Does Bible Version Matter?

E.
Arbuthnot, 2005
-2-
Foreword
This paper was written for the PCC of St. Cuthberts Church, Philbeach Gardens, Earls Court.
The church, which features prominently in Simon Jenkinss Englands Best 1000 Churches,
and is Grade II* Listed, has been described as the Anglo-Catholic Cathedral, for which
purpose it was set up, a heritage to which it has been true in some respects but perhaps not in
all.
A decision taken some 25 years ago to change from the Authorised Version of the Bible to the
Revised Standard Version for readings in public worship may have been made in ignorance of
the facts. Most of the members of the PCC are extremely busy. We are privileged to have a
high proportion of academics in the church, but that gives us also the responsibility to present
arguments briefly, simply and clearly for those with a wide variety of intellectual capacities
and interests. I therefore aimed initially to present the arguments in two or three pages, hence
the synopsis. But the meat had gone, so, for what it is worth, I offer a more substantial
paper, replete with footnotes and Bibliography. For one who can spare the time, the footnotes
will reward study; they are simply removed from the text for ease of reading and as another
help to those who already have too much to read.
The argument is essentially that the orthodox Anglo-Catholic view is to go with the King
James Version of the Bible, and that all the modern versions are greatly inferior, based on
unsound textual and translational principles, on texts compiled by men who, by their own
admission, dabbled in the occult. The RSV subtly implies that the Lord Jesus is not divine,
which is of profound importance. Unless the PCC is aware of the dangers, people will be
making another decision blind, so to speak.
In using the RSV as our version of choice we may not only be encouraging people into error,
but setting a profoundly bad example to the nation and I believe that, being the sort of church
we are, we have a responsibility to lead the nation, not to follow the trends. I have argued
elsewhere1 that churches, like individuals, are gifted and called to a particular task, to a
particular ministry, which we must find and fulfil. The more I have studied the subject of
Bible versions, the more significant, the more important, I believe it is and the greater our
responsibility to make the right choice.
Elizabeth Arbuthnot,
June 2005.
The Wobblymans Toycupboard, 1987

-3-
Acknowledgements
Over the decades, I have scribbled notes in my King James Bible, on scraps of paper, and on
sundry computers, and frequently have not recorded the source of the thought. The notes may
have come from sermons, from something heard on the radio, from snippets of conversations
with friends, from a whole variety of sources, and I confess that I have been remiss in not
having sourced them properly. If you are among those to whom I am indebted for a thought
or a comment, please accept my grateful thanks and my apologies for my failure to
acknowledge your contribution.
Naming individuals can become invidious, but I know that it was the Revd. David Smith who,
in the early 1980s, put into my hands a book containing the original letters of Scrivener,
Westcott and Hort, and who gave me a substantive basis for my instinctive commitment to the
Textus Receptus. To him I shall be eternally grateful. Denis Clark had already taught me the
importance of reading the Bible through, from cover to cover, at least once a year. My debt to
him and to his wife, Beth, is inestimable, not for that alone, but for much wise insight, and a
great deal more besides.
I am also very grateful to those who were kind enough to read this paper in draft and to make
constructive suggestions. In particular, John Campbell and Charles Hillman have both been
extremely helpful.
-4-
Does Bible version matter?
Synopsis
Introduction
Bible version only matters if the Bible itself matters. It does. The Bible is fundamental to
our faith, the source of our revelation, inspiration, doctrine and devotion. The question is
whether all translations of the Bible are equally authoritative. If not every version is of equal
validity, it is important to choose a translation as close as possible to the original. Newer
versions of the Bible are based on erroneous texts and therefore not of equal authority to the
King James Version. The translators of the Authorised Version had a scholarship unsurpassed
to this day. They gave us a literal translation, rather than the dynamic equivalence of modern
versions, and they came from a position of doctrinal orthodoxy, while the doctrine in many of
the modern versions is at best questionable. A church which wants to preserve the faith once
delivered to the saints should therefore value the King James Version very highly indeed.
I
Texts
Old Testament (mainly Hebrew) texts
The traditional Hebrew text from which the KJV was translated is very close, if not identical,
to the original. Its highly-trained scribes are meticulous and reverent in the copying and
recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. Later translations of the Bible use the Biblia Hebraica,
which has about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the Old Testament text.
As well as using an inaccurate basic text, modern translations attempt to correct the Hebrew
Text in many different ways, by rejecting the time-honoured theological approach in favour of
the rationalist, which makes no distinction between the text of the Bible and that of a purely
human book. Changing the Hebrew text means changing the Word of God. The Bible itself
says that that is a very serious thing to do, and that we must not.
B
New Testament (Greek) texts
The Greek text underlying the Authorized Version New Testament is the Textus Receptus.
The text underlying modern versions is based upon two inferior manuscripts, described as
corrupt and contradictory. The text used for the RSV is edited by Drs. Westcott and Hort,
two of the founding members of an occult society named The Ghostly Guild, the object of
which was to classify authenticated instances of what are now called psychic phenomena.
Their orthodoxy is seriously in doubt. Hort found the doctrine of substitutionary atonement
most unacceptable to the extent that he said, I do not see how Gods justice can be
satisfied without every mans suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins. He
denied the doctrine of eternal punishment of the unbeliever. He described Negro slaves as an
immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more, their religion frothy and sensuous, their
highest virtues those of a good Newfoundland dog. They both 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.
-5-
Antiquity alone does not determine authenticity. Heretical texts were in circulation even
during the New Testament period, causing severe confusion in some case. Indeed, some of
the epistles were written precisely to counter the arguments of the Gnostics and others. At no
time in the history of the Church has there been a lack of those bold enough to tamper with the
true text.
II
Translators
Authorised Version Translators
The men who translated the Authorised Version of the Bible were scholars of an order not
found in the last or the present centuries. They based their translation of the Hebrew text on
insights developed by Rabbi David Kimchi.
B
Revised Standard Version Translators
Some of the translators of the RSV do not acknowledge fundamental Bible doctrines, such as
the Deity of Christ, His Pre-existence, His Virgin Birth, His Atoning Sacrifice and present
intercession in Heaven. At least one of them would not claim to be a Christian at all.
III
Technique
Most modern Bible translations are not translations in the literal sense of the word, but
dynamic equivalents. Unlike many of todays translators, the authorized KJV translators let
us know which words they had to add in translating in order to give the full meaning of the
original text.
IV
Theology
The theology of all the new translations is questionable. The RSVs modernism and Unitarian
bias appear throughout.
V
Language
The unique linguistic beauty of the Authorised Version of the Bible is self-evident. Its
language was self-explanatory, not the English of the early 17th century, not a type of English
ever spoken anywhere. Biblical English has never been used on ordinary occasions, even by
the translators who produced the King James Version. The King James Bible contains
hundreds more words than modern versions, yet nobody could call it verbose. In language as
well as text, the King James Version is still far superior to any other English translation of the
Bible, which is why it is normally accepted in preference to all other translations. It is still the
easiest to read of all the translations available.
VI
Our national heritage
The Authorised Version of the Bible has been formative in our national culture. Without a
knowledge of the Authorised Version of the Bible, much of our modern idiom is unintelligible.
Even where the sense is self-evident, a knowledge of the context enriches and enhances. Even
in the limited context of our own congregation, most of us are cradle Christians, brought up
on the Authorised Version of the Bible. It is the version we learned by heart in childhood, the
version with which we feel most comfortable.
-6-
VII
Signs of the Times
If, indeed, we are living in the last days, if, indeed, a one-world religion is on the horizon, we
can expect times of persecution, times when it is essential that we know our God, that we know
what He wants of us, that we have effective tools to recognise and to stand against the wiles of
the devil.
VIII
Some side-effects of using a modern translation
Three negative effects of using a modern translation are:

(1) the life-style of those who go to churches which use one;
(2) the absence of true spiritual revival associated with any modern translation;
(3) the unfortunate impression given to those outside the faith.
IX
Conclusion
Of the United Kingdoms four most popular Bible translations, the King James Version has
stood the test of centuries. It is self-explanatory, and has power, the power of the Holy Spirit
of the Living God, power to change us, power to live by. Its superiority over all other English
translations is manifest, the texts from which it was translated are authoritative, and it is the
closest a non-Hebrew speaker or non-Greek speaker will find to the original. It has the power
to bring people into a meaningful relationship with their Maker, to keep us from error, and to
use as a sword in the days to come. Its undoubted linguistic beauty, its place in our national
heritage, its cultural significance, are self-evident.
Modern versions are untrustworthy, and can lead Christians astray. Those who prefer a
version based on the Critical Text maintain that there is no final, absolute, written authority of
God anywhere on earth, but faith in an inerrant and preserved Bible is a mark of true Christian
faith. Preference for modern translations, based on inferior texts, is often regarded as sectarian
in orthodox circles.
For all these reasons, when choosing a Bible to be read either in church or in private study, the
Authorized King James Version is the right one, the only authoritative one, the only one in
which we can be sure to find truth and safety. Other versions are useful to glean the story line,
to read on the tube/metro/subway, but not for instruction in righteousness, not for our daily
meditations, not for those who may have no habitual daily access to a Bible in their own
homes. No modern version can be said to be the Word of the Lord, as we are required to say
in our liturgy.
Appendix:
A sample of Westcott and Horts omissions from the Gospels of the Textus Receptus
-7-
-8-

Contents:
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Synopsis
Introduction
I
II
Texts
A
Translators
A
III
Technique
IV
Theology
Language
VI
VII
Signs of the Times
VIII
IX
Conclusion
Appendix
Selected Bibliography
-9-
- 10 -
Introduction
Before asking whether Bible version matters, we need to ask ourselves, does the Word of God
matter? To that, the answer must be an unequivocal yes.
The Lord Jesus is the Living Word2, revealed in the written Word. The Word of God is more
important even than the Holy Name of God3. Our armour against all the wiles of the evil one
consists, in its entirety, of different aspects of the Word of God4. Ultimately, there is no
defence against the Word of God, which is why people find it offensive; the Lord Jesus
promised that we would be persecuted for depending on it5. He was very scathing about those
who relied on tradition and thereby nullified the Word of God.6 People are happy enough
when we stick to tradition7, for the very reason that it distracts us from the truth of the Word.
Psalm 119 makes clear that King David, the sweet psalmist of Israel8, saw the Word of God
as fundamental. This, the longest psalm in the Bible, mentions the Word in every verse but
four, and warrants daily meditation. It divides easily into seven sections of three stanzas each,
with one left over as an extra to make the seventh day special.
Seventeen times in the Bible, nine times in the Old Testament and eight in the New (the
Authorized, King James Version) comes the phrase that ye may know We are to know
beyond doubt that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins9, that the Father is in the
Lord Jesus and He in Him10; that Pontius Pilate found no fault in Him11; what is the hope of
His calling and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what the
exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe12; how we ought to answer every
man13, and that we have eternal life14. This latter is the purpose for which St. John wrote his
first epistle; he wants us to be certain of our destiny, of what lies ahead for us. Agnosticism is
not a position he admires, not a position he sees as valid for a true believer, not least because
the true faith is rooted in historical fact. He went to great lengths to make sure that his readers
were in a position to know the truth15.
Jn. 1:1; Rev. 19:13

