The Unworthy Servant

10. The King James Version ( KJV )
     We have learned something about the majority and minority texts, let us turn our attention to the history of the King James Version, ( KJV ) which is based on Textus Receptus. The King James Version was translated directly from the original languages, though it owes its style and biblical language to versions which went before. I now invite you to imitate the believers of Berea mentioned in the book of Acts: Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Archaic Language
     Many maintain that the KJV uses archaic language. Is this objection justified? Pause and consider this well known fact. Every department of human learning uses language peculiar to that particular discipline. Language which novices could easily refer to as being archaic. Biology, botany, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, music, medicine, law etc, all use strange sounding words, phrases and expressions which a novice will find difficult to understand. The study of the Word of God is similar in this respect. It also uses words and expressions which a new believer will find hard to comprehend. Words like sin, repentance, baptism, atonement, sanctification, justification, resurrection etc. These words often baffle a new believer. But he or she must learn them in order to progress spiritually. Because they are explicit Biblical terms, which uniquely express vital spiritual concepts and processes. They are not archaic words and we dare not get rid of them or simplify them to such a degree that the Word of God becomes a paraphrase or commentary. Can you imagine a novice biology, science or law student objecting to the strange sounding words or old-fashioned expressions in his or her text books?

In his book: The King James Version Defended Edward F Hills writes: " Not only modernists but also many conservatives are now saying that the King James Version ought to be abandoned because it is not contemporary. The Apostles, they insist, used contemporary language in their preaching and writing and we too must have a Bible in the language of today. But more and more it is being recognized that the language of the New Testament was biblical rather than contemporary. It was the Greek of the Septuagint, which in its turn was modeled after the Old Testament Hebrew. Any biblical translator therefore, who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a version which God will bless. 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. Hence in language as well as in text the King James Version is still by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible. " ( Ref:G1 )

Thee and Thou
     We also hear a lot about the words ' ye ', ' thee ' and ' thou ' in the King James Version. And that these should all be replaced by the word ' you '. Everyone knows that the word ' you ' is a uni-plural word like ' sheep ' or ' fish '. It may refer to one or many depending on the context. Believe it or not the word ' you ' is used many times in the KJV but not exclusively. Why not? The answer is because of the vital difference between ' you ' ( plural ) and ' thee ' ( singular ) and there are times when it is necessary to make the difference. The word 'thee' refers to a single person, church, town or nation. Whereas the word 'you' is the second person plural, it refers to many persons. To understand what I mean we will need to look at a few examples.

     Just before the Savior's crucifixion he warned his disciples ( particularly Peter ) of Satan's intended plan to test them all.

These are the Master's words: Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

     In this passage the Savior used the word ' you ' to mean all the disciples. But when he used the words 'thee' and ' thou ' he meant Simon Peter alone. By replacing the ' thee ' and ' thou ' in this passage with ' you ', the Savior's explicit warning to Simon Peter is considerably weakened. As for his warning to all the other disciples, that Satan wanted to sift them all, that warning is completely lost.

Two more examples where the plural word 'you' and the singular words 'thee' or 'thou' are used.

     In this example Festus speaks to king Agrippa and Bernice concerning the Apostle Paul. Here the word ' you ' refers to Agrippa and Bernice, whereas the word ' thee ' specifically addresses king Agrippa: Acts 25:26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.

     In the following example two towns are initially addressed individually, therefore the word ' thee ' is used. But when referred to together the word 'you' is used: Luke10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

     Other examples where ' you ' is plural and ' thou ' or ' thee ' is singular are found in Deuteronomy 4:3, 1 Kings 9:5-6, Matthew 5:39-44, 6:4-7, 11:23-24, 18:9-10, 23:37-38, Mark 14:37-38, Luke 5:4-5, 6:30-31, 9:41, 16:25-26, John 1:50-51, James 2:16. These texts ( and there are many more ) prove that the word 'you' was well known by the translators of the King James Version. If you consult a concordance you will discover that it was used hundreds of times in that version but not exclusively as in modern translations. In short, when the Savior addresses a particular individual, church or town he uses the words 'thee' or 'thou' simply because these words are more explicit and personal than the uni-plural word 'you.' The Bible remember, is the Word of God, explicit in every sentence. Yea in every word!

Alleged KJV Errors: Easter/Passover
     Many claim that the King James Version has serious errors in it. The most quoted error concerns the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:1-4. The original word, these believers maintain, should have been translated as Passover - not Easter! Let us now examine the passage concerned and see if that argument holds water: Acts 12:1-4 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

     To properly understand the sequence of events described above I will briefly explain some facts about the sacred calendar. The first Passover occurred in ancient Egypt when Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews spared the lives of Israel's eldest sons and slaughtered the firstborn of Egypt. That event took place on the evening ( night ) of the 14th Abib ( Nisan ), the first month in the sacred calendar. The Passover, which is an event rather than a day is now commemorated each year on the evening of the same date. The story is well known and is recorded in Exodus chapters 11 and 12.

     After the Passover came the seven days of Unleavened Bread. The week of unleavened bread begins on the evening of the 14th Abib and finishes on the evening of the 21st Abib. This whole week is sometimes referred to as the Passover week, but strictly speaking, its proper name is Week of Unleavened Bread. When the Passover and the days of unleavened bread are mentioned in the same passage, ( as in Acts 12:1-4 ) we can be certain that the Passover refers to the event, which occurs on the evening of the 14th Abib and the days of unleavened bread refer to the week that follows.
( i.e. 15-21st Abib or Nisan )

     The events recorded in Acts 12:3-4 occurred during the days of unleavened bread. In other words, the Passover in that particular year had passed. It was history, it had gone. Why then would Herod wait for an event which had already passed? Surely Herod knew that the Passover had passed and that the days of unleavened bread were in progress.

