Colossians 3:2

Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Colossians 3:2 KJV







Tuesday, June 21, 2011

MSS101

Our Lord Jesus Christ said in Luke 4:4, "...It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."  Note, He did not say, 'man will have to get by with the dynamic equivalent!'  

It's not a matter of errors in translation between the KJV and modern bibles.  The issue is that of which line of text the translations come from: Majority Text, as found in the KJV, or Minority Text, found in ALL other modern bible versions.  [See: Majority vs. Minority Text chart]

It does matter, who our Final Authority is—the Word of God, or the word of man. 

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Corinthians 4:2-4
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There are stern warnings with dire consequences at the beginning (Deuteronomy 4:2), the middle (Proverbs 30:5-6), and at the end of the bible (Revelation 22:18-19) given to NOT add or subtract from the word of God.  (Don't miss, "Part 2," below.)

Since all of mankind will give an account one day of what they’ve done in this life—either at the Judgment Seat of Christ (for the saved) or the Great White Throne of God (for the lost)—it would behoove each and every one to look further into what and Who they believe. 

+++

[The article, below, is housed at www.thekjv400.com]

MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE KING JAMES BIBLE
By Ben R. Webb
The Berean Dispensational Site


Many thanks to Pastor Richard Jordan and Dr. Peter Ruckman, who supplied much of the information contained in the following study:

This study will begin by quoting an article from the Encarta Encyclopedia 96 CD (emphasis is mine):

For a time, some Christian scholars treated the Greek of the New Testament as a special kind of religious language, providentially given as a proper vehicle for the Christian faith. It is now clear from extrabiblical writings of the period that the language of the New Testament is koine, or common Greek, that which was used in homes and marketplaces.1
As confirmed by the above excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedia, the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament were written in the "common" KOINE GREEK, which was the dialect used by the common Greek speaking citizens of New Testament times.

The fact that the New Testament was written in KOINE GREEK is also confirmed by Mindscape Reference Library for PCs, copyright 1995:

New Testament, the distinctively Christian portion of the BIBLE, 27 books dating from the earliest Christian period, transmitted in koiné, a popular form of Greek spoken in the biblical regions from the 4th cent. B.C.2

There is no question, then, concerning the fact that the New Testament scriptures were originally written in the Koine Greek dialect. Nor is there any doubt that in earlier days, a dialect known as ATTIC Greek had been in use. However, by the time the Apostles walked this earth, Attic Greek had evolved into the Koine Greek dialect, in which the New Testament manuscripts were written.

Nevertheless, some "Atticisms" were still retained by Koine Greek; and these "Atticisms" are helpful in determining the extent to which certain Greek manuscripts were altered by the scribes that copied them.

It should also be noted that most Greek manuscripts of the New Testament belong to a family of manuscripts known as the BYZANTINE TEXT, because these manuscripts were circulated in the region of Byzantium, where the apostles lived and traveled. The Byzantine Text is commonly known as the MAJORITY TEXT, since the vast majority of all New Testament Manuscripts are Byzantine in origin. Even with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, still 90% - 95 % of all New Testament manuscripts belong to the Byzantine family.

However, there is also a small number of Greek Manuscripts (5% - 10%), which is commonly known as the CRITICAL TEXT; and it is upon this Text that most modern Bibles are based. The manuscripts that belong to this family are known as the Alexandrian manuscripts, because they were copied in the area surrounding Alexandria, Egypt. But compared to the Majority (Byzantine) Text, these Alexandrian manuscripts contain a larger number of "Atticisms", and generally have shorter readings.

In the Second Century A.D., some scribes developed a tendency to add these "Atticisms" to the Koine Greek manuscripts they were copying. At that time, many Koine Greek manuscripts were therefore altered from the Koine Greek in which they had originally been written, with the addition of these "Atticisms".

In fact, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger (no friend of the King James Bible) describes a possible scenario, in which Second Century scribes could have added these "Atticisms" to the Koine Greek manuscripts. In his book, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Third, Enlarged Edition, Copyright 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc.), Dr. Metzger makes a reference to research that was published by George D. Kilpatrick. On pages 177-178, Dr. Metzger makes the following statement (emphasis is mine) -

"In matters on which no firm decision can be made
concerning the author's style, he (Dr. Kilpatrick) often
appeals to the criterion of Atticism, which became one of the
dominant tendencies in literary circles during the first and
second Christian centuries. He argues that scribes in the
second century introduced many Atticisms into the text of the
New Testament. Of two readings, therefore, one of which
conforms to Attic canons and the other does not, he (Dr.
Kilpatrick) is inclined to accept the non-Attic reading, even
though no early manuscript evidence may support it. In order
to justify his general disregard for the age and quality of
external evidence, Kilpatrick declares that BY ABOUT A. D.
200 THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE DELIBERATE
CHANGES HAD BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE
TEXTUAL STREAM, and that thereafter scribes transmitted
the several forms of text with great fidelity. Thus, though a
variant reading may happen to be preserved only in a late
miniscule manuscript, if it is in harmony with what is taken to
be the author's style or reflects a non-Atticistic tendency,
Kilpatrick is disposed to regard it as original."

So again, there is no question that certain "Atticisms" were not in the "original autographs", but were added to the Koine Greek manuscripts at a later date. And since these "Atticisms" are more prevalent in the Alexandrian manuscripts of the Critical Text (upon which most modern Bibles are based), this evidence points to the probability that the Byzantine Text manuscripts (the Majority Text, upon which the King James Bible is based) could actually be closer to the "original autographs".

