| King James Only? |
Added: May-3-04 |
Comment/Question: I noticed that you only quote the King James Version of the Bible in your books. Are you a King James only person? Answer: N0/YES. To translate means to render something into another language. Concerning God's Word, translation, of course, is necessary in order to carry out the great commission of spreading the gospel message to the many peoples of the world. In this respect, I am not a King James Only person. However, there is a great difference between fulfilling the great commission and that of giving a personal or particular account of something. It becomes a tragedy when we amend what God has said and conform to particular denominational myths or modern whelms by rewriting God's Word. This has been the case with the new versions of Scripture.
To be an extremist "King James Only" person would void the purpose of reaching various peoples of the world who cannot read English. I am, however, opposed to the modern English versions of God's Word. I am greatly offended by their usage and firmly believe that today's religious intellectuals are greatly offending God by amending what He has said. I have tried to be open-minded about this, but the Holy Spirit keeps bringing me back to a central truth: The Word of God cannot contradict or wrongly implicate the position and character of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, Creator, and God in the flesh. The new versions of the Bible attack these most important biblical truths. Additionally, the virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, and other Bible fundamentals are likewise attacked.
The problem lies in the sources from which the new versions have descended. Without going into the details of the matter, the King James Bible was translated from the Traditional Text (copies of the orginial texts of the Apostles and Old Testament scribes) as recieved from God (over 5,000 copies of the Traditional Texts were used for comparison). The New Testament of the early Church was the Traditional text, also known as the Majority Text, Received Text, or Textus Receptus, written in the common Greek of the day. For the Old Testament, the translation was from the Hebrew.
The new versions have not descended from the Textus Receptus, but have descended from the "corrected" texts of the Catechetical school of Alexandria, Egypt (only two manuscripts --and rejected due to contradictions as compared with the Received Text).
In the city of Antioch, in Syria, where they were first called Christians, true believers were making exact copies of the original manuscripts. These believers sent missionaries into Alexandria, Egypt. It was in Alexandria that a Catechetical school (pertaining to teaching by question and answer) of religion and philosophy was founded by Clement (AD 200). It was there that some of the greatest minds of the time were to be found. They were called Gnostics, the elite thinkers of the day. When the Gnostics at Alexandria received copies of the Bible (Textus Receptus), they immediately began making changes to these inspired Scriptures, especially those dealing with the deity of Jesus. Many Passages were omitted. This was the first of many "revisions or amendments" to the New Testament, that is, revisions to the inspired writings given to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. To accept the Textus Receptus as absolute truth would invalidate all the gods and philosophies of other religions. In the minds of the Gnostics, this could not happen. Their philosophical world views would become void of meaning. After all, to the Gnostics, those "Christians from Antioch" were not capable of the real truth anyway! The Alexandrian Texts are also known as the Codex Aleph or Sinaticus, and the Codex B or Vaticanus, or the Minority Texts. We see then, that after the Gnostics had received and corrupted the Bible, there were two types of the original Greek Text, the pure and the corrupt, that is, the Textus Receptus (from which the King James Bible descends) and the Alexandrian Texts (from which modern versions descend).The trickle-down effect of the corrupted manuscripts is very obvious today. Pulpits continue to be filled with lessons in phsychology, fewer biblical examples, and less biblical principle.
There is a claim by new version advocates that the King James Bible underwent many revisions. This is a severely overblown myth. There have been no revisions, only editions. The editions were done to correct printing errors, not content errors. It was only some 200 years prior that the printing press had been invented. Printing in those days was not infallable. Can you imagine the tedious work involved in printing a Bible in the fifteenth century, without printing errors, at all? These new editions were made to correct errors made while printing, not to revise the content. This included spelling, puncuation, and the like. There were some 400 changes made within a short 27 year span. It is obvious why editing was needed. These efforts were for editing, not efforts to change the account of what was written.
Many scholars claim there were thousands of changes made since the original King James Bible of 1611. These mulitple changes were found due to the change of type style. The original type style was Gothic. It was edited to the Roman style. The Gothic "s" was "f" and the "u" was "v," and so on. This is why we have a double "u" for "w" and not a double "v." Again, only an editing through the change of type style, not a revision of the content. Another thing to consider is spelling. Spelling in those days was at whim. For instance "fear" was spelled "feare" and "bear" was spelled "beare." Thus, editing was needed to correct the spelling as spelling became standardized. Again, this had no effect on the infallable message of God, nor did it discredit the words used. It was not a revision, but an editing procedure.
The Very Words Are Inspired By God: Many liberal thinkers today claim that the Bible only contains God's Word and is not actually the Word of God. Such persons claim God only inspired the thoughts of the writers, not the words. The truth of the matter is, that the Scriptures themselves declare the inspiration of God, even down to the very words. The Apostle Paul tells us of God's inspiration of Scripture in his letter to Timothy: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16-17). The word thoroughly is exartizo which means "to equipt fully." Thus, what God wanted to say to mankind is recorded in the Bible so that we may be fully equipped. The words of the Bible came when "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:21). Thus, the inspiration of God means more than just inspiring the thoughts portrayed in the Word, but most definitely includes the very words themselves. David says this of the words (plural) of the Lord: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6-7). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). You see, God is very serious about his Word, "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psa. 138:2). How important, then, is the Word of God? Very important.
For explanation's sake, the King James Bible will be quoted with changes from other versions in parenthesis. I will provide quick comparison of the new versions vs. the King James Bible. The verses which have been corrupted and used herein are by no means exhaustive. Only a few have been chosen to reveal the errors of new versions, otherwise many volumes would be necessary.
