Search
  • Rick LoPresti

Why use the King James Version?

Updated: Sep 9


There are more interpretations of the Bible than ever. Some think this is a good thing. Others bemoan the departure from "tradition". Some don't think it matters. Some people read the version of the Bible that seems to suit them best, while others research the background of various versions so they can find the one that evidence shows is the most faithful. To summarize this issue, some people believe that they need to take heed to verses like Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, and Revelation 22:18-19. They believe that the Bible is the word of God, and is to be treated and followed as such. They believe that despite the efforts of man and Satan to destroy and corrupt the scriptures, God has actively preserved His written word for us through the centuries (Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 117:2). This is a belief system or worldview as it is called today which informs their whole outlook. Other people don't embrace this view. They think that the Bible is just the word of man, or they believe that it has been changed so much over the years that we no longer have the accurate word of God, and therefore don't have to take it so literally or seriously. Others believe they have the right to decide what it should say and mean using their own criteria. This belief also informs their approach to life. They look at rules as guidelines or suggestions to be followed when it is convenient or it seems appropriate to them. They may even go so far as to look at rules as things to get away with breaking as much as possible. You may say that which version of the Bible you read most has nothing to do with your spiritual condition. I hope the following information sheds some helpful and instructive light on this issue, and lets you know about what sources you are using to feed your spirit. The following is a compilation of information from many resources.

I. The Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament from which the OT of the KJV was

translated

A. When Jews would make copies of the Bible, they took extraordinary care of what they were

writing to make sure everything was letter perfect and holy before the Lord. The following

author writes about the rules listed in the Talmud (Jewish commentary) for copying scrolls:

"The parchment had to be made... from the skins of clean animals. The ink had to be of no

other color than black and had to be prepared according to a precise formula. No word or

letter could be written from memory. The Scribe had to have an authentic copy before him,

and he had to read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it. The Scribe had to

reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for God, and he had to wash his

whole body in the mikvah, the ceremonial bath, before writing the sacred Name, Jehovah

(YHWH). One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet. If three mistakes were found on

any given page, the entire manuscript was condemned. Every word and every letter was

counted, and if a letter was omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another,

the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once." - Diane A. McNeil, Ruth 3,000

Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened, Xulon Press, 2005, p. 226-227. Elder Rabbis would

also give a warning to new scribes: "Take heed how thou dost do thy work, for thy work is

the work of heaven, lest thou drop or add a letter of a manuscript and so become a destroyer of the world." -Diane A. McNeil, Ruth 3,000 Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened,

Xulon Press, 2005, p. 227

B. The Masoretic text was thoroughly confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

II. The KJV

A. Before the KJV

In 1382 AD John Wycliffe was the first person to translate the complete English Bible from

the Latin vulgate. John was known as someone with immense energy and great courage, he

also trained young men to spread the word of God. The Catholic church was going to burn

John but he when to be with the Lord when he was saved by a stroke, but after he died and

was buried, they dug up his bones and burned them 44 years later. His disciples were

captured by the Catholic Church, their Bible translation was hung around their necks and

they were burnt alive at the stake. Bear in mind that there was no printing press in those

day thus copies of the Bible were done by hand-taking aprox 10 months.

In 1509, where King Henry VIII succeeded King Henry VII. In 1525AD William Tyndale

translated the first New Testament – this was printed from the original language. This was

the first Bible to be printed in English by the printing press. William Tyndale was a master

linguist of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. This was the first Bible translated from the

original languages. He completed translating the New Testament in 1525. It’s estimated that

18,000 copies were secretly shipped to England. Though the Catholic church ordered that

the Bibles were to be intercepted and burnt. They caught up with Tyndale after he was

betrayed by Henry Phillips (someone who befriended William, only later to betray him) and

on October 6th 1536 he was taken to be burned alive. His last words were a prayer, where he

prayed “Lord, Open the King of England’s eyes”.

