Beware of Spirituality Without Theology

John 5:39, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


Alice Ann Bailey’s (1880-1949) occult writings are archived and promoted by the organization LUCIS TRUST,” which originally began in 1922 as “LUCIFER TRUST.” She was extremely intelligent as a writer, but unsaved and a devout Luciferian-worshipper. She woefully lacked the wisdom of God. For obvious reasons, the devil-loving company changed their name in 1925 to avoid public scrutiny…
The Lucis Trust’s publishing company was founded in the early 1920s as the Lucifer Publishing Company. The Lucis Trust says that the name was probably chosen to honor Lucifer. The name was changed in 1925 to the Lucis Publishing Company. In Latin lucem ferre means “to bear light” and lucis means of light. The company has headquarters in New York City, London, and Geneva.

SOURCE: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stated purpose of Lucis Trust is to help prepare the world to receive the coming Antichrist…
“The coming world Teacher will be mainly concerned, not with the result of past error and inadequacy, but with the requirements of a new world order and with the reorganisation of the social structure. World Goodwill distributes educational and informative literature on these themes.”

SOURCE: Lucis – Purposes And Objectives

As I was doing some research today, I ran across the following disturbing writing by Alice Bailey, which prompted me to warn my page visitors about an increasing trend in the world, society and churches to pursue spirituality without theology. That’s all we hear nowadays from Oprah Winfrey and umpteen new agers, who speak of spirituality while expressing disdain for organized religion and Christian fundamentalism. I think it is safe to say that Alice Bailey could be called the mother of new age today. According to Alice Bailey, this trend is ushering in the New World Order (NWO) faster than we think.
Listen to what this evil woman, devil in disguise and mega false prophetess says…
The new world religion is nearer than many think, and this is due to two things: first, the theological quarrels are mainly over non-essentials, and secondly, the younger generation is basically spiritual but quite uninterested in theology. The intelligent youth of all countries are rapidly repudiating orthodox theology, state ecclesiasticism and the control of the church. They are neither interested in man-made interpretations of truth nor in past quarrels between the major world religions.
At the same time, they are profoundly interested in the spiritual values and are earnestly seeking verification of their deep-seated unvoiced recognitions. They look to no bible or system of so-called inspired spiritual knowledge and revelation, but their eyes are on the undefined larger wholes in which they seek to merge and lose themselves, such as the state, an ideology, or humanity itself. In this expression of the spirit of self-abnegation may be seen the appearance of the deepest truth of all religion and the justification of the Christian message.
Christ, in His high place, cares not whether men accept the theological interpretations of scholars and churchmen, but He does care whether the keynote of His life of sacrifice and service is reproduced among men; it is immaterial to Him whether the emphasis laid upon the detail and the veracity of the Gospel story is recognised and accepted, for He is more interested that the search for truth and for subjective spiritual experience should persist; He knows that within each human heart is found that which responds instinctively to God, and that the hope of ultimate glory lies hid in the Christ-consciousness.
Therefore, in the new world order, spirituality will supersede theology; living experience will take the place of theological acceptances. The spiritual realities will emerge with increasing clarity and the form aspect will recede into the background; the new emerging truths. These truths will be founded on the ancient realities but will be adapted to modern need and will manifest progressively the revelation of the divine nature and quality. God is now known as Intelligence and Love. That the past has given us. He must be known as Will and Purpose, and that the future will reveal.” [emphasis added]
SOURCE: Alice Bailey, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, pp.201-202.

Alice Bailey was a devil. I don’t know if you caught it in the preceding quote, but Miss Bailey teaches that Jesus doesn’t care if people accept or reject the Gospel, just so long as they have what she terms, “the Christ-consciousness”…
Christ, in His high place, cares not whether men accept the theological interpretations of scholars and churchmen, but He does care whether the keynote of His life of sacrifice and service is reproduced among men; it is immaterial to Him whether the emphasis laid upon the detail and the veracity of the Gospel story is recognised and accepted, for He is more interested that the search for truth and for subjective spiritual experience should persist; He knows that within each human heart is found that which responds instinctively to God, and that the hope of ultimate glory lies hid in the Christ-consciousness.” [emphasis added]
SOURCE: Alice Bailey, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, pp.201-202.

In other words, Alice Bailey is teaching people to reject everything that the Word of God teaches, except for Christ’s life of sacrifice for others. In the shameful, satanic world of Miss Bailey, Christianity is summed up and limited to living for others without being born-again. This is why we often hear new agers talking about Christ’s love, helping others and forgiveness; but they reject Christ’s preaching against sin (John 7:7), the need for the new second birth, His command to “SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES” (John 5:39) and the Lord’s teachings on everlasting Hell, fire and damnation for the unsaved (Matthew 18:8; 25:41). Effectively, new age retains the outer shell of Christianity, while hollowing out the interior and instead filling it with Luciferian doctrine. In other words, new age is repackaging devil-worship in a Christian wrapper. The Bible warns us that this is how satan normally operates…
2nd Corinthians 11:13-15, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
My Christian brethren and sisters, what I have just shared with you ought to compel you more than ever to do three things:
Support your local King James believing new testament church. You can learn all about the Church from Pastor Jack Hyles’ awesome Scriptural Bible study titled, what else, “THE CHURCH”. Alice Bailey said that the NWO is happening faster than expected because today’s youth are uninterested in orthodox theology (Bible fundamentals) and the Church. Again, as you just read, she states: “the younger generation is basically spiritual but quite uninterested in theology. The intelligent youth of all countries are rapidly repudiating orthodox theology, state ecclesiasticism and the control of the church. They are neither interested in man-made interpretations of truth nor in past quarrels between the major world religions.” Isn’t that terrible. Do you know why youth are no longer interested in the Church? It is because the Church is no longer interesting.
Pastors don’t preach with authority anymore, because our churches have been infiltrated with corrupt authorityless Bible versions. The churches have lost their authority. We’ve been hearing a lot of talk lately from actors, singers, athletes and religious people, saying that they are “spiritual” but not religious. They are caught up into new age without even realizing it. This is why believers must support their local fundamental churches, who use only the King James Bible, go soul-winning, run bus routes, preach the simplicity that is in Christ and teach Biblical theology. Remember, the Church is the pillar of truth, which is build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ (1st Corinthians 3:11). 1st Timothy 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Matthew 16:18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Greek: petros, pebble, a small piece of rock), and upon this rock (Greek: Petra, a mass of rock, a mountain) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The foundation of new age is Lucifer and their pillars are manmade occult doctrine.
Preach and teach the great theological doctrines of the inspired Word of God in our churches.
It is alarming that so many churches these days are telling children’s stories, singing songs, watching religious YouTube videos on large overhead projection screens, having Watchcare (cell block) Groups, enjoying special music and orchestras; but the doctrines of the Word of God are not taught, or barely taught. Every pastor and Christian worker ought to regularly teach the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith; namely, the Godhead, Christ’s deity, the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, the blood applied in Heaven on the mercy seat, the virgin birth of Jesus, Christ’s sinless life, the simplicity that is in Christ (the Gospel), Christ’s imminent return (Rapture) and the Second Coming, Christ’s vicarious (substitute in our place) death on the cross, the Lord’s bodily resurrection, and all the Word of God.
Beware of spirituality creeping into the church without theology.
Theology is the study of God. Increasingly we are hearing America’s most famous preachers give motivational speeches (like Joel Osteen), deliver political speeches (like Mike Huckabee), and teach religious psychology (like Pat Robertson and James Dobson). This is not Biblical preaching! The great need of the hour is preaching preachers who preach nothing but the pure Word of God. I agree with Brother Lester Roloff that our Bible colleges ought to require preacher boys to memorize one full chapter of the Holy Bible each month. Our churches have lost their authority because our preachers don’t abide in the Word of God anymore.
Jesus said concerning the human heart of man, “for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:45). Most preachers merely surf the internet, read blogs, listen to liberal heretics like MacArthur and it shows in their lame authorityless sermonettes on Sunday. We’ve got to get into the Word of God if we are to preach with authority, because the Word of God is authoritative. Acts 4:13, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

