dr. Mollencott went to the Presbyterian Church’s “USA’s Goddess Worship Re-imaging Conference which believes that the universe is God; so therefore, we are a part of God (Hinduism)! As Christians, we know that God created the Universe, of which we are a part, and therefore, we cannot be any part of God; the two are separate.
Dr. Mollencott also makes the mistake of giving God a female image, calling Him “she” and “her”. At this conference, they were worshipping something called “The heart of the beast”. It is nothing like any of us would see in a Christian worship service and it had to be held up on either side! What a weak god that is! When one confronts the International Bible Society or the NIV people about the involvement of some of their translators, they will deny everything that you can think of…even written physical proofs!
Only 1% of the ancient manuscripts’ copies agree with the new versions. 99% agree with the KJV! A huge difference!
The Bible in other languages The old Latin version agrees 2:1 with the KJV (50-60 manuscripts) Peshitta (Holy Bible in other languages) agrees 3:1 (300 manuscripts) Gothic agrees 3:1 (350 manuscripts) Armenian agrees 3:2 Ethiopic: KJV dominated
When an analysis of the early Church Fathers was done by Bosworth, he found the following in agreement with the KJV:
2:1 before 225 A.D. 3:2 before 400 A. D. 3:1 for doctrinal verses
The King James Version brings forth the readings that the early Church had from the beginning.
Foreign Language Bibles
The French, German, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, Icelandic Bibles agreed exactly with the KJV until 1881, when Westcott came onto the scene, and started muddying the waters of translation.
Tyndale’s Bible is the first readable English Bible; prior to this, English was a mixture of words and spellings from many nationalities. Westcott said, “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 a man already known for what undoubtedly will be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulty finding its way.”
Westcott admitted he was guilty of “dangerous heresy”. What kind of “dangerous heresy” was he guilty of? These are quotes from his partner (Hort) on Greek texts:
“America is a standing menace to the whole civilization. I wish the American union may be shivered to pieces…My deep hatred of democracy in all its forms.”
Westcott had a club called “The Hermes Club”, named after the devil! A. Sidgwick and Fredric Myers were members of this club with Westcott. In this club was a branch called the “Ghostly Guild” in which the two Greek translators were members, Hort and Westcott, along with Lightfoot who gave us a lexicon which can be bought in a Christian bookstore! These men were all occultists!
Society for Psychical Research
This society was “favorably impressed with Madame Blavatsky” (another occultist), after they interviewed her. These people were involved in all sorts of occultic practices, and yet they were leading bible translators!
Westcott and Hort had another club known as “Apostles”, definitely not apostles of Christ! Who were the members? H. Sidgwick (an arch Luciferian at that time); Arthur Balfour (Prime Minister of England) and Hort.
The Eranus Club consisted of these three aforementioned men as well as Westcott. Synthetic Society consisted of A. Balfour and Fredric Myers from the Hermes Club. Balfour and Cecil Rhodes started the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the League of Nations.
These men carried self-appointed titles:
The Dragon: H. Sidgwick, G. Balfour and F. Meyers The Beast: A. Balfour The False Prophet: Westcott & Hort
A passage they liked to use was: “Until the time of the New Order”, Heb. 9: 10 (NTV). The world powers were cavorting with the likes of these satanists and luciferians and is ongoing today…even in the translation of modern perversions of the Holy Bible. Have you noticed in the last 20-30 years, most of these translations wisely DO NOT call their translations “The Holy Bible”? Have you ever wondered why not? It’s because they are anything but “holy”!
Today, a five-man team (“United Bible Society”) is using Westcott’s diabolical Greek text and they are responsible for the NIV. When Time Magazine was asked who would be the next pope, they chose Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. He wrote the preface to “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary”. This commentary denies all the essentials of the Christian faith: the resurrection, the Ascension, the miracles, and the deity of Christ. They question everything and anybody who reads their works end up with questions, doubts, and suspicion of the Holy Bible.
Modern pastors are using this corrupted Greek text that was worked on by Cardinal Martini, who said, “Fundamentalists were dangerous”! (“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, his article). Martini was the man who signed “The Mutual Recognition Agreement” with Israel…an agreement between Israel and the papacy, which may be part of the reason why the pope went to Israel on May 26, 2014, to be formally given the ancient tomb of King David and the Temple Mount. Unbeknownst to the people of Israel, the Vatican already owns Israel.
In a “recent” document, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”, signed by many protestant leaders, it states, “…for many evangelicals, the new birth requires baptismal initiation into the community…” Occultists, Knights of Columbus, and Masons, etc. are initiated; Christians are NOT initiated, they are born again! This document refers to “…not only the One (remember him? satan) who is the Truth, but the very idea of truth itself…” — that “truth” being satan! “The Initiation Bible” can be bought at Christian bookstores!!! For shame!
Spangler says, “Luciferic initiation…is an invitation into the New Age.”
Jer. 26: 2 states: “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:”
We are NOT allowed to take one word out of the Holy Bible! We are not allowed to add to it either. Since the Creator of the universe was so concerned about the gathering of the bread fragments that were scattered about in the grass after He fed thousands of people, think how important it is that none of His words be scattered or lost!
What was their agenda in brief? To infiltrate the Christian Church with false doctrines To promote satan over Christ To introduce the NWO agenda through “God’s” word To cause people to become subservient to their global handlers Ultimately, to lead many to eternal damnation, thereby slapping God in the face. As long as people continue to disagree with the facts, they’re on a long train to eternal separation from God!
C.H. Spurgeon once made the statement about the Holy Bible ~ KJV: “Brethren, we shall not adjust our Bible to the age, but the age to the Bible.”
As it is written in “the word of the Lord” in Proverbs, Chapter 30 ~ KJV  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar. It may not seem important but deception by small actions…. One word at a time One meaning at a time One doctrine at a time All working for…. One confused and lost Child of God at a time.
So… Virginia Mollencott, a self-proclaimed omnigender lesbian,…a sodomite! Marten Woudstra, a self-proclaimed homosexual,…a sodomite! Madame Blavatsky, a leader in the occult/satanic worship; hence the title ‘Madame’. All three of these wicked individuals were/are deeply involved in the translation process of the NIV. The NIV is definitely NOT from God! Westcott himself was one of the founders of the Cambridge Ghost Society. Westcott and Hort were psychic Ghost Hunters. Not to mention that the NIV was translated from the corrupted Alexandrian Greek texts. If this is not convincing enough that the NIV is straight from Hell, then consider this–The parent company (Harper Collins) who publishes the NIV, also publishes The Joy of Gay Sex, and The Satanic Bible (Matt 6:24). It doesn’t take a whole lot of common sense to figure this out; the NIV is evil and corrupt.
The Vaticanus was located in pristine condition in the Vatican Library during 1481AD which should ring alarm bells for born-again Christians as it too originated from Egypt. Numerous sections of scriptural verses are missing. Totally missing Scriptures in Vaticanus includes – Genesis 1:1 through to Genesis 46:28 Psalms 106-138 Matthew 16:2-3 The Pauline Pastoral Epistles Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and the book of Revelation
The Codex Sinaiticus was located in a rubbish bin in 1844 behind St Catherine’s Monastery near Mount Sinai. Words are obviously missing, and the manuscript is riddled with ‘corrections’ made in the 7th century. While this manuscript may be considered the one of the oldest – it is also considered the most ‘corrected’ (or altered) with its later additions.