It is therefore important to realize that a Christian's preference for the King James Bible is not based upon superstition, as alleged by some critics. Instead, our decision is based upon the fact that some New Testament manuscripts were actually altered from the Koine Greek, in which they were written, with the addition of these "Atticisms". If one fails to understand this fact, he will also miss the reason why the modern Bibles which are based upon these manuscripts that contain more "Atticisms" so often disagree with the King James Bible.


So the goal of this brief study is to show that, since the King James Bible is based upon the Byzantine Majority Text, which contains fewer "Atticisms", it is actually based upon more accurate Greek Manuscripts. By contrast, though, the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, Berkeley, New World Translation, Douay, and all other modern Bibles are based to some extent upon the Critical Text Manuscripts, which contain a larger amount of "Atticisms".

These Minority Critical Text Manuscripts, upon which the modern Bibles are based, are also characterized by the fact that they are all missing certain verses which are found in the Byzantine Manuscripts (and therefore are present only in the King James Bible), while other verses have been severely modified. Before we adopt the attitude that the missing verses in these modern Bibles are of little importance, though, we must first ask - Who is to determine which verses are important, and which ones are not? Since "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), EVERY verse is important. If man is allowed to judge which verses should be retained and which ones should be cut, there will be no end to the mischief he can achieve.

There is therefore no doubt among scholars that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Koine Greek. The debate now concerns the vast number of differences between the Minority Critical Text and the Majority Byzantine Text. These differences arose early, as attempts were made to "reconstruct" the original Greek text in the 2nd through the 5th Centuries. The method adopted by those involved in this early reconstruction, however, was completely different from the method of the Textual Critics today. Whereas today's critics, for the most part, assume that "the older manuscripts are closer to the originals, and therefore more accurate", the earliest reconstructers of the Greek Text would regularly DISCARD older translations in favor of the NEWER, MORE POPULAR translations. As a result, the older, more accurate readings were gradually replaced by newer readings that, although "more popular", were much less accurate. The OLDEST readings, though, have actually been PRESERVED in the earliest translations of the Greek manuscripts into other languages (such as the Syriac, the Old Latin, etc). This is confirmed by another excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedia (again, emphasis is mine):

Early Versions
Because the New Testament was written in Greek, the story of the transmission of the text and the establishing of the canon sometimes neglects the early versions, some of which are older than the oldest extant Greek text. The rapid spread of Christianity beyond the regions where Greek prevailed necessitated translations into Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and Arabic. Syriac and Latin versions existed as early as the 2nd century, and Coptic translations began to appear in the 3rd century. These early versions were in no sense official translations but arose to meet regional needs in worship, preaching, and teaching. The translations were, therefore, trapped in local dialects and often included only selected portions of the New Testament. During the 4th and 5th centuries efforts were made to replace these regional versions with more standardized and widely accepted translations.3
As a result, since many older translations were "replaced" with more recent translations at an early stage, the current approach taken by most of the Textual Critics does not necessarily hold true. The older Greek Manuscripts of the 4th and 5th Centuries are NOT always more accurate than later manuscripts. Instead, there is much proof that certain Byzantine-type manuscripts which were written at a later date - since they preserve a more ancient reading in the text - match the "original autographs" of the New Testament writers more closely than the older Minority Text manuscripts which have been "corrected".

Listed below are 3 of the oldest Greek manuscripts, which contain a larger number of "Atticisms" than most Byzantine text manuscripts:

1. VATICANUS (Manuscript "B") - Discovered in the Vatican library in 1481; written probably about the fourth century.4 Contains the Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, which are included as part of the inspired Old Testament text (instead of being placed separately). Also contains much of the New Testament; however, Vaticanus leaves out Paul's Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:15 through the end of Hebrews, and the entire book of Revelation. Vaticanus also includes the Epistle of Barnabas, a Pseudepigraphical book (or probable false writing), in which it is stated that the hyena changes sex yearly from male to female5. Kept in the Vatican library in Rome.

2. SINAITICUS (Manuscript "ALEPH") - Fourth Century manuscript found by Tischendorf in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai. Tischendorf firmly believed that the same hand that wrote Vaticanus also wrote Sinaiticus. This manuscript also contains the New Testament Apocryphal book, The Shepherd of Hermas. Currently in the British Museum.

3. ALEXANDRINAS (Manuscript "A") - Written in the 5th Century, in many places this manuscript resembles the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible is taken. For instance, Alexandrinas contains the last 10 words of Ro. 8:1, which are missing in Aleph and B. Currently in the British Museum.

In addition, most early translations of the New Testament, some of which also contain the Old Testament, are from the Byzantine Majority Text. Only a few are from the Minority Critical text:

1. PESHITTA (or PESHITTO) - means "simple; easy to be understood". The Peshitta originated early in the 2nd Century (some even believe it originated in the 1st Century), as a BYZANTINE TEXT, the family from which the King James Bible comes. Later, however, efforts were undertaken to "revise" the Peshitta; therefore, there are actually TWO Peshittas. The older 2nd Century Peshitta matches the Textus Receptus (or, the RECEIVED Text of the King James Bible), since it was translated from Byzantine manuscripts. This 2nd Century Peshitta, also known as THE OLD SYRIAC, is older than the Diatesseron (mentioned below), and was a translation of the entire Bible. However, the later, "revised" version of the Peshitta matches the Minority Critical Text Manuscripts. The fact that there were TWO Peshittas, one in the 2nd Century, and one in the 5th Century, is also confirmed by the following two articles (emphasis is mine), again taken from the Encarta Encyclopedia:

