Chapter 9: The Authorized Version
In this chapter we will be looking at some of the common
misrepresentations of the Authorized Version. Many of these
misrepresentations are unintentional. Most of the comments against the
Authorized Version are, in fact, simply repetitions of what the
commentator heard from a pulpit, read in a book, or learned in a
Most of the fervency against the Authorized Version is not so
much due to a conscious hatred against the Book, as much as it is a show
of one's education. This fact, which is a conscious malice, is then
coupled with the "flesh" or "natural man," which may be an unconscious
malice, to form a constant antagonism toward the true Word of God. This
"old nature" exists in every person, even Christians. It will not change
until the rapture. This nature manifests itself in an innate desire not to
submit to the authority of God.
Satan realizes this and uses it to his own advantage by giving
the flesh ammunition to fight a battle which it naturally wants to fight.
The sad result of this spirit of judgment is that the Word of God never
really gets a fair trial.
Inspiration vs. Preservation
Today it is widely taught and accepted that God wrote the
originals perfectly, but that there is no perfect translation. Yet, there
is no scripture that teaches any such thing! This teaching is based on
logic, man's logic. Christian educators of today say that it is absurd to
believe that God could use sinful men to translate His Word perfectly.
Such a supposition of a perfect translation is no more absurd than the
teaching that God used sinful men to write the Bible perfectly in the
originals! Every argument for innerrant, infallible
inspiration applies also for innerrant, infallible preservation.
It is the same God!
If a believer in perfect inspiration says that God overpowered
the writers' ability to make a mistake, the believer in perfect
preservation can also state that God overpowered the translators' ability
to make a mistake. It can also very happily be pointed out that a man who
claims that God preserved His Words can at least PRODUCE what he
claims to believe in!
Put Up or Shut Up
I personally believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word
in the King James or Authorized Version. I can at least produce a King
James Bible to show what I believe in. Any person who claims that God
inspired the original autographs perfectly, cannot produce those original
manuscripts to prove it! I do not believe that the King James Bible is a
new inspiration. "Inspiration" starts with a blank sheet of paper, a man
of God, and God. I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of
God that was in the original autographs, preserved to this day.
"Preservation" starts with God's manuscripts, a man of God, and God. The
end result of both is the same: the perfect Word and words of God. It only
Many of today's preachers and self-proclaimed scholars slam
their fists down on their pulpits in simulated "righteous indignation"
while holding a Bible over their heads and loudly proclaim, "This Book
doesn't 'CONTAIN' the word of God, it IS the Word of God!
Perfect! Infallible! Without admixture of error!" to the delight of the
audience. But ask them, while out of their pulpit, if
they believe that THE BOOK IN THEIR HAND is truly without error, and they
immediately go into a song and dance routine about "just a translation
OF the Bible" and say something about "Forever, O LORD, thy word is
settled in heaven." Try pressing the issue, and they will
question your authority to do so (Matthew 21:23), and if you persist you
will be labeled a "Ruckmanite."
All for simply believing that this "godly man" really believed
what he had said when he was performing behind his pulpit!
We have studied the history of the MSS, of the New Testament,
and the historical plans and attempts to overthrow God's preservation of
His Word. We have seen that the vast majority of MSS and of historical
evidence points to the Authorized Version as God's preserved Word. Still,
there is an air of antagonism against the Authorized Version. Strange as
it may seem, the only things which Roman Catholics, apostates,
Protestants, and fundamentalists can agree on is that the King James Bible
should be eliminated! This striking truth in itself should be enough to
shock born-again Christians into scrutinizing their position to make sure
of which side of the fence they are on. When we find ourselves aligned
with Satan's church against Scripture, we find ourselves in a very
dangerous position. This is especially true when we consider what the
result would be if these groups were successful in abolishing the King
James Version. The elimination of the Authorized Version finds us without
a Bible, at which time we find Rome rushing to the rescue with her 1582
Jesuit translation, and the anti-God Local Text of Alexandria. Knowing
that no fundamentalist would consciously use a Roman Catholic Bible, the
Roman Church has obliged us by changing the cover to Revised Version,
American Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, the Living Bible, the
Amplified Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the Common Bible, the New
International Version, the New Scofield Reference Bible, and many more.