Then in 1537AD the Tyndale-Matthews Bible (the second Bible printed in English was

released). Due to William Tyndale not finishing the translation of the Old Testament, John

Rodgers finished the task, though he used an alias “Thomas Matthew” to avoid persecution from the Catholic Church who forbid translation/printing of Bibles in English. Catholics

caught up to John Rodgers in 1555 and he was sentenced to be burned alive. He was given

an opportunity to recant to which John said “That which I have preached I will seal with my

blood.”. His wife and eleven children were not even allowed to see him until his was on his

way to the stake to die.

Then in 1539AD – Tyndale’s prayer was answered, 3 years later. The “Great Bible” was the

first authorised Bible in English. King Henry the 8th authorized this for public use. This was

due to the fact there was a split from the Catholic Church over the Pope and King Henry

having a disagreement over marriage/divorce. The translation used the Tyndale Bible, Latin

Vulgate and German text sources for its translation. The Bible is also known as the

Cromwell Bible, Whitchurch Bible, The Chained Bible and also the Cranmer Bible.

A number of protestant scholars fled persecution from England to Geneva, Switzerland. And

a new English translation of the Bible was undertaken under William Whittingham, who

supervised the Bible translation known as the Geneva Bible. This was done in collaboration

with Myles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson and

William Cole. In 1560AD the Geneva Bible was printed, the first English Bible to add

verses numbers to each chapter. This Bible was used by John Bunyan (the author of Pilgrims

Progress). This Bible was also the first to be machine produced to make the Bible publicly

available. This Bible came with an apparatus as well as study guides and aids. Most people

preferred this over the great Bible.

Queen Elizabeth in 1568AD had The Bishops Bible printed to improve on the previous

translation under the authority of the Church of England. This was the only legal authorized

version of the Bible for use in the Anglican church.

In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died and was succeeded by King James. King James was the King

of Scotland, but when Queen Elizabeth died, having no heirs/children and being unmarried

and King James being the closest relative became king of England in 1603. King James was

known to be very intelligent, considered to be one of the smartest meant to ever sit on the

throne. He helped people in England study science, literature and art. He was a God-fearing

believer with a strong character.

Is it true that King James was a homosexual? The easiest way to answer this silly

statement is to is answer it with this quote from a book written by King James- Basilikon

Doron (A Greek title that means Royal Gift). “There are some horrible crimes that ye are

bound in conscience never to forgive; such as witchcraft, wilful murder, incest and

sodemy.” James instructed his eldest son, Henry, in the following way: "But especially

eschew [i.e. hate] to be effeminate in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like...

and make not a fool of yourself in disguising or wearing long your hair or nails," -Stephen

A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England:

Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 4, ISBN: 9780965677738

B. The translators

The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large

conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's

inspiration and the majority opinion. In 1604 at the Hampton court a conference was held to

discuss the issue. The attendees other than the King were his council of advisors, bishops

and Puritans. They discussed the translations and said that available translations were not

accurate and not answerable to the originals. So King James ordered a new translation. It

was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed 54 of the nations finest language

scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results. It was said that “no marginal

notes at all are to be affixed but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words.” It

was decreed that special pain would be “taken for a uniform translation, which should be

done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented

to the Privy council, and lastly ratified by the royal authority. 54 scholars were

commissioned, split into 6 companies into 3 groups (Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster)

to translate, review and check each translation. But first who were they? What kind of men

were they ?

First Lancelot Andrews, the director of the Westminster group, he was known as a great

man knowing over 15 modern languages as well as 6 ancient languages fluently, possessing a photographic memory. He prayed at least 5 hours a day, also said he abstained

from levity and mirth. Meaning he didn’t joke about serious issues and didn’t joke around - a very serious man. King James would say “No levity, brother Andrews is in court” – he was a

godly man.

Miles Smith, from the Oxford group. Smith was the one who wrote the preface of the KJV.