     What then was Herod really waiting for before releasing Peter? The answer is: Herod was waiting for Easter to come and go, just as the King James Version says. We can be confident that the translators of the KJV knew full well why in this passage they rendered the word 'Pesah' as 'Easter' and not 'Passover' as at other times. Their combined knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and the vast amount of manuscript evidence before them. Thousands of copies, versions and church-father citations were all used to arrive at every word in the King James Version. Are we ( whose knowledge of these languages is microscopic by comparison ) to challenge their judgment? The fact is that Herod, during the days of unleavened bread, was not waiting for the Passover, which had come and gone. He was waiting for Easter just as the KJV says.

The events in our story tell us that:
- The Passover in that particular year was history.
- The Days of Unleavened Bread ( 15th - 21st Abib ) were in progress.
- And Easter was approaching, after which Herod planned to bring out Peter.
 
     The question now arises. Was the pagan festival of Easter known at that time? And were the Romans keeping Easter? The answer is yes. The pagan festival of Easter, with its hot cross buns and Easter Sunday sunrise services was well known in ancient Babylon and Rome centuries before the events recorded in Acts 12.

Let me quote a short passage about EASTER from Alexander Hislop's book: The Two Babylon's
( ISBN 0 7136 0470 0 ) " Then look at Easter. What does the term Easter mean? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte. One of the titles of Beltis, the QUEEN OF HEAVEN. Whose name as pronounced by the people of Nineveh was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain along with the Druids. " The priests of the groves. " ( page 103 )

     No scholar doubts the fact that Easter is a pagan festival, which came down from ancient times long before the Christian era. The next question is: Did some Israelites keep Easter and worship the QUEEN OF HEAVEN? Did they bake hot cross buns for Ishtar - Easter? The answer surprisingly is again - yes! Ancient Israel worshipped the Queen of Heaven - ISHTAR and they honored her each year with special cakes ( buns ) and drink offerings:
- Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
- Jeremiah 44:18-25 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. 19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men? 20 Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to all the people which had given him that answer, saying. 21 The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, ye, and your fathers, your kings, and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and came it not into his mind? 22 So that the LORD could no longer bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the abominations which ye have committed; therefore is your land a desolation, and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day. 23 Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as at this day. 24 Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the women, Hear the word of the LORD, all Judah that are in the land of Egypt. 25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.

     Oh yes, many ancient Israelites kept Easter and modern Israelis still do. In summary we can say that when Herod, after the Passover and during the days of unleavened bread. Shut up Peter intending to bring him out after Easter. Herod meant exactly what the King James Version is saying. He meant Easter not Passover, which had already come and gone. This means that every translation, which uses the word Passover in Acts 12:3-4 is incorrect. Easter is the correct word and the King James Version uses it.

The Protestant Reformers
     When the early Protestant Reformers of Europe ( German, Dutch, French and English etc ) began to translate the Old and New Testaments into their native languages. They first had to decide which Hebrew and Greek Text they were going to use.

Hebrew
     For the Old Testament, the King James translators used the traditional Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This text was produced under the strict Masoretic rules mentioned earlier. It was the only trustworthy Hebrew Text available. Do not the Scripture teach in: Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Greek
     For the New Testament, the Protestant translators of the King James Bible had a choice between two vastly different Greek texts:
- The Received ( Majority ) Text favored by the early churches of Christendom ( The Greek, Waldensian, Albigensian, Gauls and Celtic churches. )
- Or the Minority Text favored by the Roman Catholic Church.

     Wisely they settled for the Received ( Majority ) Text. No doubt the Spirit of God was guiding their minds and providentially preserving His Word. It is a grave error to think that the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries were unaware of the Minority Texts produced in the 4th century. They were well aware of them. They had before them copies of the Majority, Minority and Neutral texts. In addition, they had many ancient versions of the Scriptures: the Peshitta, Old Latin Vulgate, Italic, Waldensian, Albigensian, Gaul and Celtic Bibles. They also had before them thousands of scriptural citations of the early Church Fathers, which date back to the 2nd and 3rd century. They were also well aware of the fact that the Roman Church used a Eusebio-Origin type of Bible based on the Minority Text. What did these great men of God do?

The answer: They set aside the Minority Text and chose to produce a Bible, which was based on the Majority Text. The text used by the early Christian Church.

     The following quotation will help fix this in your mind. " Unquestionably the leaders of the Reformation, German, French and English were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence. But also because it matched with the Received Text, which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles. " ( Ref:F6 )

The King James Version Translators
     When the LORD God of Israel chose the prophets and apostles of old to pen the Scriptures, He made His selection with the utmost care. Faith, holiness, a love for truth and inherent ability were the deciding qualities He looked for. In other words, God looks within when selecting His servants.

That is how He always judges men: 1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

     The Protestant translators of the King James Version were providentially chosen by God in exactly the same way. Firstly for their faith, holiness and love of truth and secondly for their linguistic abilities. In other words, they were TRUE BELIEVERS.

     At their center, some 47 pious scholars were involved. In addition, many hundreds of Protestant ministers and believing linguists throughout the UK assisted in the great work. I cannot over stress the importance of that fact. Faith in God was the first and overriding reason why the Almighty chose the KJV translators for their sacred task. It is totally inconceivable that the Almighty, who initially inspired faithful, holy men of God to write the Scriptures in the first place. Would then ( centuries later ) hand over the translating of those self-same Scriptures to unbelievers and skeptics.

I repeat: The translators of the King James Version were men of FAITH, who believed that the text they were translating was, in fact, the WORD OF GOD!

" Thus started the greatest writing project the world has ever known and the greatest achievement of the reign of James I. The making of the English Bible, which has ever since bore his name. " ( Ref:L2 )

W Scott writes: " King James named 54 pious and scholarly persons and who were empowered to communicate with all our principal learned men within this our kingdom. So that the scholarship of the country was consecrated to the noblest work which could engage the heart, the mind and the pen of men. The production of our admirable English Bible. Seven of the number, through death and other causes, were unable to serve. So that the list was reduced to 47. It may be interesting to know how and to whom the work was distributed. There were six committees chosen, two of which sat at Westminster, two at Cambridge, two at Oxford. The whole were presided over by Bishop Andrews who, besides possessing an intimate knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee and Syriac. Was familiar with 16 other languages. As each set or committee of translators finished the particular part assigned to them, it was then subjected to the criticism of the other five sets in order. So that each part of the Bible came before the whole body of the translators. When the 47 finished their work it was then carefully reviewed by the final committee. Dr Miles Smith, Bishop of Gloucester, wrote the preface. "
( Ref:A8 )

Always bear in mind the spiritual qualifications of these great men of God:
- They were Christians who believed that the text they were handling was the very Word of God!
- They had absolutely no doubt in their minds that the Genesis account of creation was true.
- They never doubted the miracles of Jesus or that he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified for the sins of mankind and that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
- They were Protestants who saw through the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.
- They were scholars of the highest order. Few ( if any ) of today's scholars come anywhere near them in their understanding of the original languages. Let alone their faith, piety and commitment to truth above tradition.