Hebrews 2:11: "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one (RSV, have all one origin): for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,..." (Hebrews 2:11). The Revised Standard Version (RSV) changes are all of one to, have all one origin. Note that Christ is the one who sanctifies and brings all believers into one body called the "Church" (born again believers). By changing this verse, the RSV states that Christ has an origin, a beginning. It reflects that Christ was a created being as were the angels or man and certainly less than God in the flesh. Not only the RSV, but all the new versions attack the deity and authority of Jesus in some way. Many claim they can understand God's Word better through new versions of the Bible. The question is, what kind of understanding does the Revised Standard Version portray about the deity of Jesus in Hebrews 2:11? Can you see the problem?
True, many things are stated in a clearer and non-contradictory manner in some modern versions. However, grammer is not the issue. The issue revolves around those Scriptures which contradict the true doctrinal and fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Those of us who attempt to stand in the gap get caught between a rock and a hard place. We must eiher give-in to the differences (turning deaf ears or closing the eyes) or become accused of personal bias and/or ignorance.
Romans 14:10,12 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (NAS- judment seat of God). Rom. 14:10.....So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Rom. 14:12. The New American Standard changes the judgment seat of Christ to the judgment seat of God. Note how that change takes away the deity and judicial power from Jesus. It is a blasphemous act to belittle Christ in such a manner. For those unsuspecting individuals who adhere to the NAS, a pattern of thought slowly developes concerning the less-than-deity position of Christ. Satan is subtle. Although Jesus is God, the NAS does not portray that fact, but replaces the fact by leaving him out. The reader is not led to make the judgment for himself through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Accepted Worship: Jesus would not accept the worship of man if he were not God. Peter would not accept worship (Acts 10:25-26), nor would the angel in heaven accept John's worship (Rev. 22:8,9). But Jesus did accept worship (Matt. 9:18; 20:20; Mrk. 5:6; Lu. 24:52). Why? Jesus rebuked Satan and said, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4:10). Jesus accepted worship because He is God. However, in the New American Standard, Matt. 9:18, 20:20 and Mark 5:6 has been changed from worshipped or worshipping, to bowed down or bowing down. The New International Version also changes the intent of these Scriptures: While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him (NIV, knelt before him), saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Matt. 9:18 (See also Mark 5:6). One can bow down to the Queen of England out of respect for her position without worshipping her. You may curtsy before an audience or bow yourself to a karate opponent without worshipping. These changes may appear harmless, but they are subtile tactics against the deity of Jesus. Beware!
Salvation By Works: We know that salvation is not obtained by good works. But look at what has been done by the Revised Standard Version: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word (NIV, crave pure spiritual milk), that ye may grow thereby (RSV, that by it you may grow up to salvation):...I Peter 2:2 The NIV changes sincere milk of the word to crave spiritual milk. This change leaves out the importance of the Word of God and prompts unsuspecting individuals to rely on feelings or things that makes one feel good. There is a great difference in craving spiritual milk and craving the milk of the Word. Did you catch that?! The RSV says, long for the pure spiritual milk. What kind of milk is pure spiritual milk? The writer of Hebrews tells us that "everyone that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness" (Heb. 5:13). Milk is used here in Hebrews to express the inability of immature Christians to deduce righteous and indepth truths from Scripture. Those who exercise their senses to discern both good and evil have been weaned from milk and have matured to use the strong meat of Scripture. The milk is only used for baby Christians. These versions certainly add to and take away from God's Word. How sad! The RSV changes that ye may grow thereby to, that by it you may grow up to salvation. That's salvation by works. That doctrinal error fits perfectly with the system of Romanism. How corrupt!
Blessed Hope: We as Christians have a blessed hope. What is it? It is the "glorious appearing of Jesus Christ." Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (NAS, and the appearing of the glory our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus);...Titus 2:13 According to The New American Standard it is the "glory" that shall appear instead of Christ Jesus. What kind of "glory" are we to look for? There is a difference in the "glorious appearing" and the "appearing of the glory." Is that subtile or what? This aligns with those who believe in a spiritual Second Coming of Jesus instead of a literal Second Coming of Jesus.
Virgin Birth: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isa. 7:14 The RSV gives young woman instead of virgin. The Good News Bible (GNB) gives a young woman who is pregnant. Young women get pregnant every day. What kind of sign is that? Mary was a virgin, a pure vessel. She was a virgin that conceived a child. Now that's a sign! Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (RSV, since I have no husband?) Luke 1:34 The question is, do young women ever have babies without having a husband? Yes, of course they do! Again the deity of Jesus is attacked through the virgin birth! Can you see the corruption? Can you see the error of adhereing to the wrong version of God's Word? Personally, I trust the Authorized King James Bible, fully. I have searched it, compared it, and put it to the test. It is definitely an inspired work of art from God the Father. Even the "thee's" and the "thou's" of the old English have an air of poetic charm and dignity.
Many good men with sincere motives have struggled to make God's Word more readable, but have fallen into great error by such tampering. Never has this colossal mistake been so prevalent as it is today. It has not been an overnight scheme either, for even while the apostle Paul was writing, men were busy trying to corrupt God's Word (II Corinthians 2:17). Regretfully the attempts to corrupt the Bible did not stop there, for many attempts to corrupt God's Word have occurred throughout history. This has been a tactic of the Devil from the beginning. "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,...?" (Gen.3:1).
Severity: The severity of the subject is found in regards to those who tamper with God's Word. They will have their names blotted out of the Book of Life, be kept from the new city, and miss the glories that await (Revelation 22:18,19). We know that the warnings given in Scripture were given for a reason. At the very least, we must be aware that changing God's Word is a very serious matter.