He went through the Greek and Latin fathers making notations in the writings of more than

300 church fathers from 100-600AD. He was familiar with the rabbinical glosses and

comments in the margins of the Masoretic Text. He had the Hebrew language at his finger

tips. He was also an expert in the Chaldea or Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic languages.

John Bois was in the Cambridge group. He learned Hebrew from his father. By the age of

six he was able to write Hebrew language legibly. He also had skill in Greek, spending 16

hours in the library without rest reading and studying the Greek language. He read through

the whole Old Testament by age five.

C. Directly from Hebrew and Greek

D. Textus receptus over 5,000 copies, now over 20,000

E. The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In

fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one

and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations. The King James

Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of

English literature. Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James

Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's."

The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in

1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. The translators

italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language.

The King James language is not hard to understand. Most of the so-called "archaic" words

are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other

passages in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent

the King James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn't in tune with their high-

minded vocabulary.

In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says

the King James language is easier to understand than the new versions. We certainly

agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn't it

be? It's the WORD OF GOD! The KJV was penned at the pinnacle of English writing style,

and it served as a common fount of influence for classic authors for over three hundred

years. For this and other reasons we'll explore, the KJV stands alone as being uniquely

suited to serve as our "prime spine" in a classic literary curriculum. The way children

encounter information today is changing. As image-based information becomes more

prevalent, our cultural mastery of language is eroding. In response, modern schools move

toward materials and methods that are more image-based, and less language-based, than

those used in the past. But the great teachers of the past knew something so simple it's

profound: wrestling with rich language develops a strong, agile mind. Their master tool was

a literary curriculum, which is inherently language-based. Studies now confirm what they

knew by instinct: whereas images are largely passively received and require minimal

exercise of the brain, grappling with language requires the mind to work, flex, expand, and

make connections. However, the watered-down English that modern children typically

encounter is by no means a worthy wrestling partner. At the same time, as our hurried

postmodern ears grow more itchy for sound-bites than for rich, exact language, we've

gradually lost thousands of precise and useful words from common use. Dictionaries

require revision with increasing frequency, as publishers find that trying to define what has

perhaps become undefinable -- "standard" English -- is rather like trying to paint the

definitive portrait of a chameleon.

And so it happened that the King James Bible was translated by

scholars of a uniquely verbal, word-dependent age. We can scarcely imagine such an age

nowadays, utterly devoid as it was of our modern dependence on image-based information.

Absent our ubiquitous glut of flickering screens, visual media and instantly available music,

we sense that mere words in that day more truly tickled the eye and ear. A fresh page of

written words commanded eager, vigorous attention, being the sole cultural transport of

news and ideas aside from word-of-mouth. Vocabulary was a craft; more lithe, richer in

breadth and depth, more colorful. Sentence construction was an art form in itself!

This phenomenon is also well-known among adult readers who study Charlotte Mason's

writings together in groups. In the many years I've participated in these studies, I've seen it

noted repeatedly that KJV readers have a head start toward accessing the depths of Miss

Mason's ideas. She was a daily reader of the KJV throughout her life, and thus her writings

are richly sprinkled with phrases, metaphors and references lifted directly from its pages. If

we come upon these references in a ready state of familiarity with their source and the

underlying context it provides, we may readily make the leap to her meaning. This is

precisely that science of relations she urges us toward! And this is that ease, that ready

"Aha!" of a connection well-made, which we seek for our children in their literary journeys.

And yet, despite the sure benefits, perhaps you still fear the KJV will be unapproachable for

you and your children. After all, we've been barraged by publishing marketers with the

notion that the KJV is just too hard for us (despite the fact that it was originally purposed as

a Bible for the common man!). Do you note the curious double standard afoot here? It

seems we do not hesitate to set our children upon a daunting course of Latin to expand their

vocabulary and grasp of great literature; we enthusiastically endorse a steady course of

"real" Shakespeare; we hand our children old, weighty volumes such as Bulfinch's

Mythology and Plutarch's Lives because they are bedrock foundations of Western literature.