These days our church pulpits are filled with all kinds of substitutes for Biblical theology. Beware of teachings of spiritually that are empty of the Scriptures, and talk of bettering human nature without the need for the new birth by faith in the Gospel (good news) of the Lord Jesus Christ. Religious humanism and new age go hand-in-hand. Any spirituality without the Holy Bible is satanic. “Ye must be born again” (John 3:5-7).
God deliver our churches from the curse of Joel Osteen’s motivational messages, Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life ecumenical garbage that eviscerates the old-time religion, Billy Graham’s Catholic-embracing ecumenical nightmare, John MacArthur’s false plan of Lordship Salvation and his error that Jesus’ blood is not applied to the heavenly mercy seat, and so forth! Our churches are in trouble. Rick Warren is a member of The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), which is affiliated with Lucis Trust…
Lucis Trust is run through an international board of trustees whose membership is said to have included: John D. Rockefeller; Norman Cousins; Robert S. McNamara; Thomas Watson, Jr. (IBM, former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow); Henry Clausen, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, 33rd Degree, Southern District Scottish Rite and Henry Kissinger. This would then tie Bailey’s influential occult organization into the international conspiracy of elitists, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergs, and the Trilateral Commission. [emphasis added]
SOURCE: Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey & World Goodwill

Remember that Helena Blavatsky said occultists would infiltrate the churches. The founder of “Lucifer” Magazine in 1887, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), and editor Annie Besant (1847-1933), along with other occultists believed that Christian churches were the key to introducing the doctrines of Lucifer to large masses of people. The 1904 annual report of the Theosophical Society stated:
I believe it is through the Churches and not through the Theosophical Society that Theosophy [the worship of Lucifer]… must and should come to large bodies of people in the West.
SOURCE: Transactions of the Theosophical Society, H. P. Blavatsky, Annie Besant, 1904, p. 377.

Alice Bailey Mentions “Christ” 666 Times in Her Book!
In all her ungodly writings, Alice Bailey continually speaks of Jesus and Lucifer both as “Christ.” She does this deliberately to confuse, deceive and mislead the naive reader into believing that the coming Antichrist will be Christ himself.
The preceding quote comes from Alice Bailey’s book titled, “The Externalisation Of The Hierarchy”, in which the word “Christ” appears 666 times!!! Yes! Search the document for yourself! This is a .pdf document, which opens with Adobe Acrobat. Every computer/smartphone/android device should have this free program/app installed, so you can read .pdf files.
It is no coincidence that Bailey mentions Christ 666 times, for this is the number of the Beast! Revelation 13:18, “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Alice Bailey is as satanic as can be, mocking the Lord Jesus Christ by associating Him with 666. It should be visibly clear to the Christian reader that Miss Bailey wants to deceive her readers into recognizing the coming Antichrist (the Beast) as the true Messiah, the Christ.

It is not a coincidence that Christ-rejecting Jews (Judaism) and Arabs (Islam) are both awaiting their messiah, who will be the Antichrist. Both Judaizers and Muslims reject Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, the Christ, Who came 2,000 years ago to die on the cross to redeem men from their sins. Judaizers and Muslims are still awaiting their messiah (who will be the Antichrist – 2nd Thessalonians 2:4). We are now living in the end times, in which we will increasingly hear more about the coming Antichrist, who is called: the teacher, Maitreya, Mahdi, a world leader, Messiah, Christ, et cetera. Matthew 24:23, “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Even more frightening is that the word “church” appears 119 times in the same book, evidencing Miss Bailey’s burning passion to corrupt the churches with her Luciferian doctrine!!! Read the following blasphemy by Miss Bailey, where she denies Christ as being the only begotten Son of God…
The Christian Church has laid so much emphasis on Christ’s unique position as the one and only Son of God that great error has crept in and has been fostered for centuries; Christ Himself foresaw the possibility of this error and tried to offset it by pointing out that we are all the “sons of God” and that “greater things than I do shall you do”—a statement which no commentators have ever understood or adequately explained. The occult fact is that there is no being on Earth, from the very lowest form of life to the very highest, who is not moving onward towards a greater and finer expression of divinity, and Christ Himself is no exception to this universal evolutionary law. [emphasis added]
SOURCE: Alice Bailey, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, pp.201-202.

As evidenced by the preceding demonic quote (which is nearly identical to what Mormons teach), the philosophy of new age is that all men can be gods just as Jesus Christ. New agers and Mormons believe that Jesus was no more God than what is attainable by all men through religious enlightenment. In sharp contrast, the Holy Bible teaches that Jesus is Almighty God. The Godhead indwelt the fleshly body of the Lord Jesus Christ. Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses errantly teach that Michael the archangel became Jesus. That is blasphemy! Jesus never was, nor ever will be, an archangel. Jesus is God, “the almighty” (Revelation 1:8 – King James Bible). John 1:1-3,14 and John 10:33 evidence that Jesus is God Almighty! If you want to get to know God, then you must get to know Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, by abiding in the Word as a born-again child of God.