The story is true; the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
Sowers of Discord
Rome realized that there is not one of these new Roman Catholic
translations which will ever replace God's Authorized Version. Her plan is
to get any one of these translations to replace the Authorized Version in
any group of Christians. Let the fundamentalists use one of the Revised
Standard Version's "twin sons," the New American Standard Version or the
New International Version. Convince the young people that they cannot
understand the "thees" and "thous" in God's Authorized Version and hand
them a "Good News for Modern Man" or a "Living Bible." Promote each new
translation of the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt, as "thoroughly
reliable" or "more accurate," until the Authorized Version is removed from
the hearts of Christians little by little.
How many young "preacher boys" have had their faith in God's
PERFECT Word trampled and destroyed while they sat in independent,
fundamental Bible colleges where they thought that they were safe?!
How many found themselves, upon graduation three or four years
later indebted to their "alma mater" for teaching them what the "originals
really said" and in so doing saved them from being drawn into that group
of "King James fanatics," that "lunatic fringe," that "cult"?
They found themselves leaving college with the confidence (?)
that the Book under their arm was NOT perfect, and thanking God for the
school that had shown them that!
The only person happier than they were was the Pope. After all,
who wants someone who speaks with authority? (Mark 1:22)
Many Shall Come
It must be remembered at this time that every new Bible is
introduced as being "better than the Authorized Version." It may also be
noted that every false prophet is introduced as "better" than Jesus
Christ. Mohammed had supposedly come to finish the work which Christ
began. Charles Manson claimed that he was Jesus Christ. Sun Nyung Moon
claims to have to finished the job which Jesus Christ failed to finish.
Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus Christ. The Beatles claimed to be more
popular than Jesus Christ.
Notice that Jim Jones did not claim to be Mohammed. Notice that
Moon did not claim to be the replacement for Buddha. All of the false
prophets attack Jesus Christ. Notice that the Good News for Modern Man
does not claim to be better than the American Standard Version, but it
does claim to be better than the Authorized Version. Notice also that the
New International Version does not claim to be better than the American
Standard Version; it claims to be better than the Authorized Version. A
false prophet can always be recognized, because he attacks the true
prophet. A false Bible can be recognized, because it attacks the true
The Super Sack Philosophy
LET ME ALLEGORIZE FOR A MOMENT. The claims of the new Bibles
are strikingly similar to the claims of the famous "Super Sack" grocery
bag which has swept the country. The bag producers wanted to cut
production costs. The "old reliable" double bag was just about
indestructible when it came to doing its job, but it was too costly to
produce. The manufacturers came up with the idea of producing an inferior
product but calling it "superior."
It has happened to us all. One day, on a trip with our wives to
the grocery store, we picked up our groceries and noticed the bag. It
wasn't a double bag! "They've made them cheaper," we thought. Then we
noticed an official looking statement on the side: "This new Super Sack is
made from a new high strength paper. There is no double bagging
"Well," we realized, "then it isn't an inferior product after
all. It's new and better. That's good to know."
We "bought the pitch." In our trusting, childlike manner, we
believed that the "Super Sack" was better than the "old reliable" double
bag, just because someone told us that it was.
"This new Super Sack ... no double bagging needed."
How many times have these words echoed through my head as I
heard a horrifying, tearing sound. I watched as the cans rolled across the
grocery store parking lot. I watched the flour break open in the back seat
of the car. After getting the survivors into the car, we headed for home.
"This new Super Sack ... no double bagging needed."
We hear that sound! We watch broken eggs as they pour their
contents out into the driveway. The cereal has broken open, and now the
neighbors dog picks up our last package of hamburger. We make a wild dash
for the house, leaving a trail of canned goods, broken jelly jars, and
spilled milk in our wake. We arrive at the back door holding nothing more
than a large piece of brown paper with words on the side reading: "This
Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no double
At times like that, standing there, surveying the damage, I can
hardly frame the proper words with which to thank the manufacturers for
blessing me with this wonderful, new, improved "Super Sack."
This "Super Sack" philosophy has existed in the field of Bible
translations for years.
Every new translation published appears first with a giant
"media campaign" directed at the Christian community. This campaign is
designed to tell the Christians that they "need" this new translation,
because the Christians do not know it. This is not an overstatement but is
proven true by the Preface to the New American Standard Version of 1963.