Why, then, do we look upon the King James Bible, which offers similar language

experience as well as unexcelled, broadening literary enrichment, with fear and hesitancy?

How curious, really, that modern believers, especially those among us who claim to relish

great literature, should look upon this crowning literary achievement of the Christian era as

a distant and unapproachable relation! No need to keep your distance: the KJV is a truly

accessible work. After all, it was the Bible of common folk for over three hundred years,

read by peasant and scholar alike. And its effect was powerful -- the church in that period

flourished. Here we have the most universally beloved and captivating book in Western

history, and we should be reassured to note that if all those legions of readers could handle

it, surely we may expect to as well. Begin to choose memory verses from the KJV. Studies

have shown that it is more easily memorized than other versions, due to its rhythm and

meter - that "fine roll" to which Miss Mason referred.

Opposing Argument: The King James Bible is just too hard to read.

Those who make this argument have no clue what they're saying, and typically, when

someone makes this argument, it's a good indicator that you're dealing with someone who

doesn't bother to check out facts, but rather, he/she is just looking to make excuses for

themselves. The Flesch-Kincaid research company did analysis of Bible versions, and

compared them to standard grade school reading levels: "The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of

26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x

average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first

and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete

sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete

phrases ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.)" -G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible

Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing The Message, Men and Manuscripts

Moving Manking To The Antichrist's One World Religion, A.V. Publications, 1993, p. 195-

196, ISBN: 0-9635845-0-2

KJB NIV NASV TEV (GNB) NKJV

Genesis 1 4.4 5.1 4.7 5.1 5.2

Malachi 1 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.4 4.6

Matthew 1 6.1 16.4 6.8 11.8 10.3

Revelation 1 7.5 7.1 7.7 6.5 7.7

Grade

Level

Average 5.8 8.4 6.1 7.2 6.9

The KJB is averaging between 1-3 grade school levels lower in its overall difficulty of

reading, and this is because it uses less complicated words that use less syllables per word.

Let's look at examples of this in the NASV vs the KJB, and count out the syllables in each

word as you read through these:

Personal pronouns beginning with "T" (specifically Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine) are

SINGULAR. Those beginning with "Y" (specifically Ye, You, Your) are PLURAL

See John 3:5

Singular Plural

1 (I) think (we) think

2 (thou) thinkest (you) think

3 (he) thinketh (they) think

See Jn 3:8

F. The King James Bible translators used a superior method in translating called formal

equivalency. Formal Equivalence, sometimes called Verbal Equivalence is a method of

translation, which takes the Greek, and Hebrew words and renders them as closely as

possible into English. This is the method used by the King James translators and is certainly

a superior method, seeing that our Lord is concerned about every word, even the jots and

tittles (Matthew 5:18; 24:35). Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal

equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The

"dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern

idiom. Unlike now they were strict and wanted to make it as accurate as possible. Every

translator of each company translated every chapter and verse of the books allocated to

them, then gathered and decided what translation was best.

After deciding the best translation they would then discuss and arrive at a final translation.

After they completed their translation they then passed this to the other companies. All

companies then translated it again separately, then after this was completed formed a joint

committee with 2 members from each company to make a final translation. This would mean 14 translations would be made before the final was decided. This team technique is

unequalled by any modern translation. If in any areas the translators didn’t agree – it was to

be given to a general committee made up of the heads of the 6 companies to make a final

decision. Other bishops and learned men in the land were invited to send contributions to the

various companies. They used Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the

Antiochan/Texus Receptus manuscripts for the New Testament. They researched everything

Thoroughly. There was a reason for every detail in the Bible. In 1611 the Authorized KJV

was published.

