|Place Order | Contact Us | Subscribe|
The Authorized Version continued...
Willard Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the following statement. "Some of these sayings, it is true, come from the Fourth Gospel (John), AND WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS." 244
It is a known fact that all liberals attack John's gospel, due to the fact that it makes the strongest statements of the four gospels concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.
William Irwin believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the position of God in the Bible. "The prophets were forced by the disasters that befell to do some hard, painful thinking. THEY WERE FORCED BY THE HISTORY OF THEIR OWN TIMES TO REVISE THEIR MESSAGES AGAIN AND AGAIN IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE AGE. THE ASSYRIANS AND THE BABYLONIANS FORCED THEM TO REVISE THEIR CONCEPTION OF YAHWEH FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL THEY FINALLY MADE HIM GOD OF THE UNIVERSE." 246
Fleming James was yet another Bible revisor who was as much an infidel as any secular college professor in America today. He said concerning Moses' authorship of the first five books of the Bible, "The idea has been shown by scholars to be untenable on many grounds. The view that now prevails is that through these five books, there were FOUR DIFFERENT STRANDS OF NARRATIVE WHICH HAVE BEEN PIECED TOGETHER to make the present story...Two are older and more reliable as history, two proceed from later time and are so coloured by later ideas that they can hardly be called history at all." 246
This almost coincides with Fenton John Anthony Horts' belief concerning the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
We also find that he doubted the miracle of the Red Sea crossing.
Concerning Elijah's action in 2 Kings 1:10, he said, "The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY." 249
Millar Burrows finalizes the true convictions of the revisors in his statement, "We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do." 250
Earlier we studied the beliefs of Drs. Westcott and Hort. We can see how all of these men fit together so well and were able to completely reject God's text in favor of Rome's. Many may make a defense for new translations in claiming that these men are "liberal" scholars, while today's modern translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version are translated by "conservative" scholars. This claim is an empty one, though, because concerning which MSS are to be judged as "best, most reliable, etc...," "conservative" scholars of the day agree wholeheartedly with the conviction of the "liberal" revisors of the 1881 and 1952 revision committees. They BOTH believe that the Roman Catholic text found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc., is better than the Universal Text of the Authorized Version.
Conservative "scholars" also agree with the liberal "scholars" in their conviction that God could not preserve His words through history.
We see then that the men of the King James Bible were men of great education, education which was tempered by true spirituality and biblical convictions. They were used by God as instruments in His plan for the preservation of His words. They were not "inspired" to write a new revelation. They were empowered by the Holy Spirit to preserve that which had already been written. This is what God had promised in Psalms 12:7.
The King James Apocrypha
Another one of the assaults on the Authorized Version is that the early editions contained the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. In defense, we shall list the seven reasons why the Apocrypha was NOT considered inspired by the Authorized Version translators. 'The reasons assigned for not admitting the Apocryphal books into the Canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following:
For these and other reasons the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as "ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions, and history of the East." 25l
We see then that the King James translators did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired by God.
The Greek Game in Action
Still another complaint against God's Authorized Version is the manner in which certain Greek words have been translated. Today's "God-honoring" scholars "love the Lord and His Bible" but are quick to point out and attack any seeming inconsistency in translation in the Authorized Version. Even the most infinitesimal Greek article is attacked under the guise of seeking to give a more "grammatically correct" translation. This is the claim consistently made by the translating groups, such as the anonymous Lockman Foundation.
This is all very noble sounding. It puts into one's mind a picture of these "hard working scholars" slaving away to remove all of the "mistakes" from the Authorized Version so that we can finally have the pure "Word of God." This is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is that the new "Bibles" are translated by men who first, desire to eliminate the detested Authorized Version and second, though never admittedly, to make money in the "Bible business." Sad as that is to think, it is true.
The problem with their hypercritical examination of the Authorized Versions is that the same scrutiny is never applied to their own work.
The Greek Game in Reverse
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who is known for being very Burgonian in his comments, is nonetheless an outstanding authority in manuscript readings. In several of his works, he has done no more than to examine the new translations under the same unyielding eye with which the modern translators examine the Authorized Version.