Peshitta, Old Latin, Vulgate, and Targums
Other versions include, the Peshitta, or Syriac, begun perhaps as early as the 1st century AD; the Old Latin, translated not from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint in the 2nd century; and the Vulgate, translated from the Hebrew into Latin by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century AD.6

Pope Damasus I in 382 commissioned St. Jerome to produce a Latin Bible; known as the Vulgate, it replaces various Old Latin texts. In the 5th century, the Syriac Peshitta replaced the Syriac versions that had been in popular use up to that time. As is usually the case, the old versions slowly and painfully gave way to the new.7
Concerning the Peshitta (or Peshitto), THE COMPANION BIBLE also states (again emphasis is mine):

"Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), i.e. the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170.8
Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses.9

2. TATIAN'S DIATESSERON - means "before" . This is not a literal translation, but rather a Harmony of the Gospels, written by Tatian of Assyria - around 160 - 175 A. D. Tatian was a heretic, according to the Catholic Church. This Diatesseron was one of the "extrabiblical writings" mentioned on Page 1 of this study, which was written in Koine Greek, and which points to the fact that "the language of the New Testament is Koine, or common Greek, that which was used in homes and marketplaces".1
3. THE OLD LATIN (the ITALA) - This is a 2nd Century Byzantine Text translation by Tertullian; later this Latin translation was "corrected" by Jerome, as described below:

4. JEROME'S LATIN VULGATE - In 382, Pope Damasus 1 instructed Jerome to "revise" the Old Latin. Jerome therefore "corrected" the Gospels so that they differed noticeably from their earlier form in the Old Latin, and translated the entire Bible into Latin; thus was born the Latin Vulgate. "For a thousand years this was the standard Bible in the Catholic Church."10 Concerning the Vulgate, the ENCARTA ENCYCLOPEDIA again confirms much of this information (emphasis is mine):

Vulgate (Latin vulgata editio, "popular edition"), edition of the Latin Bible that was pronounced "authentic" by the Council of Trent. The name originally was given to the "common edition" of the Greek Septuagint used by the early Fathers of the Church. It was then transferred to the Old Latin version (the Itala) of both the Old Testament and the New Testament that was used extensively during the first centuries in the Western church. The present composite Vulgate is basically the work of St. Jerome, a Doctor of the Church.
At first St. Jerome used the Greek Septuagint for his Old Testament translation, including parts of the Apocrypha; later he consulted the original Hebrew texts. He produced three versions of the Psalms, called the Roman, the Gallican, and the Hebrew. The Gallican Psalter, based on a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew text, is now read in the Vulgate. At the request of Pope Damasus I in 382, Jerome had previously undertaken a revision of the New Testament. He corrected the Gospels thoroughly; it is disputed whether the slight revisions made in the remainder of the New Testament are his work.11
As confirmed by the above article, Jerome "corrected the Gospels thoroughly", and possibly other books as well, in his Latin Vulgate. In addition, the International Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 1841, also has Jerome "correcting" the "unskillful scribes" who had written the earlier manuscripts. Thus we have two DIFFERENT early Latin translations - the OLD Latin (or the ITALA) of the 2nd Century, and the VULGATE of the 4th Century, which was Jerome's attempt to "correct" the Old Latin.

Later, in the 16th Century, several Greek Texts were compiled by various editors. The editors of these Greek texts had access to the Minority Critical Text, and to Jerome's Vulgate as a reference. However, these editors all rejected the Minority Text manuscripts, and unanimously based their Greek texts instead upon the Majority Text Byzantine Manuscripts, also known as the RECEIVED TEXT:

1. ERASMUS
, using BYZANTINE manuscripts, edited 5 editions of the Greek New Testament (in addition to his translation of Greek into Latin in 1505): 1516, 1519, 1522 (he began including 1 John 5:7 in this edition), 1527, and 1535. Erasmus had access to Manuscripts unavailable to scholars today.

2. STEPHANUS, also using BYZANTINE Manuscripts, edited 4 editions of the Greek New Testaments in 1546, 1549, 1550, & 1551 (His last text began the practice of dividing chapters into verses). This text is the one that is usually referred to as the Textus Receptus.

3. BEZA published several Greek texts beginning in 1565; these basically followed Stephanus' Greek texts. Beza's 1589 text was the text generally referred to by the King James translators.

4. ELZEVIR - Yet another Greek Text based upon Byzantine Manuscripts; completed in 1624.

The editors of the above Greek texts all based their work upon Byzantine Text Greek Manuscripts, because the Critical Text Manuscripts were regarded as being inferior to the earliest translations of the Greek Manuscripts into other languages, as well as to the Byzantine Text itself. As previously covered, the earliest translations, in which the oldest readings are preserved, are "more valuable" than the oldest Greek Texts themselves, as THE COMPANION BIBLE states in an Appendix (emphasis mine):

...in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.12

Subsequent ENGLISH translations of the New Testament, based upon the above compiled Greek Texts, were then made prior to the King James Bible in 1611. Again, many of these translations also contained the Old Testament. The editors of these Bibles also had access to various Minority Text Manuscripts, as well as to the Majority Byzantine Greek texts compiled by the above authors, yet - when determining which Greek Manuscripts to use for their work - the Minority Text was again soundly rejected each time. In addition to the Greek Texts of Erasmus and Stephanus, the COMPANION BIBLE states:

Beza (No. 3 above) and the Elzevir (No. 4 above) may be considered as being the so-called "Received Text" which the translators of the Authorized Version used in 161113

Although two of the English translations - Wycliffe's English translation, and the Douay Version - were translations of Jerome's Latin Vulgate into English (instead of being translated from Greek), the New Testament translators who translated from Greek unanimously chose the Majority Byzantine Greek Text:

1380 - John Wycliffe translated Jerome's Latin Vulgate into English.