Ps 138:2. On the basis of Ps. 119:126, the Jewish people say that where the Word of God is being broken, it is
permissible to use the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, to work for us.
4
Eph. 6:14-18
5
Matt. 13:21; Mk. 4:17
6
Mk. 7:13
7
On a personal note, tradition is very important to me, coming, as I do, from one of the oldest families in the
country. I have therefore had to work through this in very real terms.
8
II Sam. 23:1
9
Matt. 9:6; Mk.2:10; Lk. 5:24
10
Jn. 10:38
11
Jn. 19:4
12
Eph. 1:18
13
Col. 4:6
14
I Jn. 5:13
15
Jn. 8:32; we are to be like the Bereans, who sought the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts
17:11)
3
- 11 -
The Old Testament authors want us to know that the LORD is God, which will result from our
telling our children of the miracles in Egypt16; that the LORD puts a difference between the
Egyptians and Israel17; that the LORD is the One Who sanctifies us18; the way by which we
must go19; that there is a judgment20; that the LORD is our Creator God21; that His words
shall surely stand for evil against those who burn incense to the
queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her22, and
finally, to know the righteousness of the LORD23.
Most, if not all, of these things we can only know by dint of
exploring the written word of the Living God. He has given us
His Word as a manual, similar to the manufacturers handbook
we receive with a new car or kitchen appliance. We know
how we were built to operate by virtue of His Word. If our
salvation depends on our trusting the Lord Jesus Christ, then
surely God must have left us an infallible record telling us Who Jesus Christ is, and how we
may believe in Him.
Facts are the temporal truths which God, the eternal Truth, establishes by His works of creation
and providence. In the facts of nature, God reveals Himself as the almighty Creator God, in
the facts of Scripture God reveals Himself as the faithful Covenant God, and in the facts of the
Gospel God reveals Himself as the triune Saviour God. Certainty is our clear perception of
the revealed facts. Probability is our dimmer perception of the less clearly revealed facts.
Error is at best a misunderstanding, or at worst, rejection of the facts, especially of Gods
revelation of Himself in and through those facts.
Facts are never neutral. We choose which facts to consider, which to accept, and the basis on
which to make that choice. All facts are temporal truths, which God establishes by His works
of creation and providence. We must not attempt to force the facts into an allegedly neutral
framework, but should interpret them in accordance with the divine Truth, Gods revelation of
Himself in the pages of Holy Scripture. When we do this, the consistency of believing thought
and the inconsistency of unbelieving thought become evident in the realm of Bible textual
criticism.
Some maintain that new findings of ancient documents make it necessary to update the basic
texts. On the other hand, if we believed that true readings of the Biblical text have been
hiding in papyri for centuries, enclosed in pots, waiting for discovery, our faith would always
be wavering24. God has not preserved the Biblical text in secret25, but publicly in the usage of
His Church and in the Traditional Text and the Textus Receptus which reflect this usage.
The question at issue is whether all translations of the Bible are equally authoritative for
revelation, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness26. If not all
16
Ex. 10:2; Ezek. 20:20

Ex 11:7
18
Ex 31:13
19
Josh 3:4
20
Job 19:29
21
Is 43:10
22
Jer 44:25-29
23
Micah 6:5
24
Jas. 1:6-8
25
Deut. 29:29
26
II Tim. 3:16
17
- 12 -
versions are equally valid, it is surely important to choose a translation as close as possible to
the original. This paper will demonstrate that the newer versions of the Bible are based on
erroneous texts and therefore not of authority equal to the King James Version. The
translators of the Authorised Version had a scholarship unsurpassed to this day, vastly superior
to the skills of later translators. They gave us a literal translation, rather than the dynamic
equivalence of modern versions, and they came from a position of doctrinal orthodoxy, while
the doctrine in many of the modern versions is at best questionable. For all these reasons, a
church which wants to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints27 should value the King
James Version very highly indeed. No other version can be said to be the Word of the Lord
in the same way, as even the Jewish people acknowledge.
Texts
The Hebrew people were given the task of being custodians of