A few quotes about some of these men of God from : An Understandable History of the Bible.

Lancelot Andrews: " As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the 'star of preachers. Dr Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer. But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a 'right godly man' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge speaks of him as 'that great gulf of learning'! It was also said, that 'the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.' A brave old chronicler remarks that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages. " ( page 186 )

John Overall: He was chosen for his expertise in the writings of the early church fathers. " Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers. " ( page 186-187 )

Robert Tighe: " An excellent textuary and profound linguist. " ( page 189 )

William Bedwell: " An eminent Oriental scholar. His epitaph mentions that he was 'for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times.' " ( page 189 )

Edward Lively: " One of the best linguists in the world. Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages. " ( page 190 )

Lawrence Chaderton: " He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek and Hebrew tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them. Dr Chaderton was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching engagement in his later years was described as follows: 'Having addressed his audience for full two hours by the glass, he paused and said, 'I will no longer trespass on your patience.' And now comes the marvel; for the whole congregation cried out with one consent 'For God's sake, go on!' " ( page 191 )

Francis Dillingham: " Was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debates in Greek. " ( page 191 )

Thomas Harrison: Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge. " On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in the University of those who sought to be professors of these languages. " ( page 192 )

John Harding: " At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. " ( page 192 )

John Reynolds: " Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original languages and read all the Greek and Latin fathers. And all the ancient records of the Church. " ( page 193 )

Dr. Henry Saville: " Was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education, skilled in languages and knowledge of the Word. That he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. " ( page 195 )

Dr. Miles Smith: " The man responsible for the preface of the King James Bible. The preface is no longer printed in present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of Greek and Latin fathers. As well as being an expert in Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. 'Hebrew he had at his finger's end.' And so was the Ethiopic tongue. " ( page 195 )

" It should be noted that these men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers, which prevented them from being 'locked' to the manuscripts, causing earlier readings to be overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by modern translators. It should also be recognized that these men did not live in 'ivory towers.' They were men who were just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed education. It is a lesson in humility to see such men of great spiritual stature call themselves 'poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known.' " ( Ref:B10 )

William Grady backs up this evidence: " The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives. William John Bois was only five years old, when his father taught him to read Hebrew. By the time he was six, he could not only write the same but in a fair and elegant character. At age fifteen, he was already a student at St John's College, Cambridge, where he was renowned for corresponding with his superiors in Greek. " ( Ref:E7 )

Why the King James Version Should be Retained
This is so important an issue that I will again quote from Edward F Hills' book: The King James Version Defended pages 218-219 " But someone may reply, even if the King James Version needs only a few corrections, why take the trouble to make them? Why keep on with the old King James and its 17th century language, its thee and thou and all the rest? Granted the Textus Receptus is the best text but why not make a new translation of it in the language of today? In answer to these objections there are several facts which must be pointed out.

First: The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not the 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. As H Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out. One need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of the their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W A Irwin (1952) are to the same support. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit not to 17th century English, which was very different. But to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou, the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage. For at the time these translators were doing their work, these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation.

Second: Those who talk about translating the Bible into the language of today never define what they mean by their expression. What is the language of today? The language of 1881 is not the language of today, nor the language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. In none of these languages, we are told, can we communicate with today's youth. There are even some who feel that the best way to translate the Bible into the language of today is to convert it into folk songs. Accordingly, in some contemporary youth conferences and even worship services, there is little or no Bible reading but only crude kinds of vocal music accompanied by vigorous piano and strumming guitars. But in contrast to these absurdities, the language of the King James Version is enduring diction. Which will remain as long as the English language remains, in other words, throughout the foreseeable future.

Third: The current attack on the King James Version and the promotion of modern-speech versions is discouraging the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children. Why memorize or require your children to memorize something that is out of date and about to be replaced by something new and better? And why memorize a modern version when there are so many to choose from? Hence even in conservative churches, children are growing up densely ignorant of the holy Bible because they are not encouraged to hide its life-giving words in their hearts.

Fourth: So-called modern-speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible is not a modern human book. It is not as new as the morning newspaper and no translation should suggest this. If the Bible were this new, it would not be the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is an ancient and divine Book. Which nevertheless, is always new because in it, God reveals Himself. Hence the language of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible and the King James Version fulfills these two requirements better than any other Bible in English. Hence it is the King James Version, which converts sinners soundly and makes of them diligent Bible students.

Fifth: So-called modern-speech Bibles are un-scholarly. The language of the Bible has always savored of the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It has always been biblical rather than contemporary and colloquial. Fifty years ago this fact was denied by E J Goodspeed and others who were publishing their modern versions. On the basis of the papyrus discoveries, which had recently been made in Egypt it was said that the New Testament authors wrote in the everyday Greek of their own times. This claim however, is now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration. As R M Grant (1963) admits, the New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint and most of them were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence their language was not actually that of the secular papyri of Egypt but biblical. Hence New Testament versions must be biblical and not contemporary and colloquial like Goodspeed's version.

Sixth: The King James Version is the historic Bible of English-speaking Protestants. Upon it God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval through the usage of many generations of Bible-believing Christians. Hence, if we believe in God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, we will retain the King James Version. For in doing so we will be following the clear leading of the Almighty Himself. " ( Ref:G3 )

11. Modern Versions & Translators
     Most if not all modern translations are based on the Revised Version ( 1881-5 ), which as we have already learned, was influenced throughout by the Alexandrian manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In effect there really are only Two English language Bibles to choose from.
- King James Version: Which is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Majority Greek Text.
- Revised Version: Which is based on the Minority Text. This version has spawned a whole generation of inaccurate translations. Which like their unholy mother the RV, all rely heavily on the Minority Text.