1525 - 1534 - Tyndale's English Translation: Based upon Erasmus' Greek text, this was the first complete English translation taken directly from the Greek New Testament scriptures. Before William Tyndale's translation, the available copies had been those written by hand in Greek and Latin, which the common people could not read. Although the Catholic Church had been demanding strict observance of certain unscriptural practices for years, the faithful common people had no way of knowing that they were being deceived. Tyndale, an Anabaptist and a Greek scholar, had been studying in England, when he became angered by another student's assertion that an understanding of the scriptures was not necessary for the common people. When the student claimed that the pope's laws were more important than God's Laws, Tyndale vowed to "one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" From Germany, Tyndale printed the first English Bible to be translated directly from the Greek Manuscripts, a deed for which he was ultimately hung. Afterwards, his body was publicly burned as a warning to others. "Tyndale was a ripe Greek scholar and had access to the Greek text of Erasmus and other helps which Wycliffe did not possess."14

1535 - Coverdale's Bible: Translated from a Latin version of Martin Luther's Bible, this version was mainly a revision of Tyndale's Bible.

1537 - Matthew's Bible: Printed by John Rogers, an associate of Tyndale's. Knowing his name would immediately be associated with Tyndale's, and unwilling to invite a similar fate, Rogers chose to call his translation Matthew's Bible.

1539 - Great Bible: Also printed by Miles Coverdale, who had been widely criticized (and still is) for translating from Latin which had in turn been translated from Greek. In answer to his critics, Coverdale then translated the Great Bible from Erasmus' Greek text, using Matthew's Bible as a guide.

1557 - William Wittingham's translation used Beza's Greek text, and Matthew's Bible. He also divided the text into verses, following the pattern set by Stephens 1551 text, and introduced the use of italics. This Bible was the first to use Roman-style print.

1560 - Geneva Bible: John Calvin wrote the prologue; he and Beza both oversaw the translation of this Bible. Translated in Geneva, John Bunyan quoted from it, Shakespeare read it; this was the Bible used by the Puritans. Also called The Breeches Bible, because it stated that Adam and Eve made themselves breeches from fig leaves.

1568 - Bishop's Bible - Commissioned by Queen Elizabeth, this Bible was a revision of the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible.

1582 - Douay Bible (from the Critical Minority Text) - A Roman Catholic Version, translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, this is the generally accepted English version of the Roman Church.15
1604 - Dr. John Reynolds suggests to King James that a new translation be made to create ONE version with authority, combining the best of all the above. King James therefore appointed 54 scholars to undertake the task; 7 of these 54 died before its completion in 1611. These scholars based their work upon the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, since it had been firmly established as being the correct text for the Old Testament (that proof, however, is beyond the scope of this study). The King James scholars based their translation of the New Testament upon Beza's Greek Text for the New Testament. These translators never claimed to be inspired, as some supporters of the modern versions have charged. Their first and most important step was to identify which Greek text to use, since the entire outcome of their work would be based upon this. A wrong choice here would invalidate their entire work; therefore, they chose Beza's Greek text, which was based upon Byzantine Manuscripts.

Johann Griesbach (1745 - 1812) was the first critic of any note to reject the Byzantine Text, which contains 85 - 95 % of the Greek Manuscripts, and instead based his work upon the rarely used Minority Critical Text. He gave more "weight" to the smaller count of the Minority Text, and justified his decision to reject the larger count of the Majority Text, by arguing that the evidence should be "weighed, not counted". He therefore decided upon an ARBITRARY classification of the Greek manuscripts into 4 separate "families" that share common characteristics, in order to give more "weight" to the Minority Text.

Several other Greek Texts have since been compiled, all based largely upon the Minority Critical Text manuscripts. In addition to the previously mentioned Greek text by Griesbach, we now have other Greek texts compiled by Lachmann in 1842-1850, Tischendorf in 1865-1872, Tregelles in 1857-1872, Alford in 1862-1871, and Wordsworth in 1870. In order to justify the use of the Minority Critical Text manuscripts in these Greek Texts, Wescott & Hort developed their Geneological Theory, based upon Griesbach's earlier classification of manuscripts into 4 families. Wescott & Hort next developed the CONFLATE THEORY, based upon only eight verses, in order to apply their genealogies. This Conflate Theory makes the assumption that copies of the "originals" were split into two "families" of manuscripts in two separate geographical regions, with the Eastern family residing around Alexandria, Egypt, and the Western family in Rome, Italy. According to this theory, copies were then made and handed down, and "scribal errors" soon crept in at each location, thereby uniquely marking each "family" with its own shared set of errors. Later, some scribe supposedly sat down with manuscripts from each "family" and combined both into the Byzantine Majority Text, which was a "conflation" of the two.