the Bible28. From earliest times, they have always taken this
task extremely seriously29. A sepher torah, the hand-written
parchment30 scroll from which the Bible portion is read in
synagogue each week, takes about a year to complete, and costs
between 30,000 and 40,000. The scribe who writes it is very
highly trained, and has to obey strict Talmudic rules in
copying31, so that the text is exact, not simply word for word but
letter for letter, in exactly the same place on the page and in the
line as that which he is copying.32 The scribes are meticulous
and reverent in the copying and recopying of our Hebrew
manuscripts; they bathe before and afterwards, dress in full
Jewish garb, and if they make a mistake they take the rest of the
day off (and, depending on the nature of the mistake, can start
that section of the parchment all over again).
27
Jude 3
Rom. 3:1,2; Ps. 147:19
29
Deut. 31:24-26
30
The word parchment comes from the name Pergamum, the Biblical city in Asia Minor. The skins of sheep,
goats, antelope and other animals were at one time shaved and scraped there in preparation for use as a durable
writing material (FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)
31
Only the skins of clean animals were to be used; each skin must contain the same number of columns; there
were to be no fewer than forty-eight and no more than sixty lines; black ink was to be prepared according to a
particular recipe; no word or letter was to be written from memory, but the scribe must first look at the codex
from which he is copying; between each consonant there must be the space of a hair or a thread; between each
parashah (the section read each week) there must be a space of nine consonants; if so much as a letter was
omitted, or wrongly inserted, or even if one letter touched another, the sheet had to be destroyed; three mistakes
on a page meant the whole manuscript was condemned and had to be buried; and revision of the copy had to take
place within 30 days, otherwise it had to be rejected. A manuscript surviving this process could hardly be
anything but amazingly accurate. (Samuel Davidson, in The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, says that a
condemned manuscript could be burned if not buried, but this is not right; Orthodox Jews, and even observant
Reform Jews, will never burn or otherwise destroy any document, even a piece of paper, on which is written the
Tetragrammaton. All such pieces of paper have to be given a funeral service. In order to avoid this, a number of
euphemisms are used for the Holy Name in everyday life, even inserting extraneous characters when writing it.)
32
Since the texts were first written they have been copied in the same way, and the method continues to this day.
28
- 13 -
The traditional Masoretic Hebrew text from which the KJV was translated is certainly very
close, if not identical, to the original text. The Letteris text, printed in 1866, has the
Masoretic Hebrew text in the centre and the King James Bible in the margins, thus in
presentation resembling Talmud to some extent. Later translations of the Bible do not use this
text, but use the Biblia Hebraica, which has between fifteen and twenty suggested changes per
page, adding up to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text.
I do not propose to present all the arguments for what used to be called higher criticism of the
Old Testament texts. Suffice it to say that were its contentions true, the authors of
Deuteronomy and some of the other foundational books would have been guilty of fraud,
which a holy God could never sanction. Archaeological discoveries of the last century have
shown that many of the premises of the schools of higher criticism were false33. The Lord
Jesus Himself named Moses explicitly as the author of the Pentateuch34. However, the
editors of the texts underlying the modern translations held a different view. History
demonstrates that the logic of naturalistic textual criticism leads to complete modernism, hence
to a sceptical approach to the Christian faith.
As well as using an inaccurate basic text, modern translations attempt to correct the Hebrew
Text in at least nineteen different ways35. The principle on which they made these changes
was by rejecting the time-honoured theological approach in favour of the rationalist, which
makes no distinction between the text of the Bible and that of a purely human book36.
Denying the common faith and Gods special providence by which the texts had been
preserved through the ages, they handled the Biblical text in a secular, humanistic way,
thinking of the scribes who copied the manuscripts rather than of the original inspired authors.
By noticing all the various ways in which these scribes could have made mistakes, they
thought they could detect false readings and thereby arrive at the true reading by a process of
elimination. The Bible tells us that without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek
him.37 It is crucial, therefore, to take as our base-line a version of the Bible which uses a
faith-based, authoritative original text.
33
in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the nineteenth
century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority (Kenyon, The
Bible and Archaeology)
34
Matt. 8:4; 19:8; 23:2; Mk. 1:44; 7:10; 10:3,4; 12:26; Lk. 5:14; 16:29-31; 20:37; 24:27,44; Jn. 1:17;
3:14; 5:45,46; 6:32; 7:19-23
35
Sometimes they take Origens Septuagint (LXX) reading instead, although it is acknowledged that the LXX is
an inferior Greek translation of the original Hebrew. (The Original Preface to the Authorized Version of 1611
says, The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for
perspicuity, gravity, majesty ) When they have no textual proof at all, sometimes the translators use
conjecture. When this is done, they often print in the footnote an L which stands for legendum. Some
correct the Hebrew with the Syriac Version; some with just a few Hebrew manuscripts rather than the entire
Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text; some with the Dead Sea Scrolls; some use quotations from Jerome to
correct the Hebrew text; some use Josephus, a non-Christian Jew, to correct the Hebrew; some use a variant
Hebrew Reading in the margin; some use words in the consonantal text divided differently; some use
quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Symmachus, the Hebrew Targums, Theodotion, the
Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms to correct the Hebrew text; still others use a different set of Hebrew
vowels to correct the Hebrew text; some use an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition to correct the Hebrew;
some use the Biblia Hebraica of Kittel or Stuttgartensia to correct the Hebrew.
36
Josh McDowell has demonstrated the uniqueness of the Bible in its subject-matter, its continuity, its circulation,
the number of its translations, its survival, its historicity, its prophecies, its personalities, its teachings and its
influence on literature (Evidence that Demands a Verdict). It was even the first book to be taken into outer
space (on microfilm). It is like no other, and should not be treated like any other.
37
Heb. 11:6
- 14 -
Changing the Hebrew text means changing the Word of God. The Bible itself says that that is
a very serious thing to do, and that we must not38.
B
Since the 18th century, the New Testament documents have been divided into families,
according to the type of text which they contain. The most significant are the Western family,
the Alexandrian family, and the Traditional (Byzantine) family. The Western family consists
of those New Testament documents which contain that form of text quoted by some of the
Western Church Fathers, especially Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian39. The Alexandrian
family consists of those New Testament documents which contain that form of text which was
used by Origen in some of his writings40, and also by other Church Fathers who, like Origen,
lived at Alexandria.41 The Traditional (Byzantine) family includes all those New Testament
documents which contain the Traditional (Byzantine) text. This
text-type is associated with the city of Antioch in Syria. After
Stephens death, Christians from Jerusalem fled to this city and
began to preach the Gospel to the Greeks there42. A strong
church came into being, largely through the ministries of
Barnabas and Paul43. From this church the apostle started on
each of his missionary journeys44. Other apostles visited the
place, including the apostle Peter45, so that Antioch soon became
the mother city of Gentile churches. After the fall of Jerusalem
in 70 AD, it became the undisputed centre of Christianity. A
text from Antioch would be the text approved by the apostles
and the early Christian Church. Not surprisingly,
approximately 90% of the Greek New Testament manuscripts
belong to this family. The New Testament quotations of
Chrysostom and the other Fathers of Antioch and Asia Minor46
seem generally to agree with the Traditional text.
38
e.g. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18,19; Prov. 30:6; Mk. 8:38; I Cor. 2:13; II Cor. 2:17
Sir Frederic Kenyon described it as a type of text characterised by very free departures from the true tradition.
Paucity of manuscript support, along with a multitude of distinctive readings, renders this text-type at best
questionable, at worst wholly unreliable.
40
It was Origen who said, for instance, that Christ was a created God (New Standard Encyclopaedia, p. 154)
41
Until the late 1800s, the Alexandrian texts were utterly rejected by orthodox Christians (Samuel Gipp ThD, An
Understandable History of the Bible, p.69) We have no indication that there was ever an apostolic presence in
Alexandria, but church history reveals that many notorious heretics, including such Gnostics as Basilides, Isidore,
and Valentinus, lived and taught there. Even in New Testament times, the apostles experienced trouble from the
Alexandrians (Acts 6:9), and those born there who wanted to grow in God would leave and go elsewhere (e.g.
Acts 18:24).
42
Acts 11:19,20
43
Acts 11:22-26
44
Acts 13:1-3; 15:35,36; 18:22,23
45
Gal. 2:11,12
46
Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (130-200 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), Tertullian (160220 AD), Hippolytus (170-236 AD), and even Origen (185-254 AD) quote repeatedly from the Byzantine text.
(The saint depicted will easily be recognized as St. Chrysostom.) The Anglo-Catholic Prebendary Edward
Miller, after classifying the citations in the Greek and Latin Fathers who died before 400 AD, found that their
quotations supported the Byzantine text 2,630 times and other texts only 1,753 times. He concluded that The
original predominance of the Traditional Text is shown in the list of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that
in their writings, and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the
pure waters generally prevailed ... The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers who
succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is continuous. (Edward Miller in The Antiquity of
39
- 15 -
The Greek text underlying the Authorized Version New Testament is the Textus Receptus47,
first printed in 1516 under the editorship of Erasmus48, possibly the most learned scholar of his
generation, who dedicated it to Pope Leo X. He even refused a cardinals hat in order to carry
on this important work. In his day, it was commonly believed by well-informed Christians
that the original New Testament text had been preserved by God in the current New Testament
text, primarily in the current Greek text. If God has inspired the Holy Scriptures infallibly (as
indeed He has49), He would not have left their survival to chance, but would have preserved
them in a public way in the usage of His Church through the centuries.
Erasmus, familiar from his portrait (left), was influenced by this
common faith, and probably shared it. Through his study of the
writings of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers, he was very well
informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text.
Almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today
were known to Erasmus, and discussed in the notes which he placed
after the text. His edition of the text is the only form in which the
Traditional Text, found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts, has
circulated in print. It reliably represents their readings. This was the
text accepted in the nineteenth century by Dean J. W. Burgon,
Prebendary F.H.A. Scrivener, and Prebendary Edward Miller. These
conservative New Testament textual critics were Anglo-Catholics.
Being high Anglicans, they recognized only three ecclesiastical bodies as true Christian
churches, namely, the Greek Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican
Church, in which they themselves officiated. Only these three communions had the apostolic
succession. All other denominations these high Anglicans dismissed as mere sects.50
The text underlying modern versions is a text based upon two greatly inferior manuscripts, of
the Alexandrian family, Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph), described as corrupt and
contradictory.51 The evidence shows that the Alexandrian text was never dominant, even in
the Traditional Text, in John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and
Established, p.121.)
47
The term itself was first used to refer to the edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevirs more
than a century later, in 1633. The preface to this edition, written by Daniel Heinsius, includes the Latin phrase
textum ... receptum. This term has been expanded to include numerous editions of the Greek New Testament
which come from the same Byzantine textual family representing the majority of the handwritten Greek
manuscripts before the 16th century. Approximately thirty distinct editions of the Textus Receptus were made
over the years, each differing slightly from the others although not significantly; the variations seldom affect the
sense of the text. One of the most important editions of the Textus Receptus is the Beza edition of 1598. This
edition, in addition to the Stephens 1550 and 1551 editions, was used as the Greek basis of the Authorised
Version of 1611. Beza collated and used numerous Greek manuscripts and printed editions in his work, and
incorporated Jeromes Latin Vulgate and his own Latin and Greek text along with textual annotations.
48
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469?-1536), described as the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever at
work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing,
writing and publishing. Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance of the
monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry and the childish and coarse religion of the day. He
classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers. (Quoted in Is the King James Version Nearest to the
Original Autographs? by David Otis Fuller)
49
II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19-21; I Cor. 14:37; Lk. 24:27,44
50
Samuel Gipp ThD, The King James Version Defended
51
When examined by Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, Codex Aleph was described as roughly written and full of gross
transcriptural blunders such as leaving out whole lines of the original. Codex B, although less faulty, was
found to be liable to err, committing errors of the most palpable character. (F.H.A. Scrivener, Six Lectures on
the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 41,43.) These and other documents were
- 16 -
Egypt where heresies were rampant in the early years of the Church52. Clement never used it;
Origen used it only some of the time. Clearly it is wrong to suppose that the Alexandrian text
enjoyed an official status that would keep it pure53.
The text used for the RSV is edited by Drs. Westcott54 and Hort55. These two supposedly
conservative Anglicans were founding members of an occult society named The Ghostly
Guild,56 the object of which was to classify authenticated instances of what are now called
psychic phenomena57. Hort, brought up in an evangelical home, was also a member of a
society called The Mysterious Company of the Apostles ... He remained always a grateful and
loyal member of the secret club ... He was mainly responsible for the wording of the oath that
binds the members to a conspiracy of silence. Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a
sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world, before we deal with matters likely
to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text [referring to the Westcott & Hort text Ed.] issued
by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have
great difficulty in finding its way into regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and
whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.58 On 23rd December 1846
Westcott had written: My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must
believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.59 Two years
later, he wrote, I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its
improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.60 On Advent Sunday
that year, he wrote, All stigmatise him [a Dr. Hampden Ed.] as a heretic,...I thought
myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his
writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very
strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If
he be condemned, what will become of me?61 He also denied the future bodily resurrection
of the saints.62
The orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort must be seriously in doubt, to judge by their own
writings. In a letter to Lightfoot in 1860, Westcott said, If you make a decided conviction of
produced at a time when the most dangerous heresies prevailed in the Church with regard to the Person of Christ
and His relationship to the Father, but proved especially attractive to those modern scholars who were disposed to
adopt very similar erroneous views themselves.
52
If a score or two manuscripts have a single ancestor, it implies that a score or two copyists believed that
ancestor to be faithful to the autographs. But if a manuscript has not a numerous progeny, as is the case with Bs
ancestor, one may suspect that the early scribes doubted its value. Possibly the early orthodox Christians knew
that B was corrupt. (Gordon H. Clark, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, p.15). Bauer (Rechtglaubigheit
Und Ketzerei Im Altesten Christentum, pp. 49,63) and van Unnik (Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings, SCM,
p.44) have pointed out that later Egyptian Christians seem to have been ashamed of the heretical past of their
country
53
A significant number of heretical readings can be found in the Alexandrian text, for instance in Mk. 1:1; 9:29;
Lk. 23:42; Jn. 3:13; 9:35,38,39; 19:5; Acts 10:30; Rom. 14:10; I Tim. 3:16; I Cor.7:5; 11:24. They seem to
be the work of, variously, those unfriendly to the deity of the Lord Jesus, docetists, Gnostics and others who did
not hold to an orthodox Christian position.
54
Brooke Foss Westcott (12th January 1825-27th July 1901), ordained Anglican priest in 1851
55
Fenton John Anthony Hort (23rd April 1828-30th November 1892) was priested in 1856, having started work on
revising the Greek text of the New Testament early in 1853. Both men spent their careers in academia rather than
in parish work, although Dr. Westcott was consecrated Bishop of Durham (sic) in 1890
56
Others involved included Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc.
57
Life and Letters of FJA Hort, Vol. 1 pp. 172, 211
58
Ibid., p.445
59
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, Vol. I, p.46
60
Ibid., p.52
61
Ibid., p.94
62
Kirsopp Lake, Immortality & The Modern Mind, pp.39-41
- 17 -
the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could
not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels.63
The two of them boasted between themselves that they held doctrine that would undoubtedly
be considered dangerous heresy were it known64. For example, Hort found the doctrine of
substitutionary atonement most unacceptable65 to the extent that he said, The fact is, I do not
see how Gods justice can be satisfied without every mans suffering in his own person the full
penalty for his sins.66 He also denied the doctrine of eternal punishment of the unbeliever.67
He described Negro slaves as an immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more, their
religion frothy and sensuous, their highest virtues those of a good Newfoundland dog.68 They
both 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. For ourselves, Hort wrote,
we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient
texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity.
They even defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee69. Do we
63
Op. cit., Vol. I, p.420