III. Wescott and Hort

After hearing the scholars Westcott and Hort venerated as spiritual giants, he becomes

acquainted with their personal correspondence in which they endorse evolution, socialism,

globalism, disarmament, spiritism, purgatory and communal living while deprecating the

inspiration of Scripture, salvation by grace, a literal Heaven and Hell and the United States

of America. Modern versions are erected on the faulty foundation of doubt! Here’s why I

say that. Westcott and Hort speculated, with no evidence to support their idea, that the

"pure" text of the New Testament had been lost. They said that the Antiochian text (also

called the Traditional Text, Textus Receptus, etc.), the text type behind the King James New

Testament, was an artificial and arbitrarily invented text, fabricated between 250 A.D. and

350 A.D. In fact, Westcott and Hort asserted that it remained lost until the 19th century

when Vaticanus was rediscovered 1845 in the Vatican library, where it had lain since 1481

and Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844.

Dr. Edward Hills wrote, "Westcott (picture to the right) and Hort followed an essentially

naturalistic Method. Indeed they prided themselves on treating the text of the New

Testament as they would that of any other book, making little or nothing of inspiration and

providence." (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 65,66).

In other words, they treated the Bible just like they would the works of Plato, Shakespeare,

C. S. Lewis, J. K. Rowling or any other fallible book. In fact, neither believed in the

infallibility of the Bible. Brooke Foss Westcott stated "I never read of the account of a

miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of

evidence in the account of it." (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott; page 216)

Again Westcott said, "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."

(The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, p.207).

First, the new Bible versions are built on the Greek New Testament compiled by them.

Secondly, current day New Version Potentate Princeton Theological Seminary Professor

Bruce Metzger has a low regard for the Scriptures as well. He doubts Moses alone authored

the Pentateuch. As Co-editor of the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV he wrote or

approved of notes asserting that the Pentateuch is "a matrix of myth, legend, and history"

that "took shape over a long period of time" and is "not to be read as history." Job is called

an "ancient folktale." And the book of Isaiah was written by at least three men. Jonah is

called "popular legend." Then add to that that Metzger claims that the Gospels are

composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The problem is, he completely ignores

the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Bible itself.

So, what manuscripts did Westcott and Hort use to get their Greek New Testament? They

used primarily two old 4th century manuscripts for their work. Hort’s partiality for Codex

Vaticanus (B) was practically absolute. Intuitively (without evidence) he believed it to be a

near perfect representation of the Greek New Testament. Whenever pages were missing in

Vaticanus he would use Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH) to fill in the gap. And there was plenty

missing from Vaticanus. Barry Burtons writes in his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, "it

omits…Matthew 3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon),

Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25, and all of Revelation... in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words,

452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as

having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the

same sentences in the same places." Floyd Jones further notes that Matthew 16:2-3 and

Romans 16:24 are missing.

Here is a key fact you should know about Codex Vaticanus (B) -- "The entire manuscript

has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact

identification of many of the characters impossible." More specifically, the manuscript is

faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century,

with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th

centuries. Those who study manuscripts say that all this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible.

Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other

Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript "the oldest and the best."?

What about Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New

Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, which was a Greek

Orthodox Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the

patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a

rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the

manuscript until 1859. Konstantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting of four

different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems!

The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen's corrupt source. As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations

and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were

made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So

much for the oldest! "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and

revisions, done by 10 different people." He goes on to say, "…the New Testament…is

extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters,

words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately

canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the

same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of

attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible should not come as a surprise.

Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than

the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a

decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for

cooperation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated: "But I am not able to go as far as

you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."

(All quotes are taken from the book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", by Samuel

C. Gipp)

Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. Macmillan, he stated:

"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the

Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which

I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in

revelation."

He did not believe in a personal devil: "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a

corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every

energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be

actively the support of such a nature as that?"

He did not believe in hell: "Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when

I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions

of a distant future, even while I 'held' the doctrine." Rather, he believed in purgatory: "The

idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible

teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said rejecting the

future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect

change their character when this visible life is ended.