The Conflate Theory is based upon only 8 verses, found in 2 New Testament books: Mk. 6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49, Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18, & 24:53. The Eastern (Alexandrinan) texts all have similar characteristics; all have the shorter reading. The Western texts also commonly add to the text. The Conflate Theory has since been proven false by Dean Burgon (1882), Bousset (1894), Burkitt (1904), Voobus (1947), Dr. Edward Hills (1950), and others. Of these, Dean John Burgon lists 7 "notes of truth" for his rejection of the Conflate Theory, and his subsequent endorsement of the Majority Byzantine Text:

1. Antiquity
2. The Number (or the COUNT) of the witnesses (the vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts are of the Byzantine type) is more important than the WEIGHT.
3. Variety of the evidence (called Catholicity)
4. Continuity
5. Respectability (the WEIGHT of the evidence)
6. Context
7. Internal considerations (internal evidence)

Consider John 7:53 - 8:11, for example, which is omitted by many of the older (Critical Text) manuscripts. Beginning in John 7:45, after Jesus' appearance at the Feast of Tabernacles, the officers are talking alone with the chief priests and Pharisees, including Nicodemus. Jesus is nowhere in the picture. If we follow the "older" manuscripts and jump from John 7:52 to 8:11, suddenly Jesus is there in the midst of them in the Treasury, teaching in the Temple (verse 20). The context of the passage changes too abruptly in the Critical text manuscripts; therefore, the INTERNAL evidence is that John 7:53 - 8:11 should be retained in order to give a smooth transition. In addition, these "missing" verses (or portions of them) were cited by Papius 1n 150 A. D., and also by Didache in the 2nd Century.

However, the question then arises: How can verses that are not supposed to be in the Bible (since they are not contained in the "best" Greek Manuscripts) be quoted before these Manuscripts were written?

Another example is the "long ending" of Mark 16:9-20, which is missing from ONLY two Greek Manuscripts - Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. These verses are, however, contained in 216 Greek Manuscripts, as well as in the earliest translations called the Syriac (the Peshitta), the Old Latin, and Jerome's Vulgate. In addition, Papias referred to verse 18 around 100 A.D.; Justyn Martyr quotes verse 20 in 150 A.D.; Ireneas quotes and remarks on verse 19 in 180 A.D.; Hippolytus (190 - 227 A. D.) quotes verses 17-19; Vincentius (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the Seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian; the Acta Pilati quotes verses 15 - 18 in the 2nd Century; they are contained in the Apostolotical Constitutions (3rd or 4th Century); Eusebius (325 A. D.) discusses these verses; Chrystosom (A. D. 400) refers to verse 9, and states that verses 19 & 20 are "the end of the Gospel"; Jerome includes them in his Latin translation (the Vulgate); and finally, Augustine (in A. D. 395 - 430) discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist Mark, and asserts that they were publicly read in the churches.16 However, because ONLY Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not contain this long ending, it is placed separately from the rest of the book of Mark in most modern Bibles, thus casting doubt upon the authenticity of these verses. Those who would refer to these verses in support of some particular doctrine are therefore doubted, since these verses are not contained in the "better" manuscripts.

Again, though, the question must be raised - How could these verses be quoted or referred to by so many historical witnesses, if they were never contained in Mark's Gospel in the first place?

In fact, those who ascribe to the Conflate Theory fail to follow their own logic in many cases. For example, although Manuscript "B" (Vaticanus) is SUPPOSED to be the "best" manuscript, certain modern Bible translators fail to accept its reading of verses which actually match the Byzantine Text Manuscripts in passages such as Mt. 22:30, 27:46, 27:49-50, Ro. 13:9-10, or Rev. 11:11 & 12:5. Although Vaticanus and Sinaiticus BOTH match the Byzantine Text (and therefore the King James rendering) in such passages, these modern translators chose instead to base their translation of these verses upon an Eighth Century Manuscript ( "D"). Although Manuscripts A, B, and Aleph are supposed to be superior, Nestles' Greek Text also rejects these manuscripts in their rendering of Mk. 3:8; John 4:51, 8:38, 10:22, 12:12, 14:7; Ro. 15:15, 1 Cor. 4:17, and Eph. 4:32 & 5:32.

In Luke 24:12, Manuscripts A, B, Aleph, and P45 (supposedly the "best" Greek Manuscripts), as well as the Syriac, all agree with the Byzantine Text; yet these are rejected in favor of D, a 5th Century manuscript.

Finally, there is also much controversy over the authenticity of the "Johannine Comma" of 1 John 5:7 -

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


I hope to address the evidence for the above passage in a future study. In the meantime, though, English Roman Catholic Bible scholar Monsignor Knox had it exactly right in the footnote in his 1944 translation, when he stated:

"This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript. But the Latin versions may have preserved the true text".

Remember, the Old Latin, being a 2nd Century Byzantine Manuscript, is much closer to the "originals" than any of the Greek manuscripts, for the simple fact that it was not "corrected" as were the later Manuscripts. As stated on page 2 of this study, "During the 4th and 5th centuries efforts were made to replace these regional versions with more standardized and widely accepted translations."3 In addition, on page 4 of this study, it is noted that THE COMPANION BIBLE states in an Appendix (emphasis mine): "...in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions."12

The oldest translations, then, could very well preserve older readings, in addition to preserving verses that have been deleted at a later date (such as the Johannine Comma). In fact, F. F. Bruce, in The Books and the Parchments, on page 210, actually confirms this likelihood. After stating that there SHOULD be no Greek Manuscript evidence for the Johannine Comma (based upon the Conflate Theory), Bruce then admits that Greek Manuscripts do indeed exist which contain this verse.