Op. cit., p.445. Contrast the teaching of St. Paul. When he wanted to encourage Timothy in his ministry, he
warns him of teachers who would be men of corrupt minds, with hidden motives, reprobate concerning the
faith (II Tim. 3:8). Then he makes a remarkable statement: Thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life,
purpose, faith... In other words there was nothing that St. Paul believed or practiced, or hoped to accomplish, that
he was unwilling to have his hearers know. The Lord Jesus Himself was the same: Jesus answered him, I spake
openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in
secret have I said nothing. (Jn. 18:20)
65
Hort to F.D. Maurice 16th November 1849 says, O that Coleridge, while showing the notion of a fictitious
substituted righteousness, of a transferable stock of good actions, obscured the truth of mans restoration in the
Man who perfectly acted out the idea of man, had expounded the truth, (for such I am sure, there must be) that
underlies the corresponding heresy, (as it appears to me) of a fictitious substituted penalty Finally, St. Pauls
mysterious words, Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. (But I have laboured so utterly in
vain to apprehend in any measure what this idea is, that I hope you will deepen and widen the hints that you have
already given.) I am quite conscious that I have given but few distinct objections to the common belief,
[Redemption through the Blood of the Lamb Ed.] in what I have written, but so indeed it must be; language
cannot accurately define the twinge of shrinking horror which mixes with my thoughts when I hear the popular
notion asserted (even without the blasphemous adjuncts which too often accompany it). Life and Letters of FJA
Hort, Vol. 1, pp.120,122. Later he writes, I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom
paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which
the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father. (p.
428)
Hort to Westcott, 15th October 1860 says, I entirely agree ... with what you there say on the Atonement, having
for many years believed that the absolute union of the Christian (or rather of man) with Christ Himself, is the
spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit ... Certainly
nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christs bearing our sins and suffering to His death;
but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy. Ibid., p.430
Hort to Ellerton, Ascension Day 1876 says, I must say ... that the idea expressed in the hymn, Still ... His
prevailing death He pleads has no apostolic warrant, and cannot even be reconciled with apostolic doctrine.
Hort to Bishop Ely, 8th November 1871 says, Mr. Maurice has been a dear friend of mine for twenty three years,
and I have been deeply influenced by his books ... but they have led me to doubt whether the Christian faith is
adequately or purely represented in all respects in the accepted doctrines of any living school. Ibid, Vol. 2, p.155.
Maurice, the Unitarian son of a Unitarian minister, had been dismissed from his position as Professor of English
Literature and history, at Kings College London, in 1853, because of his unorthodoxy on the subject of eternal
punishment. Unitarians deny the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet Horts son says, Maurices teaching was the
most powerful element in his religious development.
66
Ibid., Volume II, p. 273
67
Graham Patrick, Hort, Eminent Victorian, pp. 48-64
68
Life & Letters F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 1, page 458
69
Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcotts suggestion, a
celebration of Holy Communion was held on 22nd June 1870, before the first meeting of the NT Revision
Company. Dr. Smith communicated, but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and
64
- 18 -
really want to accept as authoritative a Bible based on a text compiled by such men? Does
the evidence not suggest that churches which use modern versions of the Bible serve another
Jesus70?
Prebendary Dr. Frederick Scrivener, an Anglo-Catholic who resigned from the Committee
which compiled the Revised Version of the Bible because of his difficulties with the others71,
notably Westcott and Hort, was commissioned in about 1885 by the Cambridge University
Press to establish the Greek text used in the King James Version72. He listed all the Greek
words used by the Authorised Version, but he also put in bold face type all the alterations
made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version. He inserted the
exact alterations in the footnotes.
The Greek text published by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort rejected the Textus Receptus in
nearly 6,000 places.73 The Bible plainly tells us74 that witnesses who do not agree with each
other are not witnessing truth. If accuracy depended on being nearer to the original writings in
date, we would expect to find the two versions coming closer together, rather than increasingly
at variance. Wisdom dictates that accuracy is more likely to be determined by the number and
quality of copyings rather than by the age of the document. Westcott and Hort75 had
had not compromised his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost
wrecked the Revision at the outset. Even so, Dr. Smith remained on the Committee.
70
II Cor. 11:4; Matt. 7:16
71
Dean John W. Burgon (The Revision Revised) said, to construct a new Greek text formed no part of the
instructions which the revisionists received Rather were they warned against venturing on such an
experiment He commented that, It is the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so
grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but the poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our
revisers stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having
substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has
rejected with abhorrence; and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most
depraved type. His scholarship cannot be doubted. He wrote to an educated people with Latin and Greek at their
fingertips, and included multi-lingual footnotes and reference to a Greek grammar
72
He had already done a prodigious amount of work investigating and cataloguing the New Testament
manuscripts, papyri, minuscules and lectionaries extant, work begun in 1550 by the scholarly Stephanus and
continued, 100 years later, by Brian Walton. Between 1820-36 J. M. A. Scholz listed 616 manuscripts which had
not previously been known. In the four editions of his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Dr.
Scrivener extended the catalogue to almost 3,000 manuscripts. In the last 200 years, more than 2,000 further
manuscripts, minuscules, lectionaries and fragments have been added to the catalogue. By contrast, our
knowledge of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, including Sophocles,
Thucydides, Cicero, Virgil and Caesar, depends on a mere handful of manuscripts (Kenyon, Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts)
73
This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus, the
edition produced by Scrivener and published posthumously, in 1894. Scrivener used as his starting point the
Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He
examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made approximately
190 changes to his Greek text. When he finished, he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which
more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus. There are 283 differences
between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance
when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences, many of which are quite substantial, between the
Critical Text (of Westcott and Hort) and the Textus Receptus. This involves, on average, 15.4 words per page of
the Greek N.T., or 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the 140,521 total words in the Textus Receptus Greek N.T.
Someone once asked Sir David Dalrymple whether the New Testament could be collated from the writings of the
Early Church Fathers had the originals been completely destroyed or lost. He searched all the existing works of
the Fathers of the second and third centuries, and found all but eleven verses of the Textus Receptus. (Charles
Leach, Our Bible: How we got it, quoted in Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible)
74
Mk. 14:55,56
75
Not only their orthodoxy but even their scholarship has been called into question by archaeological findings of
the last century. For example, in Acts 16:12 St. Luke refers to Philippi as the chief city of that part of
Macedonia, using the Greek word meris. Hort said that meris refers to a portion, not a district, casting
- 19 -
concocted a new Greek text, and changed the Textus Receptus that had been used in the
Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T.76 This inaccurate Greek text, with its
almost 10,000 alterations, was the basis for virtually all of the modern English versions and
perversions, including the ERV, ASV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV and
the LV.
Some have alleged that the most ancient papyrus77 fragments are hostile to the Received Text,
but the fragments that remain are few in comparison with the many that must have perished
through long and frequent use78. The surviving minority probably survived for the very reason
that they fell into disuse because of their deficiencies. A number of papyri of the 6th to 8th
centuries do not contain a distinctively Byzantine type of text, although it is beyond question
that the Byzantine text was dominant in that period. These papyri appear to be surviving
representatives of a defective and discarded text.
In any case, antiquity alone has never determined authenticity. Heretical texts were in
circulation even during the New Testament period itself, causing severe confusion in some
cases79; indeed, some of the epistles were written precisely to counter the arguments of the
Gnostics and others. At no time in the history of the Church has there been a lack of those
bold enough to tamper with the true text.80
II
Translators
Fifty-four eminent scholars, including High Churchmen and Puritans, the greatest Hebrew and
Greek scholars of the age, formed six companies to undertake the task of translating the
Authorised Version of the Bible. Using their Greek sources and the best commentaries of
European scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German, they
expressed the sense of the Greek in clear, vigorous and idiomatic English. They were scholars
of an order not found in the last or the present centuries. They based their translation of the
Hebrew text not only on Tyndales earlier translation81, but also on insights developed by the
doubt on St. Lukes accuracy. Excavations have shown that the word meris was indeed used to describe the
divisions of the district. (Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History)
76
Almost 10,000 Greek words are different in the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (and probably about
the same or more in the Nestle/Aland 26th edition Greek text) from the Greek text that underlies our KJV.
77
The oldest papyrus fragment known dates back to 2400 BC (Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism). The earliest mss were on papyrus, but it was difficult for any to survive except in dry areas
such as the sands of Egypt or in caves such as those at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Papyrus
was still in use until about the third century AD.
78
The normal readable lifetime of a scroll in careful weekly use was approximately 100 years; if used more often,
it would obviously be shorter. From at least 2000 BC, animal skins were often preferred to papyrus because they
lasted longer and were less brittle, so they preserved the text better.
79
E.g. II Thess. 2:1,2; 3:17
80
Dionysius, a minister at Corinth, in a letter dated about AD 168-170, deplores the fact that his own letters have
been altered, and adds, It is not marvellous, therefore, if some have set themselves to tamper with the Dominical
Scriptures. An unknown author (thought by some to be Hippolytus, but by others, Gaius) writes around AD 230:
They (the heretics) laid hands fearlessly on the divine Scriptures, saying that they had corrected them.
(Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History and Martyrs of Palestine, Ecclesiastical History, Book 4 Chapter 23 and
book 5 Chapter 28)
81
Tyndale (c. 1494-1536), who taught himself Greek and Hebrew single-handedly, has been described as the
unsung hero of Bible translation, for having made the Hebrew Bible accessible in the English language for the
very first time. A helpful article On Translating the Old Testament: the Achievement of William Tyndale by
- 20 -
scholarly and well-respected Rabbi David Kimchi (1160-1235), in addition to Rashi82, the
main Talmudic commentator on the Mishnah and the Gomorrah. Their
number included:
Lancelot Andrewes, the Chairman of the overall committee83,

who had mastered at least fifteen, some sources say 20, languages.
It was said of him that had he been present at the Tower of Babel,
he could have acted as interpreter. He followed a monastic
lifestyle, and spent from 4 a.m. until noon every day in prayer and
study84.
Dr. William Bedwell was famed in Arabic learning. He published, in quarto, an
edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. Dr. Bedwell left
many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a
font of types for printing them. He wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three
volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary which is among Archbishop Lauds
manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
Dr. Miles Smith, an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic, went
through the writings of the Greek and of the Latin Church Fathers, making annotations
on them all.
Sir Henry Saville, proficient in both Greek and mathematics,
became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. Saville
translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus, which he
published with notes. He also published, from the manuscripts,
the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of
English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on the
Elements of Euclid. He was the first to edit the complete works
of St. Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers,
pictured on page 15. He was a profound and exact scholar.
John Bois had read the whole Bible, in Hebrew, by the age of
five. He was also expert in Greek by the age of 14. For
years, he spent from 4 oclock in the morning till 8 oclock at
night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages.
These men were all scholars who could draw on their knowledge of the cognate languages to
facilitate their understanding of the original texts. They were also known to be deeply
spiritual, and to have understanding of the depths of the texts essential in those who would give
a true rendering85. We have very few, if any, men of such skill today. The complete
translators notes of the Authorized King James scholars are not included in todays
publishings. This is unfortunate, because the notes say a lot about these men. They were
humble, loved the word of God, loved the King, and their longing was to provide a translation
Michael Weizman, of University College, London, can be found at:

http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/weitzman.html
82
Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes, 1040-1105, whose immensely valuable commentary summarises early
Rabbinic discussion of the meanings of ancient Biblical Hebraic words, and was used by the Franciscan scholar
Nicholas de Lyre (1270-1349), whose running commentary on the biblical text was in turn an important aid for
Luthers version.
83
He held a place second to none in the history of the formation of the English [Anglo-Catholic] Church. (Eliot,
p.12)
84
Buckeridges Funeral Oration, quoted in Lancelot Andrewes, Mentor of Reformed Catholicism in the Post
Reformation English Church 1555-1626 by Marianne Dorman
85
I Cor. 2:11-16
- 21 -
for the common man who had been kept in darkness. Some of the translators were killed for
their faith. This book was forged in blood, sweat, and tears.
Some of the thirty-two translators of the RSV have written articles which indicate that they do
not acknowledge essential Bible doctrines, including the Deity of Christ, His Pre-existence,
His Virgin Birth, His Atoning Sacrifice and present intercession in Heaven. At least one of
them, H.M. Orlinsky of the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, would never have
claimed to be a Christian at all. A translator who has adopted an entirely humanitarian view
of the Son of God, and is prepared to respect His ideal humanity and to disregard His claims to
full deity, is likely to betray his erroneous dogma in his translation. The vital question is
always, Whom do men say that I am?86 Hence, for example the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was
altered in the RSV to read, A young woman shall conceive and bear a son. This reading
makes it possible to dissociate Isaiahs prophecy from the record of our Lords miraculous
birth of the virgin Mary, as Rabbi Balfour Brickner of Temple Sinai, Washington,
acknowledged: I am delighted to know that at last this great error of translation has been
finally corrected, and that at least some elements of the Christian world no longer officially
maintain that Isaiah 7:14 is a prediction that Jesus was to be born of the virgin Mary.
Soon after the RSV New Testament was published, Dr. R.C. Foster87 presented a careful study
of the numerous changes in the text, and wrote, The Revised Standard Version is frankly
unitarian and offers a very subtle attack upon the deity of Christ ... It is as if the scholars were
saying, This stubborn and unscientific generation of the 20th century insists on maintaining
that Jesus was God in the flesh, but by the use of a literary device we will put words into their
mouths as they read this version so that they will consciously or unconsciously admit that Jesus
is not God but man.88
It is said89 that the translators of the RSV held doctrines of devils.90 Some of the characters
of more recent translators also fall far short of the Biblical ideal. For instance, The
chairman of the NIVS Old Testament translation committee, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, was a
homosexual which was well known by his colleagues for many years.91
Princeton Professor Bruce Metzger, one of the five editors of the UBS Greek text92, calls the
book of Job an ancient folktale, and Jonah a popular legend, despite the clear endorsement
of the Lord Jesus Himself93. He denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles.94
86
Matt. 16:13; Mk. 8:27

Professor of Greek and N.T. in Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Ohio
88
July 1946 issue of the Church News Letter
89
by Cecil J. Carter, in his paper The Thinking, Theories and Theology of Drs. Westcott and Hort
90
I Tim. 4:1
91
http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm
92
The United Bible Society uses Westcott and Horts 1881 text as the basis for its translations. A group of men
felt so strongly about the Unitarian influence in what was then the British and Foreign Bible Society that they felt
forced to leave, and inaugurate the Trinitarian Bible Society, which uses the Textus Receptus as the basis for its
translations.
93
Matt 12:39-41; 16:4; Lk 11:29-32
94
New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, co-edited by Bruce Metzger and Herbert May
87
- 22 -
III
Technique
Unlike many of todays translators, the authorized KJV translators let us know which words
they had to add in translating in order to give the full meaning of the original text. Direct
translations between language are not available, especially where two languages come from
different ends of the continent and different millennia. No precise synonym for every mother
tongue word and phrase in every other language is available. It is therefore often necessary to
rearrange or add words to make sense of the translation, but genuine scholars will indicate
where this has been done. In 1786, Dr. Geddes wrote of the King James Version,
If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an
excellent Version, this is of all versions the most excellent.
Most modern Bible translations, including even the Jewish translations95, are not translations
in the literal sense of the word, but dynamic equivalents, in other words giving thought for
thought, which is of necessity subjective, rather than word for word, flouting both the ancient
doctrine that every detail in the word of God is significant96, and also St. Jeromes observation
that in holy Scripture even the word order is a mystery97. Some of the modern translations
are no more than paraphrases. In a paraphrase, something is said in words different from
those found in the original, thus restating the thoughts of an original author in order to arrive at
what the paraphraser thought the original author meant. Neither a dynamic equivalent nor a
paraphrase can properly be described as the Word of God.
Every translation has to supply some extra words to give the sense of the original text, but the
Authorized Version of the Bible is a translation as close to the original as possible. Where
words have had to be added to make sense of the translation they are put in italics in the AV,
so that we know that they are not part of the original, and can test them as instructed in I Jn.
4:1. With the exception of the New King James Version, modern translations tend not to do
that.
IV
Theology
The theology of all the new translations is questionable. Many verses are changed to remove
the fundamental sense. For example, John 6:47 in the Authorized Version says, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Westcott and Hort
95
Most Chumashim (books containing the Pentateuch, divided into the sections in which it is read, and
compilation of Haftorahs, portions from the Prophets, read every Shabbatt) have Hebrew on the right and the
vernacular on the left, so that non-Hebrew speakers can follow whichever they prefer, and understand what is
being read to them from the bima. (The bima is more than a lectern; it is a platform, usually in the middle of the
synagogue, which faces the ark; it is translated judgment seat ten times in the Bible, and throne once. The seat
of the Umpire at the Olympic Games was called the bima; it was from there that the victors received their
medals.) They also have substantial notes at the bottom of the page, and often a commentary on a specific topic
or topics at the end of each book of the Pentateuch. Orthodox Jewish boys can usually read Hebrew fluently at a
very early age, and many of them know the entire Pentateuch, by heart, in two languages, by the time they are
twelve or thirteen, often even younger.
96
S.P. Brock, Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979)
pp. 69-87
97
Epistle no. 57; see J. P. Migne ed., Patrologia Latina, 22 (1859), col. 571.
- 23 -
removed on me, such that modern versions say, he that believeth hath everlasting life.
Everyone believes something, but Who we believe is fundamental!
Another example is Rom. 1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the
Greek. The Greek texts of B (Vatican) and Aleph (Sinai) remove the two words, of
Christ in this verse, so modern versions omit the crucial nub of the verse.
The RSV was prepared by a committee appointed by the International Council of Religious
Education98, and published in 1946 to replace the American Standard Version99, the
Americans version of the English Revised Version100. Its modernism and Unitarian bias
appear throughout. To give a few examples,
(a)
it professes to use Thou when referring to God and you when referring to men,
yet the disciples are made to use you when speaking to our Lord Jesus, implying,
evidently, that they did not believe He was divine.101 Even when they confess
Him to be the Son of God, the disciples are still made to use You102.
(b)
Some editions of the RSV include in a footnote103 a reading, found only in the
Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, which says that Joseph was the father of Jesus104.
(c)
In John 10:29, the Traditional Text has, My Father, who gave them to Me, is
greater than all, but the RSV footnote says, That which My Father hath given unto
Me is greater than all. This alteration is of great doctrinal significance, because it
makes the preservation of the saints depend on the Church rather than on God
Himself. Westcott expounds it, The faithful, regarded in their unity, are stronger
than every opposing power.
(d)
In John 6:68-69, where the Traditional Text has, Then Simon Peter answered Him,
Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe
and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, the RSV has,
the Holy One of God, not the incarnate Son at all105! Since the purpose of St.
Johns Gospel is that his readers may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
98
Representing 40 Protestant denominations in the United States and Canada

Published in 1901 by Thomas Nelson and Sons, with an appendix listing the readings which they favoured but
which the British revisers had declined to adopt
100
The New Testament of which was published on 17th May 1881, and the Old Testament in 1885. Neither the
RV nor the ASV were widely used, due largely to their poor English style, which, according to F.C. Grant (The
New American Revision of the Bible, pp. 219-220), was, in many places, unbelievably wooden, opaque, or
harsh.
101
Another example is Psalm 45:6: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever is altered to Your divine throne
endures for ever and ever. The use of Your indicates that the translators believed that this verse did not apply
to a Divine Person. The Name of God is here reduced to the adjective divine, but when this text is quoted in
Hebrews chapter 1:8, it is made to apply to the Son, and the Name of God is restored in the text. The footnote
leaves the way open to the sceptical reader to deny that the Son is addressed as God, Thy throne, O God, in the
text, becomes God is thy throne in the note.
102
See, for instance, Matt. 16:16
103
Similar to that in the NEB
104
Matt. 1:16
105
In the Authorized Version of the Bible, only demons ever address the Lord Jesus as the Holy One of God
(Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, identical passages)
99
- 24 -
God106, he would hardly have made Peter confess Jesus as the Holy One of God,
rather than as the Christ, the Son of the living God.107
(e)
The RSV also denies the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. For example,
Micah 5:2,Out of thee shall He come forth ... whose goings forth have been from
of old, from everlasting, becomes in the RSV, ... whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.108 Thus, the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God is denied,
and the new translation assigns to the eternal Son an origin in time. This is a very
ancient heresy, disinterred in the last hundred years or so and thrust upon
undiscerning hearers and readers in many modern versions.
(f)
Another example is in Proverbs 8:22: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of

His way. The RSV reads, The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
contradicting the Creed in which we affirm that He was begotten, not
made.109
(g)
The RSV loses the essential Divine Goodness of the Lord Jesus. For instance,
without any explanatory note, the RSV changes Matthew 19:17 from, Why callest
thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God... to, Why do you ask me
about what is good? One there is who is good ... The significance of the passage
is, You know there is only One Who is essentially and perfectly good, that is God
Himself. You addressed me as Good, but do you really believe me to be Good
and therefore one with God? The whole point of the passage is destroyed by the
altered rendering.
(h)
The RSV obscures the Divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus. In Mk. 1:1, The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, the RSV has a footnote:
Other ancient authorities omit the Son of God. The testimony for their
inclusion is overwhelming, and even the translators of the NEB were constrained to
admit that the Son of God is the best attested reading.
(i)
Some of the other significant doctrinal changes in the RSV include the omission of
the fulfilment of prophecy110, the post-resurrection appearances of the Lord
Jesus are omitted111, His miraculous Ascension is obscured112, the doctrine of
the Trinity is impugned113, the rightful place of the Son of Man in heaven is
denied114, His use of the title, Son of God is denied115, prayer to the Father in
the Name of the Son is discountenanced116, the Deity of Christ is obscured117,
the Judgment Seat of Christ is abolished118, the pre-existence of the Son as
106
Jn. 20:31
The Gnostic papyri discovered in 1945 at Nag-Hammadi in Egypt seem to indicate that these 2nd-century
heretics regarded the term Son of God as a mystic name which should not be pronounced except by the initiated,
so it may have been they who introduced the substitute Holy One of God into the text of John.
108
Italics mine EA
109
Alleging that the Person spoken of was a creature has been widely canvassed in recent times by the Jehovahs
Witnesses.
110
Mk. 15:28
111
Mk. 16:9-20; Lk. 24:40
112
Lk. 24:51,52
113
Jn. 1:3,18
114
Jn. 3:13
115
Jn. 9:35. The RSV changes Son of God to Son of man, thereby eliminating this clear personal testimony of
our Lord concerning His own Divine Sonship. Admittedly the title Son of man is used elsewhere, but here the
point is His unique relationship to the Father. The RSV destroys the important doctrinal teaching of this verse.
116
Jn. 14:14; 16:23
117
Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; II Pet. 1:1
118
Rom. 14:10
107
- 25 -
Lord in Heaven is discredited119, the miraculous incarnation of the Son is