All Modern Bible Versions Hide Lucifer, Just As Alice Bailey Does
In her writings, Alice Bailey continually makes references to the Kingdom of God, Christ, God, the church and many other religious terms; yet she deceptively hides her true allegiance to lucifer, satan! Likewise, all modern Bible versions have been corrupted, removing the only mention of “Lucifer” from the Bible in Isaiah 14:12. The following is a drastic comparison between the beloved King James Bible and the New International Reader’s Version (a teen Bible version that’s virtually identical to the NIV)…
KING JAMES BIBLEIsaiah 14:12-15, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
NEW INTERNATIONAL READER’S VERSION — Isaiah 14:12-15, “King of Babylonia, you thought you were the bright morning star. But now you have fallen from heaven! You once brought nations down. But now you have been thrown down to the earth! You said in your heart, ‘I will go up to heaven. I’ll raise my throne above the stars of God. I’ll sit as king on the mountain where the gods meet. I’ll set up my throne on the highest slopes of the sacred mountain. I will rise above the tops of the clouds. I’ll make myself like the Most High God.’ But now you have been brought down to the grave. You have been thrown into the deepest part of the pit.
Praise God for the trustworthy King James Bible!!! If you have a corrupted modern Bible (and they’re all corrupt), Lucifer is gone!

The New World Order Will Be Implemented By Apostates in the Churches!
Alice Bailey foretold that the satanic New World Order will be implemented and developed in the churches…
Nothing can prevent the new world religion from eventually emerging. It always has down the ages and it always will. There is no finality in the presentation of truth; it develops and grows to meet man’s growing demand for light. It will be implemented and developed by the spiritually minded in all churches, whose minds are open to the new inspirations of God’s Mind, who are liberal and kind and whose individual lives are pure and aspiring…. The problem of the freedom of the human soul and its individual relation to God Immanent and God Transcendent is the spiritual problem, facing all the world religions at this time.” [emphasis added]
SOURCE: Alice Bailey, Problems of Humanity, pp. 138-139.
If your church is using any Bible version other than the King James Bible, or in addition to the King James Bible, then Alice Bailey’s Luciferian doctrine is already in your church!!! All modern Bible versions totally remove the word “Godhead.” “Calvary” is gone too! And don’t look for the “Comforter,” because He’s missing as well!!! In the 1984 NIV, Jesus (the chief cornerstone) is changed to the Capstone” (see the All-Seeing-Eye at the top of the pyramid on back of every U.S. one dollar bill). Remember, Lucifer-lover Alice Bailey mentions the word “Christ” 666 times in her book, “The Externalisation Of The Hierarchy.” Literally, Miss Bailey wants to mislead you into thinking that the coming Antichrist is the Christ. The Devil is envious of God’s authority, just as feminists resent men being in authority. The God of the Holy Bible is an authoritative God. It is His way or the Highway to Hell.

My friend, Luciferian-worshippers are behind all modern Bible versions and very few pastors care enough to research the matter, or else they are too cowardly to go against their apostate headquarters (Moody Bible SINstitute, Bob Jones PANTSiversity, GAYlor University)! I was disgusted reading today that the student senate at Baylor University (a Baptist Bible college) want the school administration to remove the ban in their policy against “HOMOSEXUAL ACTS”. There is no controversy if you believe the Holy Bible!!! No Christian is right with God who supports LGBT rights! Homosexuality is a deviate form of behavior and a sin according to God’s Word (Romans 1:24-32). If your church or college supports gay rights, please leave if you love God! You cannot love sin and be God’s friend (James 4:4). Tragically, our churches are becoming indifferent, apathetic and complacent. This is why so many young people no longer respect the Church. They’ve lost their Biblical authority!
I think in the future, if the Lord tarries His return, that the time will come when there will be a big push to completely rid the churches of the beloved King James Bible. As the vile homosexual agenda is pushed upon American society and the churches, most of them will eventually embrace LGBT homosexual rights. At such a time, liberal churches and the leftist media will intensify their smear campaign against the King James Bible, demonizing God’s Holy Word is a terrorist’s manual, bigotry, hate-speech and inappropriate for the new reorganized social order.
All of the following words (and there are many more) are missing in the New International Version (NIV), which is tragically the most popular and best-selling Bible version in the world today…
Sodomite, regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Godhead, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, propitiation, winebibbers, impute, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit.
Whoa, they eviscerated the Holy Scriptures! The new corrupt Bible versions all attack Christ’s deity, remove the Godhead, diminish Christ’s preeminence and remove all of the important theological terms—thus changing the Word of God from a theological book into a spiritual book. It should be obvious to you now why—because satan wants to weaken, water-down, and corrupt the Word of God, so that the next generation of churchgoers will be much more susceptible to embrace the coming Antichrist. You can expect to see SYMBOLS of The Great Pyramid and the All-Seeing-Eye increasingly creeping into the churches. At present, the symbols are being crept in on Bible covers (see the Triqueta 666 symbol on the corrupt New King James Version), symbols on religious music CD labels, et cetera. Many churches are saturated with occult symbols, from the building architecture to the crosses on the altar.

There is much information available online.
The corrupters at Biblica got smart. Instead of publishing a new Bible version every few years to make money, they just keep updating the NIV. The NIV 2011 changed 38.8% of the content from the NIV 1984. Can you imagine, if the Lord tarries His return, how much more they will hollow-out the Word of God in the next 20-30 years? If the present trend continues, the NIV Bible version in 10-15 years will be so lacking of any theological terms that it will become a mere spiritual book for the unconverted, shallow, religious but lost, new age crowd. As the churches become more worldly, so also is the world becoming more churchy!
Notice that the updated NIV 2011 is 38.8% different than the original NIV 1984…
The NIV 2011 should be considered the offspring of the TNIV (Today’s NIV), and the grandson of the NIV 1984. The genetic stock shared by all three translations is 18859 verses, which is 60.7% verse similarity. Some genetic traits skip a generation, and this is the case 0.6% of the time, where the NIV 1984 and the NIV 2011 share 171 verses of commonality against the TNIV. But as one would imagine, the child is more similar to the parent, and the TNIV and the NIV 2011 share 31.3% genetic makeup, or 9736 verses. But genetics alone cannot prevent mutations and variation, so the NIV 2011 is unique 7.5% of the time, or 2320 verses of originality. Broken down, this means that the NIV 2011 is 38.8% different than the NIV 1984 and 8% different than the TNIV. (See Robert Slowley. John Dyer has slightly different figures).
SOURCE: SBC VOICES and see also, NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV.