I list a few of the 100+ modern Bibles, which followed in the trail of the Revised Version of 1881-5.
- The American Standard Version ( 1901 )
- The Moffatt Bible ( 1935 )
- The Revised Standard Version ( 1952 )
- The Amplified Bible ( 1958-64 )
- The Jerusalem Bible ( 1966 )
- The New International Version ( 1966 )
- The New English Bible ( 1970 )
- The New American Bible ( 1970 )
- J B Phillips' New Testament ( 1972 )
- New American Standard Version ( 1971 )
- Good News Bible ( 1976 and 1994 )
- The New International Version ( 1978 )
- New Jerusalem Bible ( 1985 )
- The New King James Version ( 1984 )

     As Samuel Gipp so puts it: " All modern translations such as the New American Standard Version are linked to the Revised Version of 1952, which is a revision of the American Standard Version, an American creation growing from the English Revised Version of 1881. " ( Ref:B11 )

The Revised Version Committee
     It is true that many of the Revised Version's ( RV ) committee members were godly scholars but they cannot be compared with the King James Version's committee when it comes to extreme reverence for the Word of God.

W Scott, writing over 100 years ago makes this enlightening comment concerning the RV committee: " The movement for a revision of the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures commenced on May 6 1870 in the Convocation of Canterbury. An influential committee was at once formed, consisting mainly of distinguished scholars and divines within the pale of the Established Church. But with power to consult or add to their number eminent Biblical scholars of all denominations. Many of its members were truly eminent for godliness and of distinguished ability. But it may be gravely questioned whether the constitution of the Committee as a whole may be compared with that nominated by King James for piety and extreme reverence for the Word of God. "
( Ref:A9 )

     Sad to say the revision committee when faced with a choice between Textus Receptus and the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, usually chose the Egyptian manuscripts. To be sure the Egyptian codices, written on vellum, were in far better physical condition than the papyrus or parchment MSS. But beauty ( as pointed out earlier )  is no indication of character. In Part Two we will examine some 80+ texts which have been seriously corrupted by these Egyptian codices.

Two of the revision committee's most prominent translators were:
- Brooke Foss Westcott
- Fenton John Anthony Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott
     Westcott was a Cambridge scholar who played a leading role in the production of the Revised Version. A very brief look at this man's spiritual standing is sufficient to tell us that the Almighty would never have used him in the preservation of His Word. Before anyone blindly accepts Westcott's decisions, he/she should consider what this man believed.

     The following statements by Westcott, from the book: Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott are quoted in William Grady's book: Final Authority:
- I never read of the account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it. ( page 216 )
- Oh the weakness of my faith compared with that of others! So wild, so skeptical am I. I cannot yield. ( page 217 )
- O Marie , (his wife's name) as I wrote the last word, I could not help asking what am I? Can I claim to be a believer? ( page 217 )
- It seems as if I am inclined to learn nothing. I must find out all myself and then I am satisfied. But that simple faith and obedience which so many enjoy, I fear will never be mine. ( page 217 )
- What a wild storm of unbelief seems to have seized my whole system. ( page 217 )
- If you make a decided conviction of 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. ( page 230 )

Rev. Gipp has this to say about Westcott: " We have in Brooke Foss Westcott a man who believed in communal living. A man who believed that the second coming of Christ was spiritual, heaven was a state of the mind, prayers for the dead were permissible in private devotions and that Christ came to bring peace through international disarmament. He believed in purgatory and admiration for Mary and he thought the Bible was like any other book. This is the man who walked into the Revision Committee and sat in judgment of our Bible. He thought he saw room for improvement in the Authorized Version and offered a pro-Roman Greek text with which to correct it. The ironic thing is that Bible-believing Christians, educators and preachers, who would never agree with his theology, have for years exalted his opinion of the Greek as nearly infallible. These facts alone should be reason enough to condemn Westcott and Hort, their Greek Text and the MSS which they used to arrive at such a text. But let us look at their actions concerning the molesting of the pure words of the King James Bible, in favor of Rome. Saddest of all, we have in Brooke Foss Westcott a man who neither believed in salvation by grace nor ever experienced it. There is no record in his 'Life and Letters' that he ever accepted Christ as his personal Savior. " ( Ref:B9 )

     We can see from these quotations that Brooke Foss Westcott wasn't really a believer in the Almighty or in His inspired Scriptures. By his own admission he was a skeptic who doubted the infallibility of the New Testament and the miracles of Jesus. He was unable to give up the skepticism and unbelief that stormed his mind. He totally rejected the infallibility of Scripture and confessed that simple faith would never be his. These are warning signals! You ignore them at your peril!

Fenton John Anthony Hort
     Hort was another leading translator of the Revised Version. Most of the other committee members were unfamiliar with the methods of textual criticism and dynamic equivalence, which Westcott and Hort introduced to get their way. Besides, and this is a fact we all do well to remember, Westcott and Hort were theistic evolutionists. To them the Genesis account of creation was absolutely unacceptable. Darwin's book on the Origin of the Species was more to their liking.

David Fuller wrote: " Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence. His conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God. " ( Ref:F2 )

     A quick look at what Hort wrote will leave one in no doubt that he disbelieved the most basic Bible doctrine, that the universe was created by God in six literal days. He was also an ardent admirer of the Roman Church. Indeed only recently (October 1996) Pope John Paul 11 declared that: " Today new discoveries lead one to acknowledge in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. The convergence of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes a significant argument in favour of this theory. " However, he added, " The soul was created directly by God. "

     You may be sure that the Roman Catholic Church will be following the Pope's lead in rejecting the Biblical account of the creation.

Hort believed in the evolutionary theory over a century ago. Here are a few statements of his from: The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort from page 223 of the book:Which Bible?
- Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you (Westcott) about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.
- But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.