eliminated from I Tim. 3:16120, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is called
into question121, and others.
In Luke 23:45, where the traditional text has, And the sun was darkened, the RSV and other
modern versions read, The sun having become eclipsed. This rationalistic explanation of
the supernatural darkness at the crucifixion is impossible, because at Passover the moon was
always full122. In the last portion of Luke, the RSV removes no fewer than eight readings123,
usually called Western omissions,124 from the text and consigns them to the footnotes. The
omission of these eight readings means that all reference to the atoning work of Christ has
been eliminated from Lukes account of the Lords Supper125 and that the Ascension of
Christ into heaven126 has been entirely removed from the
Gospels, Marks account of the Ascension having already been
rejected by the critics. The opening verses of Acts make it clear that
Luke thought that he had already given an account of the ascension
in the last chapter of his Gospel. No believing Bible student could
remain indifferent to such mutilation of the Gospel record. Any
church which adopts the RSV as the main Bible of the church is
surely building its house upon sand.127
Influenced by political correctness and the feminist movement, some of the modern versions
call themselves gender accurate, gender inclusive, or gender neutral but are actually
examples of muddle-speak. For instance, in one of them, Todays New International
Version, father becomes parent, brothers become fellow believers and man becomes
human being. In verses such as I Cor. 15:21 such treatment removes the entire sense of the
verse. The Lord Jesus was every inch male; otherwise, He would be unable to husband His
Bride, the true Church. II Cor. 11:2 makes clear that we are to be a chaste virgin for Him. In
Ps. 34:20, the same version changes his bones to their bones, thereby losing the Messianic
prophetic significance of the verse.128
A prime example is the Greek word Adelphos, found 346 times in the New Testament. Its
literal meaning is from the womb, and Strong129 says that it is used in the Bible in six senses:
1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same
father or mother
119
I Cor. 15:47
The majority of the Greek manuscripts and the AV read, God was manifest in the flesh. In the RSV and other
modern versions this is reduced to, He was manifested in the flesh. Every human being who has ever lived is
manifest in the flesh; the great mystery of our faith is that Christ is God Himself manifest in the flesh.
121
II Tim. 3:16
122
E. Arbuthnot, Rosh Chodesh (1993)
123
Lk. 22:19,20; 24:3,6,12,36,40,51,52. All eight of these readings are found in Papyrus 75, c. 200 AD, one of
the earliest and most important of the Bodmer Papyri published in 1956-62, so they are most unlikely to be later
additions to the text, as scholars now concede. Hence the RSV, the NEB and the other modern versions which
omit them are considered out of date. This rapid shifting of opinion shows the untrustworthiness of naturalistic
textual criticism, and the unwisdom of using modern versions of the Bible.
124
These passages are omitted from the Western family of basic texts, but the Western family also includes a
number of passages not normally considered authoritative which the RSV omits, so it is not consistent.
125
Lk. 22:19,20
126
Lk. 24:51
127
Matt. 7:24-27
128
The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, www.cbmw.org
129
Strongs Exhaustive Concordance
120
- 26 -
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or

countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ:
a. his brothers by blood
b. all men
c. apostles
d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
However, in gender-neutral modern versions it is often mistranslated, or even omitted
altogether. To treat in such a fashion a word which occurs 346 times in the Bible is to tamper
with the Word of God.
Taking manhood out of the Bible has a number of implications. For instance, in I Sam. 18:2
the TNIV changes to his fathers house to to his family, thus taking out the fathers
leadership role in his own home. In II Sam. 23:8, Davids mighty men become mighty
warriors, thereby detracting from their masculinity. This version takes away references to
God as Father; in favour of our parent in heaven. Such errors can discourage men from
going to church or for seeking true faith for themselves.
Other problems with the TNIV include more than 3,600 changes from singular to plural,
thereby shifting the focus of the Bible from an individual relationship with God, from our
individual responsibility before Him, to group responsibility. The culture has been allowed to
influence the way the Bible is being translated, which is dangerous.
The New International Version likewise casts doubt on the Lord Jesus being the Son of God130,
rejects the clearest verse in the entire Bible on the Trinity131, and throws out the blood of the
Lord Jesus132. It likewise denies the mystery of godliness by avoiding confessing that Jesus
Christ is God manifested in the flesh133, prompting some to suggest that this fulfils the criteria
for the spirit of antiChrist134. In Gal. 5:9 we are warned that, A little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump. A small amount of error can spread throughout the whole system to distort it all.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out if the mouth of
God.135 We need every word for fullness of life, and those words need to be those which
130
Lk. 2:33 in the NIV reads, The childs father and mother marvelled at what was said about him, as against the
AVs rendering: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. Acts 4:27 in
the NIV says, Indeed, Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the gentiles and the people of Israel in this city
to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. The Authorised Version says, For of a truth
against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hat anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the
people of Israel, were gathered together. We are all Gods servants, but child more clearly describes the Lord
Jesus as the Son of God.
131
I Jn. 5:7
132
Col. 1:14 in the NIV says, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The AV is clear: In
whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Without the shedding of blood there
can be no redemption, according to Heb. 9:22 and Lev. 17:11
133
Compare I Tim. 3:16 in the NIV, He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world and was taken up in glory with the AVs
translation, And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified
in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
134
I Jn. 4:3; II Jn. 7
135
Matt. 4:4
- 27 -
have proceeded from the mouth of God Himself. The NIV is a translation of the same corrupt
manuscripts as the Jehovahs Witnesses New World Translation.
Dr. Jack Moorman lists 356 doctrinal passages that have been changed in the Egyptian Greek
texts of B, Aleph and others from the Textus Receptus. The new versions attack the
fundamentals of the faith, including the blood atonement, the Holy Trinity, salvation by
faith alone, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the person of the Devil, the nature of man,
eschatology, the reality of hell, the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures,
messianic prophesies, the love and compassion of God and many, many other doctrines, and
promote another Jesus136. We dare not go down this route!
Much ink has been spilt over the modern versions rendering of Phil. 2:7. The Authorized
Version translates this, But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Translations such as the New American
Standard Bible, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised
Version, the J. N. Darby Version and the Modern Language Bible claim that Jesus emptied
himself in this verse, suggesting that Paul teaches that our Lord was once God but had
become instead man. The New International Version, the New English Bible, the Revised
English Bible, the New Century Version and the New Living Translation have made himself
nothing, which is equally as bad. Robert G. Bratcher, who spent 2 years translating the
Good News Bible New Testament137, is on record as saying that Christ gave up His deity
when He became a man, a belief he wrote into this verse in the GNB138.
The King James Bible contains hundreds more words than modern versions, yet nobody could
call it verbose. An appendix to this paper is a printout from the internet of a sample of
Westcott and Horts omissions from the Gospels of the Textus Receptus. Anyone who is
interested can find the rest of the New Testament omissions online with no difficulty139, but the
omissions from the Gospels speak for themselves. The Lord Jesus promised His words would
not pass away140, yet dozens of His words are missing in the new Bibles. One possibility is
that all English versions are in error, at least in part. If all versions contain errors, it could be
argued that a foundation of sand remains for us all and the Lord Jesus is found a liar141.
Two thousand years ago, the Lord Jesus made a promise that has stood the test of time. He
promised His words would not pass away. God is not a liar but the God of truth142. The Book
God authored is also a Book of truth.
Language
Few can doubt the unique linguistic beauty of the Authorised Version of the Bible. Bishop
Lightfoot affirmed that this version was the storehouse of the highest truth and the purest well
of our native English. Indeed, he wrote, we may take courage from the fact that the language
136
II Cor. 11:4
The Good News Bible was written for those whose mother tongue was not English, but that hardly excuses
false doctrine
138
O Journal Batista, Southern Baptist Seminary, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 9th July 1953
139
If you have no access to the Internet and yet would like to see the rest of the New Testament omissions, a
printout can be supplied on request
140
Matt. 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33; I Pet. 1:23-25
141
I Jn. 5:10; Jn. 8:55
142
Jn. 14:6; Ps. 31:5; Deut. 32:4; Jer. 10:10
137
- 28 -
of our English Bible is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its
grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of the literature
of the time.143 The Authorized King James has been listed on Norton Anthologys list of the
worlds best literature for decades. People may not be aware, though, of other linguistic
factors which should be taken into account when considering which Bible translation to use.
(a)
Some argue that the original texts were written in contemporary language, hence easily
understandable, and that therefore we should use a version in
contemporary language. This argument cannot stand, because it is
based on a false premise. The language of the original texts was unique
and self-explanatory. Ultra-orthodox Jews living in Mea Shearim, the
orthodox area of Jerusalem, today, will not use modern Hebrew144 for
everyday parlance lest they inadvertently corrupt the language of the
Bible, in which they study the sacred texts and in which they are fluent;
the language in which they conduct their affairs is Yiddish. Similarly,
the Greek of the New Testament was based, not on classical Greek or
first-century Greek, but on the Septuagint, which was modelled after Old
Testament Hebrew and was used, and considered inspired, by the Early Church Fathers.
Any Bible translator who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles must take
care to use language which is above the level of daily speech, language which is not only
intelligible but also Biblical and venerable. The English of the King James Version is not the
English of the early 17th century. It is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It
is Biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who
produced the King James Version. Some old ecclesiastical words were retained in the text for
accuracy as well as familiarity, and some words were even retrieved from disuse145 for the
purpose. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century
English usage but Biblical usage, because at the time of the translation these singular forms
had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation.
(b)
Secondly, those who talk about translating the Bible into the language of today never
define what they mean by this expression. Language is constantly evolving, perhaps faster in
the twenty-first century than ever before because of the internet and other modern
technologies. Todays youngsters sometimes use words to mean the very opposite of the way
in which older generations use them; for instance, wicked is now used as a term of approval;
gay no longer means vivacious, light-hearted, blithe, lively, bright or happy as in my youth.
An inspired text is timeless and does not need modernising.
Some suggest that the best way to translate the Bible into todays language is to convert it into
folk songs. In many contemporary youth conferences and even worship services, which
appear to reject the vast majority of the great doctrinal hymns of the faith of the former years,
there is little or no Bible reading, but only crude vocal, tuneless music accompanied by earpiercing drums, strumming guitars and vigorous electric keyboards. In contrast, the language
of the King James Version is enduring diction which will remain as long as the English
language remains.
143
On a fresh Revision of the New Testament, 1872, p.191