The dark predictions of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey concerning the churches being infiltrated by the occult is a present-day reality. It’s already happening! If today’s churches are embracing the vile homosexual agenda, and are voting for sex-perverted Mormon leaders like Mitt Romney, and have bought into the state’s 501c3 licensing bribe, and worship present-day apostate and satanic Israel, and are using satanic corrupted Bible versions—you can be assured that they’ll also embrace the Luciferian doctrine, which substitutes new age spirituality in place of Biblical theology. Without the time-tested, pure, preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible, precious, Words of God in the King James Bible, the churches won’t stand a chance against the devil.
Please get you a King James Bible if you don’t have one already; love it, use it, read it, preach it, study it, memorize it and keep it by your side at all times. Don’t let the devil’s crowd take your King James Bible in exchange for a satanic “bible” version that has removed or changed 64,000 words in the butchered NIV as compared to the trustworthy King James Bible. satan is diluting the theological integrity of the Bible, making it read like a comic book. The devil’s greatest weapon is to con people into living the Christian life without ever being born-again, which is exactly what new age is doing! JESUS IS PRECIOUS!!! END

“Easter” in Acts 12:4

Is “Easter” in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word “pascha” or should it be translated as “passover”?

“pascha” is properly translated “Easter” in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.
The Greek word which is translated “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is the word “pascha“. This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered “Passover” in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.
The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of “pascha“.
Coming to the word “Easter” in God’s Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced “Easter“). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth “regenerating” itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as “Playboy” magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband!

These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.
The problem is that even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of “pascha” as “Easter” is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.
To unravel the confusion concerning “Easter” in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (“Then were the days of unleavened bread… ” [*ALWAYS read the CONTEXT of a verse before making assumptions]) To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the “days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:3).
Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4-5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.
Exodus 12:13-18: “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
    14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
    15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
    16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
    17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
    18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would “pass over” all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13-14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st.
This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
    17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
    18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the “days of unleavened bread.
Deuteronomy 16:1-8: “Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
    2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.
    3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
    4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
    5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
    6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
    7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
    8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein.
Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).
In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.
II Chronicles 8:13: “Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.
Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.
II Chronicles 30:15-21: “Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD.
Ezra 6:19-22: “And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.
We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.
Now let us look at Acts 12:3-4: “And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: “…(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)” The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the “queen of heaven“. He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.
First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod’s actions.
Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod’s murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.

In further considering Herod’s position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod’s celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod’s opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews “have all the fun“. He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
Thus we see that it was God’s providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate “pascha” as “Easter“. It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to “passover” would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.

1st Timothy 3:16

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 nogreat 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

The Deity Of Christ And MODERN VERSIONS

The Deity of Jesus Christ has always been a strong belief of true Christianity. Likewise, those “churches”, groups, or organizations who do not recognize the Deity of Jesus Christ are easily seen to not be true Christians but rather false religions. The contention regarding the Deity of Christ is certainly nothing new. Ever since the days of Jesus there has been a great dispute as to whether He was God or not. As you know many times the Pharisees took up stones to stone Him because He made the claim that He was God (John 10: 24-33). The Pharisees of His day rejected His claim, so too have many throughout history even up to our present day.
Gnosticism, a pre-Christian pagan religion, is one such group that denies the Deity of Jesus. After the death of Christ, however, Gnosticism began to infiltrate the church (around 85 to 90 AD). Dr. Thomas Holland writing in his Introduction to the Epistle of 1 John makes the following comments, “Gnostics believed in the duel nature of all things. They claimed that whatever is spiritual is good, and what is physical is evil. Since God is a Spirit, He is good and could not have created the physical universe, which they considered evil. They also believed God created other gods (called “aeons”) who created the physical universe.
One such Gnostic, Cerinthus, took the teachings of pagan Gnosticism and mixed them with Christianity. He taught that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary and became the “Christ” thirty years later at the time of his baptism. Therefore, according to this form of Gnosticism, Jesus Christ had a dual nature. He was both Jesus (physical) and the “Christ” (spiritual). At the crucifixion, so taught Cerinthus, the “Christ” departed leaving only the human Jesus to die. He claimed there was no resurrection of the physical body of Jesus. Cerinthus also proclaimed that “Christ” was the aeon (a lesser god) who made the earth…. Much of Cerinthus’ false doctrine can still be seen in the modern teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Most, if not all, Christians recognize the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a false religion. They also acknowledge that the New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible, is a corrupt work. What they don’t know is that the modern translation they are using is a close parallel to the New World Translation (NWT). Since we know that the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ and have altered their Bible to correspond with their belief. I thought it necessary to take a look at some of the most important scriptures dealing with the Deity of Christ to see just how the modern translations compare with the NWT and with the King James Version (KJV). Obviously, we won’t be able to cover every verse due to time and space but we will cover as many as possible. Due to the amount of verses we will be looking at I will attempt to keep my comments to as little as possible.
* * * * * * *

We will begin examining the belief that Joseph and Mary was His father and mother. Luke 2:33 reads as follows:
New International Version (NIV)- “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)- “And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.
New World Translation (NWT)- “And ITS father and mother continued wondering at the things being spoken about it.
King James Version
(KJV)- “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Notice how the NIV, NASB, and NWT all agree in calling Joseph Jesus’ “father”. The KJV rightly states “Joseph” instead of “father” knowing that Joseph was not Jesus’ Father. Let’s look at one more example: Luke 2:43
NIV– “After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.
NASB– “and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,
NWT– “and completed the days. But when they wer returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, and his parents did not notice it.
KJV– “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
Again, we see that the NIV and NASB agree with the NWT. And again the KJV is careful to call him “Joseph”. Think this is insignificant? Remember the beliefs of the Gnostics and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s). Any small change is important when it fosters heresy. But believe me it only gets worse from here.
* * * * * * *

Remember the Gnostic/JW’s belief that the “Christ” did not die on the cross? They believe that the “Christ” (the spiritual) left, leaving only “Jesus” (the physical) to die on the cross. Let’s take a look at a verse that pertains to this exact issue. Luke 23:42
NIV– “Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
NASB– “And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!”
NWT– “And he went on to say: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.””
KJV– “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Again, notice the NIV, NASB, and NWT are all in agreement in having the malefactor call Him “Jesus” (the physical) , his earthly name. This adds to the belief that the “Christ” (the spiritual) had left. However, the KJV rightly records the malefactor as saying “Lord” (the spiritual) thus refuting the belief that “Christ” had left before the crucifixion. Again, this may seem like a small thing to you but it carries a lot of weight doctrinally.
* * * * * * *