Before examining any of his findings and the evidence of the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd edition, it must first be remembered that the present day translations and translators act under the premise that the Nestle's Greek New Testament is the closest to the original text. Nestle's text is basically Westcott and Hort's text, which is in turn primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as Dr. Wilkenson has recorded.
All modern translators give B and Aleph unbalanced superiority, assuming them to be more accurate because they assume that they are older.
They unfortunately overlooked the fact that the Universal Text has MSS just as old, plus the backing of the church fathers. They also seem not to realize that Egypt is NOT the location for the pure text - old manuscripts maybe, but not pure readings.
Modern translators build their arguments for changing the Authorized Version readings around two very loose rules:
This sounds very good except for one small problem. What happens when the oldest reading conflicts with the majority? The answer is: Do what you want as long as you do not agree with the Authorized Version. This is not an over statement, but it describes the animosity which modern scholarship has for the text of the Authorized Version.
Following will be examples of translations in which modern translators break all their own rules of translating in order to eliminate the readings of the Universal Text of the King James Bible.
The readings to be examined are those which have been pointed out by Dr. Ruckman. We shall compare his references to the footnotes in the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd Edition, unless he states such evidence already. The English translation to be examined will be the New American Standard Version, since it is the one which is assumed by most fundamentalists to be sound.
First, the verse to be discessed will be quoted from the Authorized Version, then it will be quoted from the New American Standard Version. The word, words, or passage in question will be italicized.
Here the New American Standard Version sticks with the premise of using the "oldest" reading. The phrase, "Isaiah the prophet" appears in the Hesychian (Local Text) family represented primarily by B, C, and Aleph.
The problem arises when you read the remainder of verse two and then verse three, the Old Testament quote in verse two is NOT from Isaiah! It is quoted from Malachi 3:1. Verse three is from Isaiah. (Isaiah 40:3) Malachi plus Isaiah does not equal "Isaiah the prophet;" it equals "the prophets."
The reading "the prophets" is found in W along with the Textus Receptus (Universal Text) which is represented by E, F, G, and H in the gospels. It is also found in the majority of witnesses. Also it was cited in 202 A.D., 150 years before Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. 253
Immediately we run into the problem of the "oldest" versus the "majority." It happens though that neither of these two groups is to be judged just because of what they represent. The deciding factor is, which group reads with the Universal Text? That group is the correct group.
In sticking with the Local Text, the Lockman Foundation has managed to print a Bible with a MISTAKE in it! It is obvious that the reading "Isaiah the prophet" is wrong, because Isaiah never said what is quoted in verse two.
Why would anyone try to hide the quote by Malachi? Dr. Ruckman explains, "You see, the quotation from Malachi was reference to Jehovah God the Father! If anyone were to find this reference, they would see that "thy" and "thee" of Mark 1:1,2 is the "me" of Malachi 3:1!" 253
Thus the deity of Christ is hidden in the New American Standard Version even though it claims to "confirm" the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for the egos of the nameless Lockman Foundation, the Lordship of Jesus Christ was "confirmed" in the wilderness in Matthew chapter four, and God did not have to wait over 1900 years for them to "confirm" it.
Here we see a portion of Scripture where both the "oldest" and "majority" texts read in favor of the Authorized Version. The inconsistent Lockman Foundation has omitted the phrase "and carried up into heaven" (kai ephereto eis ton houranan) which is in P75, a papyrus MS of the second century, as well as the entire Receptus family, plus A, B, C, E, most other witnesses, and every Latin copy.
On what "weighty" evidence does the Lockman Foundation remove the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ? On the weight of ONE copy of Sinaiticus and ONE copy of D.
As stated before the only rule which is consistently kept by supposed "godly Christian scholars" is the practice of attacking the Authorized Version reading because it upholds the deity of Christ.
It might be advisable for us to look at Acts 1:1,2.