In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy! "Certainly nothing

can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and

sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke

Foss Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild': "Westcott, Gorham,

C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the

investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to

believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere

subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated

with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and

Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'."

Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more

anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also

thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by

name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.

Westcott believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place. Note the following

quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but

it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with

place; 'heaven is a state and not a place…’ We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute,

faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."

Westcott – “Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the

Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

Westcott – “(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of

departed spirits.” (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

Westcott – “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for

example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with

open eyes could think they did.” (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

Hort – “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship

have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

Hort – “We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far

higher meaning.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

So who cares what Westcott and Hort believed? The reason is that although someone

might have the technical skills and knowledge to translate text, if the translator has a bias

or disbelieves the original text this will come through in the new translation. For example

the NIV version of the Bible being gender neutral. 2 of the translators were sodomites. It is

logical, if you have a democratic text in a foreign language would you trust a translation

from a communist and expect it to be accurate? Of course not.

Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little

Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile

Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones”

(Life, Vol.I, p.211). Dec. 29,30th 1851

“I am inclined to think that no such state as “Eden” (I mean the popular notion) ever

existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants

(Life of Hort Vol I page 78)”

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness."

-Brooke Westcott, quoted by Michael Dedivonai, The Questi for Truth, AuthorHouse,

2012, p. 563, ISBN: 9781477263471

"Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many

leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted

rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the

subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Rev. Rowland Williams, Oct 21, 1858; See also Sir Arthur

Hort, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 400

Hort believed in Darwinian evolution:

"The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a

species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which

support such as view as Darwin's... But it seems to me the most probable manner of

development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that

some kind of development must be supposed,"

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Brooke F. Westcott, Oct 15, 1850; See also Sir Arthur Hort,

Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 431

"Have you read Darwin? How I should like a talk with you about it! In spite of

difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a

book."

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Brooke F. Westcott, Mar 10, 1860; See also Sir Arthur Hort,

Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 414

Hort believed in works-based doctrine that denies Jesus Christ:

"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering

in his own person the full penalty for his sins,"

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Rev. F. D. Maurice, Nov 16, 1849; See also Sir Arthur Hort,

Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 120

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of

attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible should not come as a surprise.

Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than

the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

(All quotes are taken from the book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", by

Samuel C. Gipp)

Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. Macmillan, he stated:

"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the

Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which

I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in

revelation."

Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was

more correct than the "evangelical" teaching: "...at the same time in language stating that

we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines... the pure

'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the

Evangelical." He also stated that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God,

members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."

Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke

Foss Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild': "Westcott, Gorham,

C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the

investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to

believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere

subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated

with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and

Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'."

Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more

anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also

thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by

name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.

IV. Other interpretations based on Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts

A. Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, as well as certain others, which were discovered in the

19th Century and which were older, accepted by the scholars Westcott, Hort, Nestle, basis

for all the subsequent modern English translations.

Vaticanus, as its name implies, is in the Vatican library at Rome. No one knows when it was

placed in the Vatican library, but its existence was first made known in 1841.

This Codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits

GENESIS 1:1 through GENESIS 46:28; PSALM 106 through 138; MATTHEW 16:2-3;

ROMANS 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; REVELATION; and everything in

HEBREWS after 9:14.

The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over

thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted

manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not Scripture; it omits

the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the

Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic

Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the Word of

God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work

of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D.

the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the

Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin's work, chose to send him

manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of

God in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called

the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found its way into the Vatican manuscript, then

eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions

in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone

"correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you

are simply hearing someone trying to use a Roman Catholic text to overthrow the

God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals.

With the fourth-century codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being recommended as the two

most reliable manuscripts worthy of supplanting the time-honored Textus Receptus, the

reader learns the facts of their defective character which reveal their disagreement with

each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone.

Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of

careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and

pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-

rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very

carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over,

or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted

because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than

115 times in the New Testament.

Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. It exhibits

numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in

succession. The mass of corrections and scribal changes render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable.

Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of

careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and

pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-

rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very

carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or

begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted

because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.

In 1844, Count Tishendorf found a manuscript in the rubbish in the St Catherine

Monastery on Mount Sinai. This script is called the Codex Sinaiticus also known as Codex

Alef. Linguistic scholars observed that is was very poorly written- with repeated sentences,

missing words as well as other issues such as spelling and grammar.

It had about 400 pages, it contained about 1/2 the Old Testament from the Septuagint and

the full New Testament. It has been dated around the 4th century. It seems even the writer

realized that it belonged in the rubbish. It would have been better off being left there.

Apart from their obvious issues, Both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with

themselves over 3,000 times, but even though this was the case a Greek translation was put

together from these sources.

Sinaiticus from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. But it contains many spurious books such as the "Shepherd of Hermes," the "Epistle of Barnabas," and even the "Didache".

It has survived time well, but being in good physical shape by no means makes its contents

trustworthy. The Codex is covered with alterations... brought in by at least ten different

revisers.

"Codex B differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in

578 places, of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission." Dean J. Burgon,

Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2000, p. 5,

ISBN: 9781878442871

"The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisors,

some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to

separated portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first

writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."-Dr. Frederick H.

Scrivener, quoted in Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, published A.J. Johnson & Co., 1886,

p. 135; See also David Fuller, True or False?, Grand Rapids International Publications,

1973, p. 74-75.

There is clear evidence of many different edits of this document, bearing the language used

around the 6th or 7th century. The only thing "original" about this document is the

imagination of each person who changed it.

It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the

portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read

HEBREWS 10:10-12). The "mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go

hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money-making machine for Rome. It also omits portions

of Scripture telling of the creation (GENESIS), the prophetic details of the crucifixion

(PSALM 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon

(Rome), the great whore of REVELATION chapter 17.

B. Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The

Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in

1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The

unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14:

The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo-

orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death"

in many New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20,

Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in

Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Phillips

translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox

religionists. New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the

whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed

in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this: "The earliest and most

reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 – 8:11." Something similar is done to the great

commission in Mark 16:9-20.

Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus

said we need! Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want

a "formal equivalence" translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The

so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of

this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the

Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures.

The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The

scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English

what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem

with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation

process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means.

The real changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on

the scene.

That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. It's not surprising that the

word “sodomite” is completely gone, when you learn that an open unrepentant homosexual,

Dr. Marten Woudstra (now deceased), was the chairman of the Old Testament committee.

According to Wikipedia.org, the New International Bible (NIV) is the most popular Bible

version today. What Zondervan Publishers won't tell you is that they are owned

by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.

First, the NIV 2011, following the TNIV, employs gender-neutral language by neutering the

masculine pronouns. Gender-neutral language is not illegitimate if the biblical text is

speaking generically about human beings (e.g., Acts 17:25) but is suspect if the biblical text

is referring to a specific sex.

The NIV might have 64,000 words less, roughly, (63,203) than a King James Bible.

In the early 90s, out came the KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible. Look at the back cover. It reads:

"Nelson's KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible with Center-Column References is ... a great way to

enjoy and compare the beauty and accuracy of both the enduring King James Version and

the outstanding New King James Version without having two Bibles open." And then he

says "And this is the perfect transition Bible if you are thinking about moving from the

classic King James to a modern translation." Harper Collins bought Thomas Nelson and

now 55% of all the Bibles that we can possibly get, are coming from one company. So

you'd better believe they want you to buy all of them.

Paraphrasing is simply taking what the text says and rewriting it to what you think it says.

It is more like a condensed commentary than a Bible. The most popular paraphrase is the

Living Bible. It is really not a translation at all!

The new King James isn’t a King James Bible. I don’t even know how it has the name,

when King James is dead-having nothing to do with it. It has been estimated over 100,000

translation changes have been made corr