All are familiar with the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the fiery furnace. Let’s take a quick look at how our Bibles translate Daniel 3:25:
NIV– “He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.
NASB– “He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!“”
NWT– “He was answering and saying: “Look! I am beholding four able-bodied men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt to them, and the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.””
KJV– “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
I don’t think this one needs a whole lot of commentary. I believe you can see the absurdity of the NIV, NASB, and NWT translation of “a son of the gods”. Again, the KJV upholds the integrity of “the Son of God.
* * * * * *

Another attack on the Sonship of Jesus can be found in Acts 3:13, 4:27, and 4:30. For the article we will only look at Acts 3:13:
NIV– “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.
NASB– “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus,…”
NWT– “The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus,
KJV– “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his SON Jesus;
Again, the NIV and the NASV stand shoulder to shoulder with the NWT. Now Jesus is no longer a “SON” but rather a “servant.”
* * * * * * *

For our next example we want to look at Romans 14:10b&12. Remember we are talking about how the modern versions take away from the Deity of Christ as found in scripture. Romans 14:10b&12 reads as follows:
NIV– “…For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
NASB– “…For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
NWT– “…For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; 12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.
KJV– “…for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Here the change is very subtle but has great implications. As you see in the NIV, NASB, and NWT they each say we will stand before “God’s judgment seat” and then we will give an account to “God.” However, the KJV renders it quite different. The KJV says we will stand before the “judgment seat of Christ” and then we will give an account to “God”. Here is a very clear statement by the KJV that Christ is indeed God. Again the NIV and the NASB agree with the NWT in making the change from “Christ” to “God” in Romans 14:10 thus in these verses they deny the Deity of Christ.
* * * * * * *

Now we want to look at Philippians 2:6. This is a very familiar verse that should be well-known to most. Pay special attention to the wording of each Bible. (emphasis mine)
NIV– “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
NASB– “ who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
NWT– “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
KJV– “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Did Jesus consider Himself equal with God or not? Both cannot be correct! Here the NIV, NASB, and NWT all agree, however, they are in direct opposition to what the KJV says. The NIV, NASB, and NWT clearly contradict the teaching of the Trinity and negates much of the teaching of past church history. It is easy to see how and why the NWT does so but what about the NIV and NASB? Again we see that the NIV and the NASB side with the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible in detracting from the Deity of Christ.
* * * * * * *

Next we want to look at what perhaps is the greatest statement in scripture declaring that Jesus is “God.” Nothing could be more clearer about the Deity of Christ than I Timothy 3:16. Let’s see how the various translations handle this verse.
NIV– “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,…”
NASB– “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,…
NWT– “Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,
KJV– “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
Here it is easy to see why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translated this verse as they did since they completely reject that Jesus was “God manifest in the flesh”. It is quite shameful that the NIV and the NASB have followed along with this corrupt work in changing “God” to “He”. Of course “He” appeared in a body, Paul appeared in a body, you appeared in a body, and I appeared in a body. The NIV and the NASB have completely changed the essence of this verse by translating it as “He”. Despite the overwhelming manuscript evidence the NIV and the NASB alter their text to read “He”. Dean Burgon, perhaps the greatest scholar ever, had this to say, “The reading adopted by the revisors, is not found in more than two copies, is not supported by a single version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father.

(*I am not going to cover all the evidence for the reading “God”, as found in the KJV, in this blog. I will, however, devote another whole blog to I Tim. 3:16. In it we can look at the reading “God” in much greater detail.
* * * * * * *

Perhaps one of the most favorite verses of the modern version propionate is I John 5:7. I John 5:7 is one of the clearest verses on the Trinity in the entire Bible. Here we see clearly that Jesus and God are one. I John 5:7 reads as follows:
NIV– “For there are three that testify:
NASBFor there are three that testify:
NWT– “For there are three witness bearers,
KJV– “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (emphasis mine)
Here you can see that the NIV and the NASB are again in agreement with the NWT. They each omit the wonderful phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” which plainly speaks of Jesus’ Deity. Again we can see that the NIV and NASB have sided with the NWT in denying the Deity of Christ. There is so much controversy regarding I John 5:7 I will discuss this verse in greater detail in another essay.
* * * * * * *

(*I know this was another rather lengthy blog but I felt it was necessary considering the subject we were dealing with. The Deity of Christ is of vital importance to the Christian and we must be sure that the Bible we are using upholds the Deity of Christ in every point. As the writer said at the beginning this is by no means all the verses where the modern versions take away from the Deity of Christ. I could have easily listed many more but I believe the ones listed at least make you aware of the problem in modern versions. The argument is often made that the modern versions don’t completely deny the Deity of Christ. To this I will agree. There are still some verses in the modern versions that attest to the Deity of Christ. However, as you have seen, it is a whole lot harder to prove the Deity of Christ in the modern versions than it is in the KJV.
The question must also be asked, “what will they alter in the versions that are yet to be translated?” If they have went this far out of the way to water down the Deity of Christ one would have to wonder when they will eventually do away with any reference to the Deity of Christ. As I have shown you the KJV is far superior in presenting and preserving the Deity of Christ. As Christians we must reject any translation that deals treacherously with the Deity of Christ. It is our job to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” If we will do this honestly we will cling to the Bible that without question bolsters the Deity of Christ. And that Bible is the King James Version. THE END.
* * * * * * *

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

James R. White

James R. White

By George R. Theiss

(with an extended evaluation and rebuttal)

Copyright © 2005 by George R. Theiss


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.[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]


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![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. 


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.


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?


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.


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 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.


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.


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)


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.)


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.


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’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 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 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.


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.


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]


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.


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]


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.


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]


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

[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

[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
[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.

Beware Of James White’s False Teachings

by David J. Stewart | May 2015

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). …

SOURCE: James White – Wikipedia

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!