     Dr Frederick Maurice was an avowed heretic who instilled in Hort a love for the homosexual Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Hort writes of Maurice as follows:
- He urged me to give the greatest attention to the Plato and Aristotle and to make them the central points of my reading.
- …Anglicanism, though by no means without a sound standing, seems a poor and maimed thing beside great Rome.

In his book: Defending the King James Bible Rev.D.A. Waite, Th.D, PhD writes on page 41 as follows: " The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places. My own personal count, as at August 2, 1984, using the Scrivener's GREEK NEW TESTAMENT referred to above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these, 5604 alterations, I found 1,952 omissions ( 35% ), 467 to be additions
( 8% ), and 3185 to be changes ( 57% ). In these 5604 places that were involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included, making a total of 9970 Greek words that were involved. This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages ( such as Scrivener's text ) this would average 15.4 words per page that were changed from the Received Text. " ( Ref: Q1 )

     Dr Henry M Morris, a founding father of the Institute for Creation Research USA, made these telling comments concerning modern translators: " As far as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolph Kittel is concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalist higher critic. Rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism. The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F.Westcott and F.J.A.Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort denied Biblical inerrance and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.

     Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee, which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision committee, which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers…

     So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists and evolutionists. None of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His word? Would he not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?…

     I believe therefore, after studying the teaching and loving the Bible for over 55 years. That Christians ( especially creationists ) need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great revivals in the world-wide missionary movement and in the personal lives of believers, more so than He has with all the rest of the versions put together. And 'by their fruits ye shall know them' (Matthew 7:20). It is the most beautiful, most powerful and ( I strongly believe ) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have until Christ returns. " ( Ref:N1 )

The Revised Standard Version Committee
     Few Protestants know that the Revised Standard Version ( RSV ) committee had Roman Catholic members on it or that the RSV is the preferred choice of the Roman Church. I quote from the preface of this Bible: " The Revised Standard Version Bible committee is a continuing body holding its meetings at regular intervals. It has become both ecumenical and international, with Protestant and Catholic active members who come from Great Britain, Canada and the United States. "

     Since most of the citations in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first update of this catechism in some 400 years, are from the RSV. We can safely say that this translation has virtually become the official version of the Roman Church. In effect, the aim of the translators is ecumenical. They want all the churches, yea all religions, to unite under one supreme authority. The Pope! Several on the RSV committee regard the Scriptures as being on an equal footing as church TRADITION. For this is ( and always has been ) the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The RSV committee, in other words, is vastly different from the Protestant committee, which produced the King James Version. They are as different as chalk is from cheese. A brief look at some of the members of the RSV committee is startling to say the least.

The following quotes are taken from Rev. Gipp's book: An Understandable History of the Bible:
- Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus as a social reformer who gave his life as a martyr for a cause… Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an 'Oriental story teller at his best.' ( page 197-198 )
- Julius Brewer, another reviser stated, 'The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable.' ( page 199 )
- Henry Cadbury, another member of the Revised committee believed that Jesus Christ was a just man who was subject to story telling. 'He was given to overstatements in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy but a characteristic of the Oriental world. ( page 199 )
- Walter Bowie was another reviser who believed that the Old Testament was legend instead of fact. He says in reference to Abraham, 'The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times and how much of it is fact and how much of it is legend, no one can positively tell.' ( page 199 )
- Clarence Craig was one of the revisers who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. 'It is to be remembered there were no eye witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. No canonical gospel presumed to describe Jesus emerging from the tomb. The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was capable of many explanations. The last one that would be credible to a modern man would be the explanation of a physical resurrection of the body.' ( page 200 )
- William Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the following statement. 'Some of these sayings, it is true, come from the Fourth Gospel ( John ) and we do not press that gospel for too great verbal accuracy in its record of the sayings of Jesus.' ( page 201 )
- William Irwin believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the position of God in the Bible. 'The prophets were forced by the disasters that befell to do some hard, painful thinking. They were forced by the history of their own times to revise their messages again and again in order to keep up with the progress of the age. The Assyrians and the Babylonians forced them to revise their conception of Yahweh from time to time until they finally made Him God of the universe.' ( page 201 )
- Fleming James doubted the miracle of the Red Sea crossing. 'What really happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW but scholars are pretty well agreed that the narrative goes back to some striking and pretentious event, which impressed Moses and the people with the belief that Yahweh had intervened to save them. The same may be said of the account of the plagues.' Concerning Elijah's action in 2 Kings 1:10, he said, 'The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon soldiers sent to arrest him is plainly legendary.' ( page 201-202 )

   Some Christians flatly refuse to take account of these facts. They contemptuously brush them aside as false or irrelevant. But these are facts which can be proved and should not be ignored. They are well documented statements and they are vital. In them we can see very clearly that the leading and most influential members of the Revision committee were confessed unbelievers:
- They did not believe in the very fundamentals of the Christian faith. The creation account in Genesis, the account of the Exodus, the miracles of the prophets, the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection etc.
- They selected corrupt manuscripts which cast doubt on the time-honored King James Version.
- They have conflicting religious beliefs. Some are Protestants and others are Roman Catholics.
- They have one aim. To unite all the churches.

     How should Protestants who believe in the divine inspiration and preservation of Scripture evaluate this committee's work? I answer without hesitation. With grave suspicion!

     JEHOVAH the Holy One of Israel, who initially gave us the Scriptures through His prophets and apostles of old. Who carefully selected the King James Version translators on the basis of their faith and linguistic ability and has since blessed His Word for some 400 years. Would certainly never change His methods and use translators who reject basic Bible doctrines such as the creation account in Genesis. Would the Almighty, who claims never to change, ( Malachi 3:6 ) now use unbelievers to re-translate the Bible? The very idea is preposterous, if not blasphemous. I am still aghast that it took me so long to learn these facts. I am even more astounded when Christians, who are given this information, continue to hold to their modern Bibles.