In fact, the full text of 1 John 5:6-8, as it appears in the King James Bible, was actually preserved in the "Old Latin" (also known as the "Itala"), which was the 2nd Century Byzantine manuscript translated from Greek into Latin by Tertullian (who lived from about 160 A.D. to about 220 A.D.). Tertullian was actually the first known Latin writer to distinctly express the concept of a Trinity. Although some may claim that Tertullian did not actually believe in the Trinity as it is taught today (this can be debated), he did include the complete text of 1 John 5:6-8, as it now appears in the King James Bible, in his translation of the Old Latin (as witnessed by the manuscript which is designated "r", which was written approximately 550 A.D.). At about the same time, Saint Cyprian, the leader of the Christian church in Africa (Cyprian lived from about 200 A.D. until 258 A.D. when he was beheaded), also made a direct reference to 1 John 5:7, as it now appears in the King James Bible.

When the Greek text of the New Testament was beginning to be assembled in the so-called Middle Ages, there was enough evidence for the authenticity of 1 John 5:6-8 that Desiderius Erasmus included the entire passage in his 1522 edition of the Greek New Testament. Again, Erasmus actually had access to certain manuscripts and other material in his time to which today's scholars no longer have access.

Several years later, Stephanus produced his own Greek New Testament, and the edition he produced in the year 1550 again included the entire text of 1 John 5:6-8 (this Greek text is the same Stephens 1550 Greek Text referred to in this study). Later, Theodore Beza (who succeeded John Calvin to become the head of the Protestant Reformation) refined Stephens Greek text to some extent. As a result, while the full text of 1 John 5:5-8, as it appears in the King James Bible, may not be contained in the majority of Greek manuscripts, there is compelling evidence for its authenticity.

The above information is readily verifiable, and offers ample evidence that the full text of 1 John 5:6-8 was not simply added by the men who translated the King James Bible itself. Instead, the full text is actually contained in the Received Text from which this Bible was translated (including certain Greek manuscripts), and there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the words were actually penned by the apostle John himself.
_______

In addition to the above mentioned references, here are some additional footnoted references:

1 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD
2 Mindscape Reference Library for PCs, copyright 1995:
3 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD
4 THE THOMPSON CHAIN-REFERENCE BIBLE, Fourth Improved Edition, 1982, Topics & Texts, Pages 180 -181
5 DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY by Charles Baker, Grace Bible College Publications, Fourth Printing, 1986, Page 87
6 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD
7 IBID
8 THE COMPANION BIBLE, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Michigan, First Printing, 1990
9 IBID
10 THE THOMPSON CHAIN-REFERENCE BIBLE, Fourth Improved Edition, 1982, Topics & Texts, Pages 180 -181
11 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD, "Vulgate"
12 THE COMPANION BIBLE, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Michigan, First Printing, 1990, Appendix 168, Page 190
13 IBID, Appendix 94, Page 137
14 THE THOMPSON CHAIN-REFERENCE BIBLE, Fourth Improved Edition, 1982, Topics & Texts, Pages 180 -181
15 IBID
16 THE COMPANION BIBLE, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Michigan, First Printing, 1990, Appendix 168, Page 190
 
Part 2:
Missing, Incomplete, and Problem Verses in the NIV (and most other Bibles)
ADDED February 11, 2002

In view of the above study on manuscript evidence supporting the King James Bible, it should be noted that the NIV actually deletes numerous passages (while casting doubt upon the authenticity of others), because it is based upon the above-mentioned "Critical" Text. In the following addition to this study, partial omissions and variant words in the Greek Texts are noted by underlined words in the King James passages. Entire omissions are also denoted.

Mt. 17:21, King James Bible - Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Mt. 17:21, NIV - Missing
Mt. 18:11, King James Bible - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mt. 18:11, NIV - Missing
Mt. 23:14, King James Bible - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mt. 23:14, NIV - Missing
Mt. 27:35, King James Bible - And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.Mt. 27:35, NIV - When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
Mark 1:2, King James Bible; quoting from Malachi 3:1 - As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mark 1:2, NIV - It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" (again, the quote is from Malachi 3:1; NOT Isaiah the prophet.)

Mark 7:16
, King James Bible - If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 7:16, NIV - Missing.

Mark 9:44, King James Bible - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:44, NIV - Missing.
Mark 9:46, King James Bible - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46, NIV - Missing.
Mark 11:26, King James Bible - But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 11:26, NIV - Missing.
Mark 15:27, King James Bible - And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. (quoted from Isaiah 53:12.)
Mark 15:28, NIV - Missing.

Luke 9:55-56, King James Bible -
55: But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Luke 9:55-56, NIV -
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them,
56 and they went to another village.
Mark 16:9-20, King James Bible -
9: Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10: And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11: And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12: After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13: And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19: So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20: And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16:9-20, NIV - The authenticity of these verses is questioned.
Luke 17:36
, King James Bible - Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36, NIV - Missing.

Luke 23:17, King James Bible - (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
Luke 23:17, NIV - Missing.

John 3:13, King James Bible - And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13, NIV - No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

John 5:3-4, King James Bible -
3: In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4: For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

John 5:3, NIV - Here a great number of disabled people used to lie--the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.
Verse 4 - Missing.

John 7:53-8:11, King James Bible -
53: And every man went unto his own house.
1: Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2: And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3: And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4: They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5: Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6: This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8: And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9: And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10: When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11: She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
John 7:53-8:11, NIV - Missing.
Acts 8:37, King James Bible - And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:37, NIV - Missing.
Acts 15:18, King James Bible - Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Acts 15:18, NIV - that have been known for ages. Acts 15:34, King James Bible - Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 15:34, NIV - Missing.