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

The Satanic Surge


For generations, mankind—including even nominal Christians—has debated the existence of satan. Charles Baudelaire, a French poet (9 April 1821 – 31 August 1867) made popular the adage that the greatest trick that satan plays on mankind is to make us believe that he does not exist, (“The devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist.”)”.
Accordingly, national polls now indicate that the number of Americans who do not believe in satan’s existence is growing at a rapid pace. A 2003 Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of all Americans believed in the existence of satan. By 2013, a YouGov poll indicated that number had fallen to 57 percent.
Score one for the devil.
However, in a seeming contradiction, membership in pagan, occultist, and satanic worship organizations in America is on the rise. Three days following the 2016 presidential election, the satanic temple (established in 2013), announced a sudden surge in membership of 50,000 people, bringing their total numbers to around 100,000. Though, by policy, no official numbers are released by the much larger church of satan (founded in 1966), observers and former members estimate its membership at 4 million in the U.S. and at least 10 million worldwide.
In the meantime, interest in witchcraft, Wicca, and other forms of paganism has grown to epic proportions. A 2010 census revealed witchcraft as the fourth-largest religion in America, with approximately 200,000 registered witches and an estimated 8 million unregistered practitioners.
While paganists and the occultists promote a more indirect, and even at times unacknowledged worship of satan, satanism is thought to embrace him more openly. However, with a strong sense of irony—perhaps even a predictable one—both the temple of satan and the church of satan “officially” deny their namesake’s existence even as they commonly invoke his name in many of their “worship” rituals.
If Bishop Sheen was correct, perhaps it is only natural that the two largest organizations promoting satan’s beliefs and his adulation would actively disavow his reality, while at the same time depict him as a being deserving of our respect and admiration. Regardless of one’s beliefs, the fact is that satan has cleaned up his act—he is going “mainstream”—and is seen as admirable, cultivated, and even cool.
In that vein, we find the hit television show, “Lucifer,” of the Fox network (just recently renewed for its third season), where satan is depicted as a “devilishly” attractive and intelligent being who has abandoned his throne in hell and retired to Los Angeles to pursue his favorite indulgences: wine, women, and song. However, in the midst of his new life, he begins to develop feelings of compassion and empathy that motivate him to reach out with his “unique” brand of assistance to the LA police department.
Beyond “Lucifer,” a cursory glance at the daily offerings of entertainment on television or at the movies reveals an untold number of shows portraying some semblance of the demonic world in an exciting and fun fashion.
Beyond entertainment, satanists are becoming more involved socially. In 2014, the satanic temple launched its Protect Children Project, aimed at providing First Amendment protection in the form of legal assistance to children who were “victims” of corporal punishment (spanking) in schools across the nation.
Two years later, the same organization introduced the “After School satan Clubs,” an extracurricular program designed to counter what it roughly characterizes as the evangelical Christian influence on schools across America. According to its website:
“It’s important that children be given an opportunity to realize that the evangelical materials now creeping into their schools are representative of but one religious opinion amongst many. . . .”
After School satan Clubs” will focus on free inquiry and rationalism, the scientific basis for which we know what we know about the world around us. We prefer to give children an appreciation of the natural wonders surrounding them, not a fear of everlasting other-worldly horrors.
As we accelerate to the climactic end of this age, wisdom dictates that we stay close to our Creator and take heed to the growing influence of satan and his demonic horde (I Timothy 4:1; I John 4:1), not to mention his cunning efforts to deny his own existence while simultaneously rehabilitating his reputation (2 Corinthians 11:14; 2:11).
He is the master of all deception, but his time is growing short. As Paul writes, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.” (Romans 16:20).

Is the King James Bible Inspired Or Preserved?

By David J. Stewart | August 2012 | Updated June 2017
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” —1st Peter 1:23


The precious King James Bible is BOTH inspired and preserved. There are some teachers today who say that the King James Bible is not preserved. There are others who say that the King James Bible is not inspired. And some teachers deny both preservation and inspiration. Without a doubt this is a delicate and sensitive issue in churches today, because the Bible is the greatest number one threat to satan. Yet, if we’re wrong on the Bible as born-again Christians, then we’re wrong on everything else. There is a raging battle today over the King James Bible.
You don’t have to read very far in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across scoffers who attack the “King James only” (*I am PROUDLY King James only) position and degrade those of us who would dare call the King James Bible “inspired.” Well, bless God, it’s inspired Word for Word!
Dr. Jerry Falwell announced that he had hired Dr. Harold Rawlings to “refute the ‘King James Only’ cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today.
Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the “veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of ‘King James Onlyism.
Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as “misinformers” and as “a cancerous sore.”
Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, “heretics.”
Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents “undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself.
And now in 2009 an influential pastor of one of America’s largest Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches is calling us “careless Bible students” and “ignorant” for saying that the King James Bible is inspired. How tragic!
I just don’t get it. Why would any Christian leader shake his congregation’s faith in the Word of God? If the Bible that we hold in our hands is not inspired, then let’s just throw it into the garbage and go buy the latest New York Times Bestseller to read instead. Thank God for Dr. Jack Hyles who upheld the King James Bible as inerrant and perfect…
I must have every Word if I speak His message. If I didn’t think I had a perfect Bible I’d close this one, walk out that door, I’d never walk in the pulpit again.” —Dr. Jack Hyles

The 54 King James Bible translators (47 did the actual work of translating) were a collection of some of the world’s best scholars. They approached this translation with the mindset that they were translating the very Words of God, not just some book. The King James Bible has been called “the monument of English prose” as well as “the only great work of art ever created by a committee.” Howbeit, the question is raised, is the King James Bible inspired? I say, yes, absolutely, and it is self evident.
We must begin with the Scriptures themselves, for Jesus commanded in John 5:39… SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES!


2nd Timothy 3:16 proclaims, “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” Some teachers lift out the words “is given”, claiming that only the original autographs given by God were inspired. I have a serious problem with that, because God promised to PRESERVE His Word in Psalm 12:6-7, “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.
For someone to say that God preserves His Word without inspiration is akin to saying that God preserves our salvation without the Holy Spirit. It just doesn’t set right. The very notion that a translation does not contain the inspired Words of God is disturbing indeed. And if a translation DOES contain the inspired Words of God, then it is divinely inspired.
Here is an excellent quote from Dr. Shelton Smith of the Sword Of The Lord…
God has preserved His inspired Word for us. It is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Textus Receptus. It is also preserved for us in the English in the King James Bible. What He at first inspired, the Lord God has now preserved. Therefore, when I hold the King James Bible in my hand, I hold the inspired text. It was inspired and now that inspired Word has been protected, preserved and provided for us!
SOURCE: What Is That Book You Hold In Your Hand?, by Dr. Shelton Smith, editor, Sword of the Lord.