Modern Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew, although it is based on it
145
For instance, the word host, used 465 times in the Authorised Version, as a result of which it has found its
way back into the English language.
144
- 29 -
(c)
Some argue that todays youngsters do not understand the language of the King James
Version of the Bible, and hence are discouraged from reading it. It is suggested that this
inhibits their becoming Christians. On the other hand, when people convert to Islam, they
have to learn Arabic in order to read the Quuran; when people convert to Judaism, they need
to learn Hebrew in order to follow the service and to make certain blessings and certain
prayers. Both those languages involve learning not only new words and concepts but an
entirely different alphabet (aleph-beit) and way of reading (from right to left, instead of from
left to right). Biblical English is not significantly different from modern English to justify
using any version of the Bible which is in error at least to some extent.
(d)
Fourthly, modern-speech versions of the Bible include many New Age words, subtly
initiating Christian believers into wrong philosophies by surreptitious means.146
(e)
Fifthly, the current attack on the King James Version and the promotion of modernspeech versions discourages the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children.
Why memorize or require our children to memorize something out of date and about to be
replaced by something new and better? Why memorize a modern version when there are so
many from which to choose? Children are therefore growing up densely ignorant of the Holy
Bible, because they are not encouraged to hide its life-giving words in their hearts.
(f)
Sixthly, modern-speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible is an
ancient, divine Book, which nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself.
The language of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible. The King James
Version fulfils these two requirements better than any other Bible in English.
(g)
Seventhly, modern-speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the Bible has
always savoured of the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It has always been
Biblical, rather than contemporary and colloquial. Fifty years ago, based on the papyrus
discoveries which had recently been made in Egypt, it was claimed that the New Testament
authors wrote in the everyday Greek of their own times, but these claims are now recognised as
false. The New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint, and most of them were
familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Their language was not that of the secular papyri of
Egypt, but Biblical.
(h)
Eighthly, the Bible itself tells us147 that the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned. Even those closest to the Lord Jesus did not understand Him. Mary
and Joseph understood not the saying which he spake unto them.148 He had to ask Peter,
Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand ?149
No amount of linguistic modernisation will enable an understanding of the Bible; only
the Holy Spirit can do that.
(i)
Finally, the King James Version is the historic Bible of English-speaking Christians.
If we believe in Gods providential preservation of the Scriptures,
we will retain the King James Version, for in so doing we will be
following the clear leading of the Almighty.
146
For a full discussion of this topic, including copious tables of relevant words, see New Age Bible Versions by
G. A. Riplinger
147
I Cor. 2:14
148
Lk. 2:50
149
Matt. 15:16
- 30 -
Hence, in language as well as text the King James Version is still far superior to any other
English translation of the Bible, which is why it is normally accepted by orthodox Christians in
preference to all other translations. Besides, the King James Bible is still the easiest to read of
all the translations available. According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator, the
King James Version is rated at 5.8 Grade level, the NIV 8.4, NASB 6.1, TEV 7.2, NKJV
6.9.150
VI
Every participant in Desert Island Discs on BBC Radio 4 finds The Authorised Version of the
Bible and the Complete Works of Shakespeare waiting for him or her on his or her desert
island. These two compendia have been formative in our national culture. Without a
knowledge of the Authorised Version of the Bible much of our modern idiom is unintelligible.
Even where the sense is self-evident, a knowledge of the context enriches and enhances. To
deprive the nation of one of its greatest treasures, if not its very greatest treasure, is culpable.
If the King James Version of the Bible is not read in our churches, it is most unlikely to be read
anywhere else. Besides, as a church we possess beautiful, historic Pulpit Bibles which may
well have priceless illustrations, and possibly also commentaries, which are currently gathering
dust.
God caused the pure, New Testament form of Christianity to come to these islands at an
extremely early time, probably more than 550 years before St. Augustine, giving our land a
strong, true, Biblical foundation. A plaque in Westminster Abbey records, Divine Providence
exalted Great Britain to an height of prosperity and glory unknown to any former age. Sir
Winston Churchill shows how we, as a nation, were brought by Divine Providence to three
great landmarks of our history:
(1) When there was no kingdom in the realm in which heathen religions and practices now
prevailed, the whole island was now Christian.
(2) How, during the twelfth century, After years of being the encampment and
battleground of an invading army, England became finally and for all time one coherent
kingdom based on Christianity.
(3) How God moved through His Holy Spirit to cause this nation to become, under Queen
Elizabeth I, a country based by law on the Christian faith. Thereafter, the Christian faith,
based on the Textus Receptus Bible, became Britains constitutional position to such an
extent that it was embodied by Act of Parliament in the Coronation Oath, as well as in the
Act of Settlement of 1701.151
One result of the Biblical base of our national heritage has been the intervening hand of
Almighty God in deliverance of our nation in times of danger. His hand can be seen from as
far back as the time of King Alfred, who had been taught by St. Swithun, Bishop of
Winchester. Before King Alfred had been king for a month, the mighty Danes invaded, but,
against all odds, they were finally defeated and put to flight, thanks entirely to the power of
God acting on our behalf. The Lord has intervened throughout our history, for instance at the
time of the Spanish Armada; He gave us victory during the First World War, and again during
150
151
This paper is rated 12.0!