Acts 24:7, King James Bible -
But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Acts 24:7, NIV - Missing (along with the last portion of verse 6, and the first portion of verse 8).
Acts 28:29, King James Bible - And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Acts 28:29, NIV - Missing.
Romans 8:1, King James Bible - There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.Romans 8:1, NIV - Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus
Romans 11:6, King James Bible - And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.Romans 11:6, NIV - And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
1 Cor. 10:28, King James Bible - But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: (Quoting from Psalms 24:1)
1 Cor. 10:28, NIV - But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sakeEph. 3:6, King James Bible - That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph. 3:6, NIV - This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (The words "with Israel" are added, with absolutely no manuscript authority whatsoever.)

Colossians 1:14, King James Bible - In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Colossians 1:14, NIV - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col. 4:8, King James Bible - Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts;
Col. 4:8, NIV - I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts
1 John 4:3, King James Bible - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3, NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.1 John 5:7, King James Bible - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7, NIV - The above words are missing (although the last half of verse 6 is combined with the first half of verse 8, in order to form a "pseudo"-verse 7).
Rev. 1:8, King James Bible - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev. 1:8, NIV - "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.Rev. 1:11, King James Bible - Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev. 1:11, NIV - which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."Rev. 5:10, King James Bible (here, the context concerns "the four beasts and four and twenty elders" of verse 8) - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev. 5:10, NIV (here, the context would concern the men of verse 9, who were purchased "from every tribe and language and people and nation") - You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.
Rev. 5:14, King James Bible - And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
Rev. 5:14, NIV - The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
Rev. 8:13, King James Bible - And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
Rev. 8:13, NIV - As I watched, I heard an eagle that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: "Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!"
Rev. 11:17, King James Bible - Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev. 11:17, NIV - "We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.
Rev. 13:1, King James Bible - And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Rev. 13:1, NIV - And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
Rev. 21:24, King James Bible - And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it…
Rev. 21:24, NIV - The nations will walk by its light…


Ben R. Webb
The Berean Dispensational Site

Saturday, June 11, 2011

A matter with eternal ramifications

The thought that 'different' bibles could exist seemed outlandish to me.  But over time, with the words of Christ in Matthew 4:4 and then searching out the matter extensively for myself, that 'thought' became a 'belief'  and progressed on to a 'conviction'…one that is most precious to me:  I can and do hold in my possession the pure word of God. [Psalm 12:6; 119:140

Below is a study written by Pastor Richard Jordan an unknown number of years ago.  Even so, the information is timeless. While the modern versions have gone through numerous revisions, the KJV still stands.  As of May 2011, the King James Bible has now celebrated its 400th Anniversary.  "Long live the King!"


Let me exhort you to not take my word for it, but to investigate the matter...a matter with eternal ramifications...for yourself.


++++++++++

Is Your Bible the Right Bible?
                                by Pastor Richard Jordan
    

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..."   (II Corinthians 2:17)

For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable—are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Our examination of this important subject will by no means be exhaustive, given the space available to us here, but we hope to give the reader enough information that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as to which Bible is reliable and which version in not.

A bit of background to begin with: In 1881 there was introduced into public circulation a new Bible text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee which produced the (English) Revised Version, 1881, and the American Standard Version, 1901.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations. It has been used to replace the Received Text of the KJV and its predecessors. There is, however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is not reliable—and more and more are returning, we have, to the KJV.

As we compare verses, we will see why this is true. We have objective evidence as the reliability of the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions—overwhelming evidence that new versions are not simply better translations. Nor are they simply revisions of the KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts which often question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

In Matthew 1:25 the words "her firstborn son" are consistently omitted by modern versions. In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and 23:14 are omitted entirely, while in Matthew 24:36 the words "nor the Son" are added.

There are literally hundreds of these type textual alternations which have nothing to do with translation. They come because of the difference in what is being translated—the Greek texts being used are substantially different. And the difference is by no means insignificant.

In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God's Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:

In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" is changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting life" (NIV) The words "on me" are left out [footnote 1].

John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God "the Father instead of "my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).

Other vital truths are also affected. For example, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily "for us" (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by Himself purged our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause "through His blood" is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for redemption.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up into heaven," referring to our Lord's ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the Father" are omitted.

By now it should be obvious that the new versions are not simply better translations or a revision of KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor changes which do not affect basic meanings.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

We are using the New International Version (NIV) for comparison quotes because of its present popularity. What is true of it however, is consistently true of other versions.

SERIOUS QUESTIONS
Because of the subtle nature of the deception used to corrupt God's Word, we want to offer three examples of the absolute devastation caused by these new versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in regard to these issues has caused some to pass off as only a minor irritant the numerous passages which are altered so as to eliminate or dilute statements on the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of this, and the emotional allegiance often attached to those recommending the modern versions, we ask our readers to consider the impact of these three passages on their faith. These three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are unsafe.

1.      Matthew 5:22   Often it is difficult to grasp the impact of what seems to an innocent omission. Here is a verse where this syndrome is demonstrated to be a subtle trap leading to spiritual destruction. In KJV, Matthew 5:22 reads,

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The NIV renders the verse thus:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Did you catch the omission? The phrase "without a cause" is omitted from the statement "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This does not seem to be too very consequential at first glance. But for a Bible student who is serious about believing and honoring the Word of God, this verse is devastating.

If the reader is diligent it will not be long before he comes upon Mark 3:5 where we are told about our Lord:

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts...

The problem is obvious: If the NIV reading is to stand, our Lord is condemned by His own words.

This is no small matter! By this seemingly unimportant omission in Matthew 5:22, the modern versions have destroyed the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ and established him as a sinner, condemned for failure to live by His own declaration.