" ADDED " Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Dangerous Changes
     " Even the jots and tittles of the Bible are important. God has pronounced terrible woes upon the man who adds or takes away from the volume of inspiration. The Revisers apparently felt no constraint on this point, for they made 36,000 changes in the English of the King James Version and very nearly 6,000 in the Greek Text. Dr Ellicott, in submitting the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation in 1881, declared that they had made between eight and nine changes in every five verses and in about every ten verses three of these were made for critical purposes. And for most of these changes the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts are responsible. As Canon Cook says: 'By far the greatest number of innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds. Are adopted on the authority of two manuscripts or even on one manuscript. Against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive'. The Vatican Codex …sometimes alone, generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the Revised Version.

     There is a case where a little means much. ' If one wonders whether it is worth while' says Dr Robertson, speaking of the Revision, 'He must bear in mind that some of the passages in dispute are of great importance.' The Bible should more probably be compared to a living organism. Touch a part and you spoil it all. To cut a vital artery in a man might be touching a very small point but death would come as truly as if he were blown to pieces. " ( Ref:F4 )

Every Word
     Every word in Scripture is important. Infinitely more important than a bolt or rivet in a jet airliner or a line of code in a life-saving computer program. If His Father's words were that important to our Savior, yea every jot and title, how much more should they be to us in these end times:
- Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
- Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
- Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Dynamic Equivalence
     Yes, God's words are important, vitally important. A translator must therefore, translate God's words ( all of them ) and not assume that he understands the Almighty's thoughts and can change or delete the divine words to reflect what he thinks God meant. The King James Version translators employed a 'word for word' translation technique. That is, they translated each Hebrew and Greek word as closely as possible into its English equivalent. Modern translators chose a vastly different method called 'dynamic equivalence.' Using this method, the translator primarily endeavors to carry forward 'God's thoughts and intentions' without paying too much attention to His actual words. Using 'dynamic equivalence' in hundreds yea thousands of places, the modern translators have changed the very 'words of God' and replaced them with what they think, God meant. In effect, dynamic equivalence is not true translation but interpretation or paraphrase.

Writing in his highly recommended book: Defending the King James Bible Rev. D.A.Waite writes on page 105: " A paraphrase makes no effort to carry over or translate the words of one language into the words of another language but rather to 're-state, interpret or translate with latitude.' Since this is the object of a paraphrase, there's no assurance of fidelity in carrying over exactly what is there in one language.no more and no less into the other language, no more and no less. Therefore, paraphrase takes great liberty in doing any of these three things or all of them:
1. Adding words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings.
2. Subtracting words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings.
3. Changing words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings.
     That is the essence of paraphrase, that is the essence of dynamic equivalence. So it is commentary, it is interpretation, it is not translation. " ( Ref:Q2 )

Spiritual Pollution
     We have seen that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt and unholy manuscripts. That they were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who amended, added to and deleted many portions of the true text and then palmed off their work as the Word of God. These manuscripts were then taken up by skeptical translators who didn't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, to spawn a whole generation of new translations.

     With these sobering facts in mind, let us now consider a Biblical principle of which comparatively few Christians know anything. It concerns " Spiritual Pollution " of how something unholy can pollute everything it touches. This little-known principle is described in the following passage:
Haggai 2:11-13 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying. 12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. 13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

     What does this symbolic drama, involving dedicated meat, bread and wine becoming unclean if touched by an unclean person mean? What spiritual truth is the Almighty trying to put across in this passage?

     The answer I believe is as follows. At its basic physical level, it means that if an ancient Israelite believer, whilst carrying his consecrated tithes ( flesh, bread, wine or oil ) to the Temple. Happened to come in contact with an unclean person ( a leper or corpse for example ) his offering would lose its holiness and would become unacceptable to God. It's like pure meat being infected with a disease or like a cup of tea being polluted by a fly or a computer hard disk being infected by a virus-laden floppy. In other words, unclean and unholy people or things pollute whatever they touch.

     At its higher spiritual level it means that any sacred offering ( prayer, charitable gift or act of worship ) becomes unacceptable to God if the unholy element of unbelief motivates it.

     Does this spiritual principle, that diseased things pollute everything they touch, apply to Bible translations? I'm certain it does. The Bible is the Bread of Life, the strong spiritual meat for the soul. It can also become spiritually unholy, unclean and unacceptable to God if its words are infected by the unbelief of a scribe or translator or twisted out of context by the leprous spirit of Satan. That is exactly what happened to the holy manuscripts which were carried down to Egypt:
- The holy texts were corrupted by unbelieving scribes who did not recognize their divine origin. As far as they were concerned the Scriptures were merely the writings of a religious group called Christians based initially in Jerusalem and Antioch. Thus, in the process of copying, Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were corrupted in hundreds of places with deletions, additions and alterations, till they themselves became unholy, unclean and unacceptable to God.
- We see many unbelieving translators daring to use those corrupt codices to translate the Word of God. Men who rejected the fact that every word of Scripture is God-breathed and therefore, absolutely true. Always bear in mind that these men were professed unbelievers and evolutionists.

And so the spiritual lesson of Haggai 2:11-13 has become a living reality in these last days:
- The sacred texts were corrupted by unbelieving Egyptian copyists.
- Unbelieving modern translators used those corrupt manuscripts to complete their work.

     The end product was a deluge of unholy modern Bible versions. That is why we should never refer to modern translations as " Holy Bibles " because they are far from holy. And most certainly the Spirit of the Holy One of Israel was not involved in their production. They are unholy counterfeits posing as the Word of God! We ignore those two facts at our peril.

     These are the two main reasons why I have set aside all modern English translations of the Bible and have returned to the King James Version.

12. Famine of the Word of God
     Bible prophecy never ceases to amaze me. I used to wonder how come the Bible predicted a famine in the last days for the Words of the Lord when there are still millions of " Bibles " being printed every year. Are not Christian shops, churches and homes bursting with Bible translations and paraphrases to suite every taste? What does this prophecy mean? Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.

     I wonder no longer because now I know that the predicted famine of the Word of God has already begun. The Real Bible is fast disappearing from Christian churches and homes. To be sure there are scores of modern translations available but the Real Word of God, ( the King James Bible ) is hard to find and seldom used. Soon it will be as scarce as is bread during a literal famine.