Yes, I agree! How could God’s preserved Word not be inspired? If God has kept His promise to PRESERVE His Word (and He has!), then those Words must also maintain their inspiration. To say that only the originals (also know as the “autographs”) were inspired is to say that we do not have God’s inspired Word for today, which means that we cannot claim 2nd Timothy 3:16. If the man of God is to be “perfect,” then he absolutely MUST have the “inspired” Words of God to profit him.
It is expected for unsaved heathens to claim that mortal men authored the Bible. Yet, how sad it is when Gospel preachers agree with them by saying that flawed men wrote flawed translations which are flawed. How can any believer who loves the Lord feel confident if they are taught that the Bible they love, cherish and obey is imperfect? They cannot. It is a woeful injustice to rob a church congregation of their faith in God’s Word by diminishing the inerrancy and inspiration of the King James Bible. God has preserved His Word for the English-speaking people in the King James Bible, and it does not contain errors. Volumes of books have been written addressing alleged discrepancies and so-called mistranslations in the King James Bible. Ultimately, critics of the King James Bible find themselves barking up an empty tree.
Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) believed that the King James Bible is inspired. The following quote is taken from his book, The Need for an Every-Word Bible, page 54…
I’m tired of colleges and universities advertising that they use the King James Bible. Tell the whole story! Tell everyone that you do not believe that it is inspired word for word.” —Dr. Jack Hyles

A friend of mine who used to teach martial arts taught his students, “Practice does not make you perfect, perfect practice makes you perfect.” When he told me that I immediately thought about the King James Bible, because an imperfect Bible can only produce imperfect children. Corruption can only bring forth corruption. Jesus said an evil tree can only bring forth evil fruit. The reason why the King James Bible has been so successful over the centuries in getting people saved is because it is God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant and preserved Word.
Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God!
(by Dr. Peter Ruckman)

The King James translators humbly stated that their work may contain “imperfections and blemishes.” Remember, this is THEIR opinion of THEIR best efforts to better the Word of God in English. We must not forget that GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD and was overseeing the work . . .
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?
In Exodus 4:10 we find Moses lacking confidence in his own communication skills, and yet God used Moses to author the first five books of the Old Testament, “And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.” Clearly, Moses did not feel qualified to relay God’s Word to the people. The humility of the King James translators does not in any way mean that God wasn’t in complete control of the work they did. They prayerfully and diligently labored to give us the King James Bible.
Dr. Samuel Gipp states in favor of the King James Bible being inspired . . .
QUESTION: Did the translators of the Authorized Version claim to be inspired by God?
ANSWER: No. But Biblically that does not mean that they could not have been inspired. [emphasis added]
Does this mean that, because they did not claim God’s hand in translating the Scripture that He could not be or was not in control of their commission? For the answer we must look to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn’t know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.
SOURCE: THE ANSWER BOOK, chapter 14, by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.
I say, most definitely, yes, God was in control of the King James Bible committee and the Words of the King James Bible are inspired. This is not “double inspiration.” That is, God did not give His Words afresh to the King James translators. It simply means that God’s Words are inspired and always will be inspired, no matter what language they are translated into.
In 1st Corinthians 7:6 the Apostle Paul said, “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Paul felt that he was merely giving his personal opinion in this portion of Scripture, rather than writing what God had commanded him to; yet we know from 2nd Timothy 3:16 that, “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God.” Paul’s writings in the Bible are all inspired by God, because Paul was only the pen which God used to give us His Words.
God is the Author of the entire Bible. God used imperfect men to write His perfect Word, by putting His Words into their mouth. God made unholy men holy for His purpose. So it matters not that Moses was not eloquent in speech, nor that Paul gave his personal opinion in 1st Corinthians chapter 7, nor that the King James translators acknowledged that they were only imperfect men—What’s important is that God’s Words will forever be incorruptible, settled in Heaven, preserved AND INSPIRED.

One Book Stands Alone encourages believers to stand by the one and only inspired book of God, the King James Bible.” —Dr. Douglas Stauffer
Some scholars today claim that God has only preserved His Word in the original languages; but the Bible does not teach that. It is self-evident that God has chosen America as the citadel of Christianity over the past 100 years to the world, having sent out millions of foreign missionaries with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Heresy went East, but truth went West. I believe God has preserved His inspired Word in the English-speaking language in the King James Bible. I do not believe that the King James Bible is merely a superb translation or the best manuscript available in English.
I believe it is God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible, impeccable and preserved Word. 1st Peter 1:23 plainly states that sinners are “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” This means we need an incorrupt Bible! It is sad that preachers don’t start doubting the Word of God until they go to seminary. Maybe we should call them preacher cemeteries.
The King James Bible was the finished product of SEVEN revisions. Interestingly, “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.” Notice that God said His Word is “pure,” as pure as silver refined seven times. (the number seven in the Bible represents God’s perfection). We have God’s perfect Word in the English language in the King James Bible.

Amen! It is the manuscript God wanted us to have to fellowship with Him and do the work of soulwinning.
The King James translators said they weren’t trying to make a new translation of the Bible; but rather, a good one better…
Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
If one truly believes that a sovereign God is able to work in the hearts of men to do His will, and if one believes that God has kept His promise to preserve His Word, and if one considers that the mightiest soul-winning men of God over the past four centuries have preached from the King James Bible, it is self-evident that God has given to us the King James Bible. Is God incapable of preserving His Word without mistakes? Of course! If, as some claim, the Bible is only preserved in the original languages today, then we do not have an English Bible in America?
Which means we are hopelessly destitute.
If the King James Bible is less than perfect, then why even preach from it? Why preach from an imperfect Word? If the King James Bible is imperfect, then what are you doing using it? If the King James Bible is imperfect, then so is everything you teach from it. I mean, if the King James Bible has hundreds of problems with it as many preachers are claiming today, let’s throw our Bible into the garbage. A pastor who places a question mark on the King James Bible is no better than satan who weakened Eve’s faith when he asked her, “Yea, hath God said?” (Genesis 3:1b).
Matthew 4:4, “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If we are to live by “every Word”, then we need an every Word Bible. I believe the King James Bible to be that every Word Bible, preserved and inspired by God.
Some preacher says that the Bible is only for the scholarly and studious. No, the Bible is for anyone who wants to pick it up and use it, read it and hear it.

You’d be shocked if you knew, how the versions of the Bible that are coming out, which are so unnecessary and not even Bible—You’d be shocked if you knew what they’re doing to cause Christian people to feel subconsciously unstable! You’d be shocked if you knew what it’s doing to the nervous system of our people—All these Bibles!” —Pastor Jack Hyles, MP3 sermon, Don’t Chase The Pendulum (1986) [*Link to Mp3 above].