You will notice that Luke claims that his "former treatise" (the gospel of Luke) ended with a record of Jesus being "taken up." But in the New American Standard Version's translation of Luke's gospel, Jesus Christ does NOT ascend, but He is left standing flat-footed on the Mount of Olives. Thus, we see that if the gospelist, Luke, could examine both a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version, he would quickly expose the New American Standard Version as a fraudulent adulteration of his 'former treatise."
In other words, "If the King James Bible is good enough for the disciple Luke, then it's good enough for me!"
In the case of "And they worshipped him" (proskunesantes auton), the New American Standard Version translators actually lose a witness, for in Luke 24:52 even Aleph joins the innumerable mass of witnesses in favor of the King James translators' scholarship. This leaves D to stand alone against several thousands of MSS which uphold the deity of Christ.
With evidence like this, it seems somewhat hypecritical to hear "good, godly men" deride Erasmus for using only five MSS, which represented the oldest and the majority, to collate his text, a text which upholds our Savior. While here we see the Lockman Foundation's corrupters use a minority of the minority to attack two major doctrines of the Bible, the bodily ascension and the deity of Christ.
The argument may be forwarded that "I can still find these doctrines in the New American Standard Version." Yes, but not in as many places as in the Authorized Version. There is NO Bible which upholds Christ's deity as much as the Authorized King James Version.
2 Timothy 2:15
The critics of the Authorized Version often complain that the scholars of the translation of 1611 have translated a Greek word with an English word which supposedly does not correspond with the correct meaning. This makes the modern translators seem very sincere in that they present themselves as if they would never do such a thing. Here in 2 Timothy 2:15 we find them guilty of that very thing for which they assail the King James translators.
The Greek word the King James translators translate "rightly dividing" (orthotomeo) means just that. The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Zondervan 1970) has it as "to cut straight." There is no Greek evidence for the two words "handling accurately." The Greek word for 'handle'(pselapho) is found in I John 1:1. The Greek word for "accurate" (doloo) does not appear in the Bible. These two words together in no way resemble the Greek word used in II Timothy 2:15 and correctly translated "rightly dividing." As Dr. Ruckman points out, "The Greek word for 'rightly dividing' is found in all four families of manuscripts, all cursives and uncials, of any century." 254 It might be good to note here that Nestle's Greek Text does not even give an alternate reading!
The question which naturally arises in our mind is, "Why would anyone want 2 Timothy 2:15 to read "handling accurately?" The answer is found in the preface to the New American Standard Version in which it (the NASV)is called a translation of "linguistic accuracy." 255
In other words the Lockman Foundation says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." The Lockman Foundation then says that IT has handled God's Word accurately! To pat one's self on the back so often and so obviously must make for tired arms.
Let us look at a word change which is designed to keep the Roman Catholic Church "in business."
Confession of sins has been a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.
The Greek word for "faults" (paraptomata) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, and Omega, plus the rest of the Receptus family and the greater number of all remaining witnesses. Nestle's text inserts "sins" (tax amarties) with NO manuscript authority, and the misguided men of the Lockman Foundation accept it with no evidence. Perhaps there are more Jesuits lurking in the shadows than we think! Anyone accepting an alternate reading with no evidence CANNOT be credited with acting ethically or scholarly.
One last passage shall suffice:
Here once again the "conservative scholars" of the New American Standard Version and other "Bibles" have attempted to water down the deity of Christ.
The word for "God" (Theou) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, Omega, Theta, the majority of the remaining miniscules, most of the remaining witnesses, plus the entire Latin tradition.
The Greek word "man" (anthropouo) is upheld by one Twentieth Century Greek scholar.
It is strange indeed that the Lockman Foundation is quick to strip Jesus Christ's Godship away from Him. Here, the "conservative" scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation are in complete agreement with the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version. These are strange bedfellows! I am certainly glad that the translators of the Christ-exalting Authorized Version never "slept" in this bed.
This is, of course, NOT a "God-honoring" translation. I know that the deity of Christ "can be found" in other places in the New American Standard Version, but it now "can be found" in one less place than in the Authorized Version.