A Solemn Warning
In the closing chapter of his book: The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills pens this solemn warning: " We all do well to take heed. In regard to Bible versions, many so-called Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them, whether it pleases God or not. 'We want a Bible in our own idiom,' they clamor. 'We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends. We want an informal God, no better educated than ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang.' And having thus registered their preference, they go their separate ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V or N.E.B. Others deem the N.A.S.V or the N.I.V more evangelical. Still others opt for the T.E.V or the Living Bible.

     But God is bigger than you are dear friend and the Bible you must use is not a matter for you to decide according to your whims and prejudices. It has already been decided for you by the workings of God's special providence.

     If you ignore this providence and choose to adopt one of the modern versions, you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which unbelievers use to justify theirs. If you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. In other words, naturalistic textual criticism regards the special, providential preservation of the Scriptures as of no importance for the study of the New Testament text. But if we concede this, then it follows that the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is likewise unimportant. For why is it important that God should infallibly inspire the Scriptures, if it is not important that He should preserve them by His special providence?

     Where oh where dear brother or sister did you ever get the idea that it is up to you to decide which Bible version you will receive as God's holy Word? As long as you harbor this false notion, you are little better than an unbeliever. As long as you cherish this erroneous opinion, you are entirely on your own.

* For you, the Bible has no authority, only that which your rebellious reason deigns to give it.
* For you, there is no comfort, no assurance of faith.

     Cast off therefore, this carnal mind that leads to death! Put on the spiritual mind that leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the true Text of God's Holy Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Version and other faithful translations. " ( Ref:G4 )

     Concerning the peculiar and dangerous mind-set of the Westcott and Hort followers both past and present, Dean Burgon wrote: " Phantoms of the imagination  ( That's where they begin. ) Henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubts, wretched misbelief, childish credulity, judicial blindness are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to imposture. It has doubted what is demonstrably true. Has rejected what is indubitably Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for historical facts to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence or on no evidence at all. " ( Ref:P2 )

Martyrs for the Word of God
     Multiplied millions of true believers in ages past have died for the Word of God. Publishing the Bible was a major crime. To possess a Bible or even portions of one, placed a Christian in a very dangerous position. During the dark ages, the situation was immeasurably worse. One has only to study the history of the Waldensian Church to see how dangerous it was for true believers to possess the Scriptures. Multitudes perished by sword, famine, beatings, burning, hangings and torture. Many were slain with Bibles tied around their necks.

     One of the greatest Christian classics on this subject is Fox's Book of Martyrs. A book which in ancient days was chained ( alongside the Bible ) to the reading desks in many British churches. Make time to study this book. It tells of martyrs who died in the tens of thousands  ( yea millions ) all because they lived and loved the teachings of the Real Word of God.

     Here is a quote from page 179 of this masterpiece concerning William Tyndale, the first man to translate the Bible into English from the original languages: "…Tyndale thought with himself no way more to conduce thereunto , than if the Scripture were turned into the vulgar speech, that the poor people might read and see the simple plain Word of God. He perceived that it was not possible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scriptures were so plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue that they might see the meaning of the text. For else, whatsoever truth should be taught them, the enemies of the truth would quench it. Either with reasons of sophistry and traditions of their own making, founded without all ground of Scripture. Or else juggling with the text, expounding it in such a sense as it were impossible to gather of the text, if the right meaning thereof were seen. "

In the book of Revelation we read that the Apostle John was banished to the island of Patmos for the Word of God! Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the WORD OF GOD, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

     The prophecy of the Revelation goes on to tell of a great company of believers who would live and die for the WORD OF GOD! A martyrdom which is to be repeated in these last days. I will not exhaust the reader with frightening details but this is what the prophecy says. Note carefully that these martyrs and their end-time kinsman were ( and still are to be ) slain for the WORD OF GOD! The main themes of the Word of God are the Son of God ( Yeshua the Messiah ) and the Law of God ( the Torah ). These martyrs, past and future, are slain because they loved the living and written Word of God and kept the commandments recorded in it:
- Revelation 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain FOR THE WORD OF GOD, and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed AS THEY WERE, should be fulfilled.
- Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
- Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

The Basic Bible Study
     The textual critic J. Harold Greenlee has said: " New Testament textual criticism is therefore, the basic Bible study. A prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work.' This is not an overstatement of the importance of this issue. As believers we have the responsibility in our day and age of proclaiming the Gospel. The pure Gospel, the undiluted Gospel. We also have the right and privilege of being the next in the line of protecting God's Word and proclaiming it. Each individual Christian will make a decision on this matter of which text is correct. Unmistakably, this decision will be made consciously or unconsciously, by every single believer.

     This decision is made when the believer decides which edition of the Bible he will use to read and study. And if he chooses a translation based upon corrupted manuscripts, which reflect views which omit the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His virgin birth. Then the decision has been made to extend this error to the next generation.

     If however, today's Christian chooses a translation of the Word of God which is translated from the Traditional Text of the New Testament. The decision has been made to continue to see God's working through His providence in providing His Word in its complete form. Not only for this generation but for those to come. " ( Ref:L1 )

     In my opinion, the quote you have just read is one of the most important in this whole publication. That New Testament textual criticism is therefore, the BASIC BIBLE STUDY. A prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work.

     If you stop to think about it, you will see how true this is. That before we even begin to study any book claiming to be 'The Holy Bible' we should check to see if that really is the case. I must confess that like multiplied millions of other Christians, I just didn't do that. I blindly accepted every modern translation as the Word of God, some better or worse than others but all equally holy. How wrong I was! How terribly wrong! But I thank the Almighty that He mercifully pardoned my ignorance, allowed me to live through a massive heart attack and then opened my eyes to the error of my ways before it was too late! I could so easily have died on the operating table. God knows the surgeon warned me of that possibility. But JEHOVAH answered my prayer and allowed me to live and even to place this article on the Internet. Praise His holy name!