The Bible doesn’t say that the man of God needs the “preserved” Words of God to profit him; but rather, the “Scripture given by inspiration of God.” People talk about the “originals,” but according to Psalm 12:6-7 we have the originals. Psalm 12:6-7, “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.” God didn’t promise in Psalm 12:6-7 to renew or republish His Words. No, rather, God promised to PRESERVE His Words, “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
What we hold in our hands today in the form of the King James Bible is the PRESERVED inspired originals, which means the King James Bible has to be inspired. God’s Word has been preserved. If the King James Bible is not inspired, then God did not preserve His Word, because His Word is inspired. Preservation MUST include inspiration if it is genuine preservation.
The word “preserve” in Psalm 12:7 means “to maintain.” Hence, God has maintained His inspired Word unto all generations, as He so promised, which means that those Words must remain inspired.
Psalm 119:89 proclaims, “For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven.” Notice that the originals are in Heaven. Before God ever spoke the universe into existence, the final Word of Revelation was already recorded in Heaven. Some Biblical scholars claim that the original manuscripts are only existent in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages; but it is not a language that God promised to inspire, it is HIS WORDS. It is the “Words” of the Lord that are pure. God Words are inspired, no matter what language they are translated into. The text of our beloved King James Bible are the inspired Words of God.

Evangelist and hymnist Horace L. Hastings (1831-1899) penned the following excellent words about the life-changing Word of God:
Again, I conclude that this book has in it the very breath of God, from the effect it produces upon men. There are men who study philosophy, astronomy, geology, geography, and mathematics; but did you ever hear a man say, “I was an outcast, a wretched inebriate, a disgrace to my race, and a nuisance in the world, until I began to study mathematics, and learned the multiplication table, and then turned my attention to geology, got me a hammer, and knocked off the corners of the rocks and studied the formation of the earth, and since that time I have been happy as the day is long; I feel like singing all the time; my soul is full of triumph and peace; and health and blessing have come to my desolate home once more?” Did you ever hear a man ascribe his redemption and salvation from intemperance and sin and vice to the multiplication table, or the science of mathematics of geology? But I can bring you, not one man, or two, or ten, but men by the thousands who will tell you, “I was wretched; I was lost; I broke my poor old mother’s heart; I beggared my family; my wife was heart-stricken and dejected; my children fled from the sound of their father’s footsteps; I was ruined, reckless, helpless, homeless, hopeless, until I heard the words of that Book!”
SOURCE: Horace L. Hastings, Will the Old Book Stand?, p. 19; 1890.

For any preacher to speak bad about the King James Bible, while simultaneously speaking about how wonderful it is, is akin to dropping someone’s food on the floor and then serving it to them on a plate. The same way most people would feel eating a steak that has just been dropped onto a dirty floor is the same way many church members feel when their pastor teaches them from a Bible which he claims is imperfect. Either we have God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible Word in the English-speaking language, or we do not. The Bible is our spiritual milk, bread and meat. I don’t know about you, but most people prefer not to have their food tampered with before they eat it. So keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water and my food.
Brother Castle, do you believe the King James translators were inspired?
No, they were led. The words were already inspired.
—Pastor Danny Castle, a quote from the needful MP3 sermon, Lets Get Our hearts Right! [*Cannot find link]
No pastor should ever shake his congregation’s faith in the King James Bible, even in the slightest way. The average uneducated layman in the pew needs to hear his pastor uphold the King James Bible as God’s Word. To fail to do so is a grave injustice against the common man. The average believer will NEVER understand Greek or Hebrew and it is a woeful injustice to place that kind of a burden upon humble church people, i.e., telling them that they cannot understand the Bible without learning Greek and Hebrew. Childlike faith only requires a childlike understanding of the Bible.
Do not tell me that a child cannot understand the Bible to get saved. Do not tell me that those with learning disabilities must understand the Greek to be saved. Do not tell me that a humble sinner, who only has a third grade education, cannot receive and experience sweet fellowship with Jesus Christ without learning Hebrew. Bless God, if the King James Bible was good enough for mama, it’s good enough for us too! If the King James Bible was good enough for Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, bless God, it’s good enough for us too!
They’re taking the pure Word of God and changing it for a buck and changed it for a dollar. So-called Christian colleges, take your stinking feet out of the Word of God! Quit serving dirty water! So-called Christian seminaries with your intelligencia, which is nothing more than stupidity hiding behind the guise of scholarship, you keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water! Dr. Custer of Bob Jones University, who says that there is no perfect Bible in the English language, you keep you stinking feet out of my drinking water! Greek scholars, so-called, self-styled Greek scholars, who are only called ‘Greek scholars’ by other Greek scholars, you keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water! … I am so sick of these guys that go to an institution. I’ve got more respect for a State university professor who says there’s no Word of God, than I have for a man who’ll hide behind the sacred desk and change God’s blessed Book.” —Dr. Jack Hyles

Dr. Lee Roberson (1909-2007) believed that the King James Bible is inspired. In his sermon, HAVE FAITH IN GOD, he made the following statement concerning his text verse, Mark 11:22, “And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God” …
Whether in sunshine or rain, it will help us to have these inspired words before us: HAVE FAITH IN GOD.

Pastor Roberson


referred to the King James Bible as “these inspired words.” Amen. There are some preachers today who deny the inspiration of our precious King James Bible. It is apostasy. Thank God for Dr. Roberson’s faith in the King James Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible, impeccable and preserved Words of God.
In defense of the inspired and preserved King James Bible, the following quotes are taken from the excellent sermon by Pastor Jack Hyles,

I have Mama’s Bible—the same one she read—in my office. I’ve had it there for years. I don’t know how old it is, but I suspect it is 55 or 60 years old. It is the same Bible she used to hold up. I was thumbing through it the other day. On the inside, it says on the title page, “King James Bible.” That’s what it says. You know it worked. It’s amazing how well Mama did before she found out that it wasn’t the Word of God.
It is amazing how well this nation did when we didn’t know how ignorant we were. (Are you listening?) This is my fifth pastorate. I’ve seen miracles in my pastorates. I’ve preached over 41,000 times, and I’ve never yet preached a sermon that wasn’t preached from the King James Bible.
It bothers me when people say, “We believe that the Bible, in the original manuscripts, is the Word of God.” If that’s true, we have no Bible. Did you hear what I said? We have no Bible.
We need a Bible that we can understand and a Bible that is God’s Word. It looks like anybody would agree that if God gives us the command to preach the Word, He would give us the Word to preach. That’s logical. If God wants to say to a nation, “You are the custodian of world evangelization for a generation or two or three or four,” it looks like God would give that nation the Word of God.
What is it? I would say it ought to be the one that has worked. Which one has worked? The one I hold in my hand right now. I has worked! It will work!
The following is sang to the tune of The Old-Time Religion:
It was good for our fathers;
It was good for our fathers;
It was good for our fathers;
And it’s good enough for me;
It was good for my mama;
It was good for my mama;
It was good for my mama;
And it’s good enough for me.


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”!!

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.

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:
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