History of the English-Speaking Peoples
- 31 -
the Second World War, at which time the Authorised, King James Version of the Bible was
still taken for granted as the true Word of the Living God. Melvyn Bragg has included it in
his latest book, Twelve Books which Changed the World, to be published in April 2006.152
Even in the limited context of our own congregation, most of us are cradle Christians, if I can
put it that way. Most, if not all, of us were brought up on the Authorised Version of the Bible.
It is the version we learned by heart in childhood, the version with which we feel most
comfortable. I suspect that those of us who study the Bible daily still use that version in our
private devotions, and feel more at home with the Authorised Version than any other. I know
a vast number of Christians, from all sorts of different backgrounds, nationalities and cultures,
but not one of them has admitted (to me) to using the RSV regularly in his or her private
devotions.
VII
Signs of the Times
We are living in dangerous times, which some have called The Last Days. A one-world
religion has been forecast, a uniting of Christians, Muslims and Jews, and probably many
others as well, in a single faith with a single religious book or Bible, a book in which the
Lord Jesus Christ will be completely deDeified, and will be placed on a level with founders of
great religious movements. Already, the trend to remove the truth of the Deity of our Lord
Jesus Christ can be seen in the new readings in almost every modern version of the Scriptures.
The New King James Version refers to the Lord Jesus as One, an ambiguous reading which
becomes a subtle divergence from the original text. It is misleading for Muslims as well as
others. Those who believe that a Bible which is not based on the essential texts, but based on
texts compiled by men who dabbled in the occult, men who denied the full deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ and His substitutionary atonement, are more likely to fall prey to any one-world
religion, more likely not to recognize the deception.
We can see that at work in our nation already. Sixty years ago, on 8th May 1945, the Prime
Minister announced victory in the presence of a crowded House of Commons. He then said, I
therefore beg, Sir, with your permission, to move that this House do now attend at the Church
of St. Margaret Westminster, to give humble and reverent thanks to Almighty God for our
deliverance from the threat of German domination. Thirty years later, many of the churches
of our land had changed from using the Authorised Version of the Bible to using the RSV.
Today, most use either the NKJV or the NIV; to find a church which still uses the KJV is to
find gold dust. Today, we no longer find the Prime Minister thanking God or appealing to
God for His deliverance.153 Today, our nation is under judgment.154
152
Perhaps he should properly have entitled his book, Twelve British Books which changed the World.
When invited to ask the Queen to call the nation to a Day of Prayer, he routinely replies that he does not
consider it necessary.
154
The Bible lays down three kinds of sin which defile not only the individuals involved, but the very land itself:
sexual sin (Lev. 18:6-28; Deut. 24:4; Ezek. 36:17), occult sin (Jer. 3:9; Lev. 20:2-6; 18:21,25,27; Ezek. 36:17)
and murder (Num. 35:33,34). Since Churchills day, as a nation we have legalised all of them. The 1967
Abortion Act has made our nation guilty of murder. Abortions are often performed as a form of contraception
following sexual sin. We have legalised homosexual acts between consenting adults, about which God is clear
(Lev. 18:22; 20:13; I Kings 14:24; Rom. 1:27). Promiscuity and serial monogamy no longer provoke shock,
but are taken as the norm, and shown daily on television. We have repealed the laws against witchcraft, and
wicca is even debated on the BBC. When we turn against God, He turns against us, not willingly, but in
heartbreak (e.g. Lev. 26:41; I Sam. 3:12; Micah 1:2; Is. 5:24b,25). Deut. 28 lays down the judgments which the
Lord brings against a nation which turns against Him; is it any surprise that, during the last 25 years, the years in
153
- 32 -
In I Chron. 12:32, the children of Issachar, we are told, had understanding of the times, to
know what Israel ought to do. At times such as this it is crucial that we know what we ought
to do. If, indeed, we are living in the last days, if, indeed, a one-world religion is on the
horizon, we can expect times of persecution155, times when it is essential that we know our
God156, that we know what He wants of us, that we are able to recognise and to stand against
the wiles of the devil157. We cannot afford to use corrupt versions of the Word in such times!
It is simply not safe! Our safety is in the Living God, but we know Him through His revelation
of Himself in the original texts, as well as in the sacraments He has instituted.
VIII
Three negative effects of using modern translations immediately spring to mind. The first is
the life-style of those who go to churches which use one of them; the second is the absence of
true spiritual revival associated with any modern translation, and the third is the impression
given to those outside the faith.
(a)
While it is dangerous to generalise, nevertheless it is noticeable that in some churches
using a modern version from the pulpit, their young people tend to enjoy loud, strummy,
tuneless music with a heavy beat. They spend much time in front of the television or
computer screen, or at football matches, in preference to Bible reading. They often dress
seductively. Many of them are not aware that sexual activities outside marriage are wrong in
Gods eyes. They find self-discipline hard, and spend little time in private prayer and
devotion. They tend to have a disregard for the law.158 This generation is a testament to the
fruit of modern versions.
which most of the church has neglected the true text of the Bible, 9/10 of these judgments have fallen on our
nation? We had the Kings Cross underground station inferno, the Bradford Football Stadium inferno, the
Hillsborough Football Stadium disaster, the Lockerbie air crash, the Manchester air crash, the Clapham train
disaster, the Glasgow train disaster, the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster, the Zeebruger Herald of Free Enterprise ferry
disaster, the October 1987 hurricane, the Stock Exchange closure, the hurricane in the West Coast of Scotland in
1998, the Marchioness disaster, the gales and storms of 1989-1990 and we took no notice! How loudly does
God have to shout before we will wake up? The fire at Windsor Castle, in November 1992, of which the Queen
had been warned in advance, in a letter from a Christian who had understanding of the times, should have sealed
it, had we been paying proper attention to the Word of God (Amos 7:4; 1:14; 2:4; Is. 29:6 etc.) There were the
bombs in Warrington, in Bishopsgate and others. Soon afterwards our national sovereignty was handed over to
foreigners by an adulterous Prime Minister. Those things all happened within a 5-year period, between 1988 and
1992. Since then, the threat to our nation has escalated dramatically, but the only One Who can help us is the
One on Whom we, the Christians in this nation, are turning our backs. He will not force us to choose Him; He
loves us too much to impose His Truth. He is not interested in robots; He wants us to love Him from our hearts,
freely. He will tell us the truth, He will give us the information, and then He will stand back and see whether we
accept it or whether we reject it. It is up to us to choose Him and His Word or not, as we will. We will reap
the rewards or the consequences of our choice, because that is how God made us, Gal. 6:7; II Cor. 9:6; Hos.
10:12; Prov. 6:27.
155
Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7; II Tim. 3:1
156
Hos. 4:6; Is. 1:3; Dan. 11:32
157
Eph. 6:11
158
This, I believe, relates to the antinomianism taught in many such churches, which is a complete
misunderstanding of, and presumption on, the Lords grace
- 33 -
(b)
It has been claimed that no revival has ever been associated with
any modern version. The King James Bible has turned the world upside
down in many places, at many times. By way of contrast, the prevalence
of new Bibles in these last days has resulted in widespread ignorance of
the Bible, lukewarmness in professing Christians, and apostasy.
(c)
All over the world, Muslims claim that Islam is superior to
Christianity. One of their regular charges is, You Christians have so
many Bibles, and you keep changing the Bible, but we Muslims have only one Quuran, and it
has never been changed. The fact that Muslims were responsible
for the fire which destroyed the priceless library at Alexandria159,
where the most ancient Bibles were kept, is usually ignored. Even
so, to have a new Bible every thirty years or so, and to be told
that the new one is to be regarded as authentic and authoritative,
calls our credibility into question.
IX
Conclusion
Of the United Kingdoms four most popular Bible translations160, the King James Version has
stood the test of centuries. It is self-explanatory, and has power, the power of the Holy Spirit
of the Living God, power to change us, power to live by. Its superiority over all other English
translations is manifest, the texts from which it was translated are authoritative (by contrast
with the texts from which all modern translations were made), and it is the closest a nonHebrew speaker or non-Greek speaker will find to the original. It has the power to bring
people into a meaningful relationship with their Maker, to keep us from error, and to use as a
sword in the days to come. When presented with a copy of the Authorized Version of the
Bible at her Coronation in 1953, the Queen was told, and acknowledged, that it is the most
valuable thing this world affords. Its undoubted linguistic beauty, its place in our national
heritage, its cultural significance, are self-evident.
159
The library at Alexandria, inaugurated by Ptolemy, a renowned patron of literature, was one of the worlds
cultural wonders for 900 years. In The Books and the Parchments, FF Bruce follows the account of Aristeas, a
2nd-century BC Hellenistic Jew, that Ptolemys librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum, encouraged him to send a
delegation to the Jewish High Priest at Jerusalem, Eleazar, who chose six elders from each of the twelve tribes of
Israel and sent them to Alexandria, with a particularly accurate and beautiful sepher torah. The elders, having
been royally wined and dined, and having proved their wisdom in debate, took up residence in a house on the
island of Pharos, where, in 72 days, each worked separately on his own translation of the Pentateuch into Greek,
without consultation with each other. According to the legend, when they came together to compare their work,
the seventy-two copies proved to be identical, the translation subsequently known as the Septuagint. Clearly the
story is apocryphal. For one thing, not all twelve tribes existed in Ptolemys time. For another, by and large, a
Jewish person does not normally drink wine without having first made a Hebrew blessing, Kiddush, which could
have been awkward in the presence of Ptolemy, and he would not drink alcohol before such a sacred task as
translating the Torah (Lev. 10:9). In general, with the exception of sacramentally, Jewish people drink alcohol on
three occasions during the year: on the springtime feast of Purim, on the autumnal feast of Simchat Torah and on
simchahs. A simchah is a festival, such as a wedding, a circumcision or a bar mitzvah, but even then, the
alcoholic consumption will be very limited. Jewish people enjoy food, rather than alcohol; they are first class
cooks, but in alcohol they see a pronounced lack of wisdom. At the last bar mitzvah I attended (in June 2005),
we were given a mouthful (5 or 10 ml.) of sweet red wine in the very bottom of a medicine glass for the blessing,
but orange juice, apple juice and water, in abundance, with the lavish meal. This was not because my host and
hostess were mean, far from it, they are anything but; it is simply the Jewish custom
160
The Authorized (King James) Version, the New King James Version, the New International Inclusive
Language Edition, the Good News Inclusive Language Edition
- 34 -
Modern versions are untrustworthy, and can lead Christians astray. Those who prefer a
version based on the Critical Text maintain that there is no final, absolute, written authority of
God anywhere on earth, but faith in an inerrant and preserved Bible is a mark of true Christian
faith; preference for modern translations, based on inferior texts, is often regarded as sectarian
in orthodox circles. Jude161 writes to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and
preserved in Jesus Christ, and called162 that we should earnestly contend for the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints.163 Clearly that would not be possible unless we could
know, definitively, what that faith is. Word of mouth can act as Chinese whispers; the only
sure way to know is from a written text. Only if that text is authoritative can we know for
certain. This paper has shown that the King James Version of the Bible is the authoritative
English translation because it is based on the best attested texts.
For all these reasons, when choosing a Bible to be read either in church or in private study, the
Authorized King James Version is the right one, the only authoritative one, the only one in
which we can be sure to find truth and safety. Other versions are useful to glean the story line,
to read on the tube, but not for instruction in righteousness, not for our daily meditations, not
for those who may have no habitual daily access to a Bible in their own homes; no modern
version can be said to be the Word of the Lord, as we are required to say in our liturgy.
2005 E. Arbuthnot
161
Some believe he was the half-brother of the Lord Jesus, Matt. 13:55
Jude 1
163
Jude 3
162
- 35 -
Appendix:
- 36 -
- 37 -
- 38 -
- 39 -
- 40 -
Selected Bibliography
E. Arbuthnot, Rosh Chodesh, 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

E. Arbuthnot, The Wobblyman's Toycupboard, 1987 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
Bauer, Rechtglaubigheit Und Ketzerei Im Altesten Christentum, 1934 ------------------------------------------------- 17
Melvyn Bragg, Twelve Books which Changed the World, Hodder & Stoughton, 2006 ------------------------------- 31
FF Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 1963----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 1964-------------------------------------------------- 13
Dean John Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1883------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19
Dean John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, 1896 ----------------- 15
Cecil J. Carter, The Thinking, Theories and Theology of Drs. Westcott and Hort, 1978 ---------------------------- 22
Sir Winston Churchill, History of the English-Speaking Peoples, 1956 ------------------------------------------------ 31
Gordon H. Clark, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, 1986---------------------------------------------------------- 17
Samuel Davidson, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Dorman, Marianne, Lancelot Andrewes: Mentor of Reformed Catholicism in the Post Reformation English
Church 1555-1626, 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
Eliot, T.S., For Lancelot Andrewes: Essays on Style and Order, 1928 ------------------------------------------------- 21
Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History and Martyrs of Palestine ----------------------------------------------------------- 20
Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History, 1969 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
David Otis Fuller, Is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs? --------------------------------- 16
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 1968 ------------------------------------- 19
Samuel Gipp ThD, The King James Version Defended--------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Samuel Gipp ThD, An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987 ------------------------------------------------------ 15
F.C. Grant, The New American Revision of the Bible, 1954 --------------------------------------------------------------- 24
Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 1964 --------------------------------------------- 20
A. F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton JA Hort, vols. I and II, MacMillan and Co., 1896---------------------------- 17
Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1941 ----------------------------------------------------- 19
Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 1940--------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Kirsopp Lake, Immortality & The Modern Mind, 1922--------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Charles Leach, Our Bible: How we got it ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
Bishop Lightfoot, On a fresh Revision of the New Testament, 1872 ----------------------------------------------------- 28
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1972 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14
Bruce Metzger and Herbert May (ed.), New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, 1973-------------------------------------- 22
J. P. Migne ed., Patrologia Latina, 22 (1859) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
Prebendary Edward Miller, The Antiquity of the Traditional Text-------------------------------------------------------- 15
New Standard Encyclopaedia, 1977 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
Graham Patrick, Hort, Eminent Victorian, 1987 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy ---------------- 26
G. A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 30
F.H.A. Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (1861-94)------------------------------------- 19
F.H.A. Scrivener, Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1875---------- 16
O Journal Batista, Southern Baptist Seminary, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 9th July 1953 --------------------------------- 28
James Strong, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, 1890 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings, SCM, 1958 -------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Michael Weizman, On Translating the Old Testament: the Achievement of William Tyndale -------------------- 21
A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vols. I and II, MacMillan and Co., 1903 ------------------ 17
- 41 -

Does Bible Version Matter?

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Does Bible Version Matter?

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

E.

The Wobblymans Toycupboard, 1987

Does Bible version matter?

Old Testament (mainly Hebrew) texts

New Testament (Greek) texts

Authorised Version Translators

Revised Standard Version Translators

Our national heritage

Signs of the Times

Some side-effects of using a modern translation

Three negative effects of using a modern translation are:

Does Bible version matter?

Old Testament (mainly Hebrew) texts

New Testament (Greek) texts

Authorised Version Translators

Revised Standard Version Translators

Our national heritage

Signs of the Times

Some side-effects of using a modern translation

Does Bible version matter?

Jn. 1:1; Rev. 19:13

Ex. 10:2; Ezek. 20:20

Old Testament (mainly Hebrew) texts

The Hebrew people were given the task of being custodians of

New Testament (Greek) texts

Op. cit., Vol. I, p.420

Authorised Version Translators

Lancelot Andrewes, the Chairman of the overall committee83,

Michael Weizman, of University College, London, can be found at:

Revised Standard Version Translators

Matt. 16:13; Mk. 8:27

Representing 40 Protestant denominations in the United States and Canada

Another example is in Proverbs 8:22: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of

Lord in Heaven is discredited119, the miraculous incarnation of the Son is

2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or

On a fresh Revision of the New Testament, 1872, p.191

Our national heritage

This paper is rated 12.0!

Signs of the Times

Some side-effects of using a modern translation

E. Arbuthnot, Rosh Chodesh, 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

Potrebbero piacerti anche