Summary
     PART ONE has brought many vital facts to your attention. The most important of which is that unbelieving copyists and unbelieving translators have resulted in the production of millions of modern English Bibles, which are nothing more than counterfeits of the Real Word of God.

Let me now summarize Part One.
- Two great deceptions have now overtaken mankind. The first is the unproved Theory of Evolution and the second is the Counterfeit Evolving Bibles that are currently flooding the market. Both cast doubt on the accuracy of the Real Word of God, the King James Bible. Unbelievers and believers alike are in grave danger of being taken in by one or the other of these deceptions. But the Almighty is faithful. He who inspired the Bible in the first place is well able to preserve His Word. Indeed He has preserved it down through the ages as promised. The Word of the Lord abideth forever!
- The original inspired autographs, ( Masters ) which were penned by the prophets and apostles of old have long since disappeared. They literally fell apart through constant use and are no more. There are none in existence today.
- Before the Old Testament Masters were buried, they were copied by faithful scribes. The Old Testament scribes were the Aaronic priests and later the Masorites. They took the utmost care to insure that every copy was as perfect as humanly possible. And even a single error was enough to have an entire manuscript rejected.
- Sad to say the New Testament copyists were not as meticulous as their Old Testament counterparts. Nevertheless, this deficiency was amply compensated by the vast number of copies made. Many thousands of which are still in existence. So the truth can easily be detected in the majority of texts.
- There are currently in excess of 5250 Greek manuscripts in existence. They are held in various museums and libraries of the world.
- If we add the 1800+ copies of the versions and the 86,000 scriptural citations of the Church Fathers, we have a sizable body of documentary evidence to prove the accuracy of the Scriptures. These ensure that small errors are soon detected. Bear in mind that the Almighty promised to preserve His Word forever! He is doing just that and is fulfilling His promise which says: the Word of the Lord abideth forever!
- A version is a translation made directly from the original masters. Not to be confused with a translation or a translation of a translation. There are many foreign language versions of the Scriptures. To name a few: The Peshitta, Old Latin Vulgate, Italic, Gothic, Old Syriac, Armenian, Waldensian, Luther's German Bible and the Authorized King James Version.
- Textus Receptus ( the Received Text ), also known as the Byzantine Text or Majority Text. Is the most reliable Greek text in existence. It is based on the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. That is why it is often called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus does not add to, omit or mutilate the Scriptures as does the Minority Text. All the versions mentioned are in line with Textus Receptus. Because of its purity, the Majority Text was used by all the 15th, 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers of Europe to make their translations. Their choice of Textus Receptus attracted the wrath of the Roman Church. And tens of thousands of true believers who studied and published the real Bible were martyred as a result.
- The Minority Text by comparison, is dangerously corrupt! The two most prominent codices in this group are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are beautiful to look at and are in excellent condition simply because they are written on vellum and were seldom used, even by their custodians. But they are dangerously corrupt! They are covered with hundreds of amendments made over a long period. Amendments which prove that even their owners knew they were hopelessly inaccurate. They omit scores of words, verses and passages of Scripture. They are totally unreliable and for this reason were rejected by discerning believers down though the centuries. These two manuscripts outlasted the earliest papyrus copies of the Scriptures. But to suggest that they are accurate is absurd. Remember that early versions of the Scriptures, such as the Peshitta and Italic, are some 200 years older than these two codices. So the 'oldest is best' argument doesn't apply here. John Burgon was a Greek scholar who personally examined these early codices and exposed their deficiencies in no uncertain terms. The Christian church would do well to read what Burgon wrote.
- The Misleading Footnotes that appear in most modern translations ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the King James Version. But these footnotes are themselves dangerously misleading.
- The Authorized King James Version is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. It is a version in the true sense of the term, being based on the original languages. Its style is biblical rather than contemporary. It is infinitely more accurate than any modern translation on the market today. Remember that the translators of the King James Version were men of faith, piety and learning. They firmly believed that the text they were translating was the very Word of God! Their like has seldom ( if ever ) been equaled, let alone surpassed. The Almighty brought together this team of faithful, holy and capable linguists to produce the greatest classic in the annals of English literature - The King James Bible. It is the version that God has endorsed and blessed for almost 400 years. It should be kept. It is in fact, the Real Word of God - the HOLY BIBLE!
- By comparison, modern versions of the Bible cannot be trusted. They are dangerously corrupt! Their renderings are influenced by the distorted codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were the product of unbelieving scribes. Moreover, many of the most prominent RV and RSV translators
( Westcott and Hort in particular ) were professed unbelievers - evolutionists! They rejected the creation account in Genesis, the Exodus story, the crossing of the Red sea account, the miracles of Elijah, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, his resurrection and his promised second advent. Their colossal unbelief was only matched by that of the unbelieving Egyptian scribes who, in the first place, produced codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two facts: The unbelief of the scribes and the unbelief of the modern translators are warning signals! Heed them.
- Spiritual Infection / Famine: The RV committee's choice of corrupt manuscripts and the unbelief of its most prominent members, ( Westcott and Hort ) infected their work and has resulted in scores of Unholy Bibles flooding the market and the churches. I honestly believe that Christians who knowingly continue to study these counterfeit Bibles are condoning the errors they contain. By doing so they not only place themselves in grave moral danger but also encourage spiritual deception! Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
- The twin moral onslaught of the theory of evolution and the counterfeit Bibles have made havoc of billions of souls. Together they have resulted in outright atheism on the one hand and an feebled Christianity on the other. Be warned by these revelations! They are placed on the Internet to reach millions. Do not be slow to take the warning! Currently the world is in the grip of a mighty spiritual famine, a famine of the REAL WORD OF GOD!
- History tells us that countless thousands of true believers in centuries past were martyred for their love and loyalty to the WORD OF GOD. Prophecy tells us that another end-time persecution is due to occur and for the selfsame reason - the WORD OF GOD!

     We all have a responsibility to ourselves and others to believe, study and live by the teachings found in the REAL WORD OF GOD. THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION - 1611. My sincere prayer is that the Almighty will grant you the understanding, the humility, the courage and the power to escape the deceptions of the Devil and to stand up for the Truth! Amen.