2.      Mark 1:2   The next verse brings up the dementia associated with the use of modern versions. The following change is so amazing that we doubt anyone would believe it if the record was not clear. In KJV the Mark 1:2 reads,

As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The NIV rendering is consistent with other modern versions:

"It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way."

Any reference edition or center column reference will quickly establish the problem for modern versions: The quotation in Mark 1:2 is not from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1. Mark 1:3 is a quote from Isaiah 40:3. Thus two prophets are being quoted, not one. The statement in NIV (and other modern versions) is simply false.

This is simply a case of the Greek text and resultant English translation being wrong. It is a mistake, plain and simple. No amount of sophistry can argue around it. Notice the verse does not say, "It was spoken in Isaiah" (as in the case of Matthew 27:9's quote of Jeremiah). No. The quote is clearly said to have been "written in Isaiah."

Two possibilities exits: (1) Either the book of Isaiah, as we have it, is incomplete, omitting the quote (and thus the Bible itself so not complete), or (2) Mark is mistaken, having given the wrong reference (which would mean that the Holy Spirit made a mistake writing the Scripture).

These two choices leave us in the unenviable position of having to adjust our understanding of Biblical infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility will not stand the test if the reading of the new versions is accepted.

3.      Hebrews 3:16    We add this reference because it too seems to be too impossible to be real. Unfortunately it is all too real-and illustrative of the caliber of modern versions. KJV renders the verse this way:

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

The verse is changed in NIV to read:

"Who were they who heard and rebelled? Where they not all those Moses led out of Egypt ?"

In other words, KJV says that "not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" rebelled while NIV indicates that "all those Moses led out of Egypt" did rebel. Any junior in Sunday school knows which of the two is right!

After four decades of wilderness wanderings, Moses addressed Israel as she prepares to enter the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 29:2 tells us…

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh... (cf. Deuteronomy 1:30).

Obviously some of these who were in Egypt and saw with their own eyes what God had done there also entered into the Promised Land, having not rebelled in the wilderness. As we said, any junior-aged boy or girl could name two of them: Joshua and Caleb! One wonders what the translators of the NIV and other versions have been reading.

Why should we accept a bible version that is not true—especially when we have one that is? Why would we accept a bible that openly denies the sinlessness of our Lord and that makes the doctrine of Scriptural Infallibility a falsehood?

THE BOOK WILL DEFEND ITSELF
We do not fear for God's Word, He'll take care of it! We fear only for Its readers. These new versions are simply unsafe to rely on.

We trust this information will help our readers to understand this issue more clearly. Compare the verses for yourself and you will see that we do have a reliable, dependable copy of the Word of God in our own language. God has preserved His Word and made it available to us in our own language in an absolutely dependable form, the King James Bible.

       by Pastor Richard Jordan 

++++++++++

For further information read:  His Excellency Stands Alone


Saturday, June 4, 2011

God, the Great Divider!

Blasphemy!!” you say? 

Absolutely not!   I stand on the authority of His Word and proclaim it!  Right off the bat, we see it in black and white…

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Did He not create the whole universe?  Why not say universe then instead of having it preserved for us as delineating the division of the universe as: heaven and earth?  A clear, irrefutable distinction, yes?

As one studies His Word further, one can see that division is replete throughout the whole Book…

Earth / Heaven
Law / Grace
Prophecy / Mystery
Israel / the Church, the Body of Christ
Circumcision / Uncircumcision
Born of the flesh / born of the Spirit
Physical / Spiritual

…and that’s only scratching the surface.  None of the above (there are others!) can be mixed--they are totally separate from each other.

Allow me to digress here for a minute…
Before becoming a serious student of the Word, I’d gloss over these words without really considering them and what they actually meant.  Oh yes, I had a respect…a reverence…for the Bible but I didn’t honor it as I should.  Much like children are to honor their parents by heeding and obeying their word, so should we as sons and daughters of God, honor His Word by heeding and obeying It.  Therefore, when we do, we don’t simply gloss over His words but rather seek to understand them so we can ‘heed’ and ‘obey’ them.  Our earthly parents have our best interest at heart and therefore to the best of their ability will tell us that which is profitable to our physical growth.  Likewise, our heavenly Father desires that we know that which is profitable to our spiritual growth.     In order to gain parental approval (rather than correction), children in both realms need to hear, heed and act accordingly, their parents’ words. 

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Therefore…

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

…and what does God’s word to us say?

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

…and what is that?  God says His word is Truth…

John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

In respect to all the division occurring in His Word, to honor Him when He tells us to rightly divide, we should ask ourselves what is it that we divide?    Well, we look to Him for that answer—what saith the scriptures?  He leaves no doubt or guesswork by saying it is His word of truth that is to be rightly divided.   (It is a sad fact that the vast majority of Christianity doesn’t even know to do this because the modern bibles today used in the vast majority of denominational churches do not give that clear instruction. …but that’s a whole study in itself.)

Therefore, let us as sons and daughters of the Creator of the whole universe, seek to understand what He means by “dividing.”  Let us rightly divide as oppose to wrongly divide His Word of Truth so as to be approved of Him. 

Grace to you,

;j

P.S.   Just because you've never been exhorted to 'rightly divide' by your 'authority' (be it a pastor/mentor/bible teacher, respected relative, etc.,), may I ask you to consider an 'Higher Authority'?   As for me, I stand on God's Word, over and above 'the word' any man with feet of clay. [Yea, let God be true and every man a liar. Rom 3:4 KJB]