Would John, in penning the gospel that is intended to exalt Jesus Christ as God, use the term "Son of Man"? Dr. Ruckman explains:
The Apostle John NEVER called Jesus Christ the "Son of Man" anywhere in his gospel when dealing with a doctrinal belief. Furthermore, the context of the book defines the correct translation in that the multitude cried for Jesus Christ's crucifixion in John 19:7 because "he made himself the Son of God." (Greek: huion Theos heauton epoinsen.) This statement so struck the already frantic Pilate, that "he was more afraid" (John 19:8) at which time he hurried back to where Jesus Christ was waiting and asked, "Whence art thou?" Pilate realized that there was something supernatural about Jesus Christ. It is too bad the elusive Lockman Foundation has never come to such a realization.
We have looked at only a few passages where modern translators have made unwarranted changes in God's Word. The result is a change in doctrine. It is evident then that, no matter what Bible salesmen may say about being able to "find" the fundamentals in any of the new translations, they are still weaker on doctrine than the God-honoring Authorized Version. I repeat, EVERY new "Bible" is doctrinally weaker than the King James Authorized Version. Why then should any school or preacher use a "Bible" in which they must "search" to prove doctrines which are more than evident in the King James Bible? If we honor Jesus Christ, then we should just naturally choose and use the Bible which honors Him the most. In case after case, the Christ-honoring Bible is found to be the King James Bible.
Virtue, Not Fanfare
Finally, it must be remembered that the Authorized Version is the only Bible ever released without fanfare.
The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Good News for Modern Man, the New International Version, the New King James Version, and all other new translations have been published with a great advertising "blitz." They have all attempted to replace the Authorized Version in the study, in the pulpit, in memorization, and in the hearts of believers. They have all failed. Those which have not failed are destined to fail, except for one.
To explain the last statement, let us look at a few facts. For every truth which God has, Satan has many counterfeits and then one ultimate counterfeit. Look at the following example:
We see from the above example that there is one true God. Satan has many false "gods" for people in this world to worship. Satan himself is the ultimate "false god."
We further see that there is one true Christ. Satan has many spirits of anti-Christ. During the tribulation there will be a manifestation of "the Antichrist."
God has one true church made up of born-again believers. Satan has many congregations serving him on this earth today. During the tribulation the ultimate Satanic church located in Rome (Babylon the Great) will again be in power.
God has preserved His Words in one Bible. Satan has many "Bibles." I believe it seems certain that someday in the future he will have one ultimate Satanic "Bible." It will probably be called a "New Authorized Version."
Notice that in the examples above, the "many" counterfeits seem to run in conjunction with the Church Age. Satan's ultimate counterfeit is always manifested during the Great Tribulation when the Holy Spirit has ceased to deal with mankind. I believe that there is a time when Satan will have an anti-bible exalted as the true Word of God just as surely as he will have an Antichrist exalted as the Son of God. It seems likely that this will not take place until the great Tribulation. Until then, God will be exalted, Jesus Christ will be exalted, Christ's church will be exalted, and the Authorized Version will be exalted.
The ASV "Bust"
In spite of the publicity campaigns to sell "Bibles," they all fail. The American Standard Version is a prime example. It was heralded as a replacement for the King James when it was published in 1901. Twenty-three years later it went broke and sold its copyright to the National Council of Churches. Was God's hand on this "Bible?" If so, WHY wasn't it accepted and used by Christianity even MORE than the Authorized Version? Was Satan able to overcome God's Will? If God's hand was not on the American Standard Version, why would the Lockman Foundation try to "resurrect" it?
"Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene." (From the Preface of the New American Standard Bible.) 257
If God wouldn't use the American Standard Version, WHY would the Lockman Foundation want to? If God's blessing was on the American Standard Version, and it died in twenty-three years without even a minor revival, HOW has the Authorized Version lasted nearly four hundred years in spite of all of the "better translations" which God has supposedly been "blessing"?
Of course, there is no answer for these questions, unless it is admitted that God's Bible is the Authorized Version and that He will preserve it whether the Christian educators can help it or not. God will continue to use this English version of the Universal Text and will continue to ignore the English versions of the Local Text, no matter who the fundamentalist is that recommends them and no matter what size college may use them. Advertisement will not help.