The last paragraph in the Preface begins with this statement:
"It is enthusiastically anticipated that the general public
will be grateful to learn of the availability, value and need of
the New American Standard Version." (Emphasis mine.)
The Lockman Foundation has admitted translating a Bible that
the general public doesn't know that it needs! It is intended for the
general public to realize that they "need" this Bible when they read the
advertisement. This is just like a laundry detergent.
The Sales Pitch
Let us look into the way in which this "Bible advertising"
We read a few Christian periodicals and observe that a new
translation has been published. It is, of course, compared to the
Authorized Version. The "mistakes" of the Authorized Version are revealed
to show us the "need" for a new translation. Next, this new translation is
unveiled with exclamation of "thoroughly reliable," "true to the Original
Greek," and "starting a new tradition." We read but are skeptical.
We proceed to the "Bible" book store to look over this new
translation. After having the "sales pitch" from the man behind the
counter, we leave carrying a grocery bag (Super Sack) full of "new,"
"modern," "easy to read" translations in which we are assured that "all of
the fundamentals can be found." On the way home, we decide to try out
these "more accurate," "Christ exalting" versions.
The Let Down
We meet a Jehovah's Witness. In the following discussion we try
to convince him that Jesus Christ was not a created God. He shows us John
1:18 in his "New World Translation." It reads that Christ was the "only
begotten God." We snicker. "That's just your version," we say, reaching
for a New International Version. To our amazement it also reads "only
Being fully embarrassed, we change the subject to the trinity.
"I John 5:7!" we exclaim. Now we've got him! We turn to I John 5:7 in the
"Good News for Modern Man." "There are three witnesses," it says.
Our Jehovahs Witness asks, "So, what does that teach?" We
stammer, "Wait a minute," as we reach for a New American Standard Version.
"And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth."
"So how is the trinity taught from that verse?" he
With our face glowing red and phrases like "thoroughly
reliable" and "faithful to the originals" spinning through our head, we
desperately grab a New King James Version.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." I John 5:7.
"There it is! There it is!" We exclaim, "See there, the
"Read the footnote on it," he states calmly. "Out loud!"
"The words from 'in heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8)
are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. from the 15th Century
and later also contain them."
"You see," says our adversary, "it doesn't belong there."
Thankfully he hasn't got any more time to talk, and he leaves.
We tear our "Super Sack" slightly as we pick it back up and
head for home, not quite understanding what has taken place. In our mind
we hear the Bible store salesman saying, "But I can find the fundamentals
in these new versions."
In an attempt to boost our own morale, we try to lead a man to
Christ. We tell him the simplicity of conversion. We relate to him how
easy it was for the Ethiopian eunuch. We open a Revised Standard Version
to show it to him. We read Acts 8:36 and then the next verse, verse 38.
"Wait just a second; I seem to have skipped over a verse," we say
We read verse 36, then carefully run our finger across the line
to the next verse, verse 38! There is no verse 37! This eunuch never
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ!
"Excuse me," we apologize. "I seem to have picked up the wrong
Bible." We lay down the Revised Standard Version and pick up the New
American Standard Version. We read again. This time we arrive at verse 37.
It says, "See footnote."
"No thank you!" we say to ourselves.
Having lost his train of thought, our lost friend walks off
shaking his head and wondering why Christians don't know their Bibles
Of all things, we run into an infidel before we can reach the
safety of our home.
"Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh," he states.
"Oh yes He was!" we retort confidently, happy to have the
opportunity to redeem ourselves for the bad showing earlier. "Look at I
We pick the Living Bible.
"But the answer lies in Christ, who came to earth as a man...."
"There's no 'God' in that verse," he declares.
The statement of the salesmen comes to mind again. "But I can
find the fundamentals in these."
"Where?" we ask ourselves returning to the Revised Standard
"He was manifested in the flesh...."
"Where is God?" demands our infidel. We wonder the same thing!
"He appeared in human form," says the Good News for Modern Man.
"He who was revealed in the flesh," states the New American
"Where is God?" demands our infidel with finality.
"I don't know. I really don't know," we reply with our heads
down in sorrow.
We drag our wounded spirits home. Words cannot describe our
"gratitude" to the Lockman Foundation and all the rest of those "godly,
conservative scholars" who gave us these "accurate, reliable, true to the
original" translations. We hear a horrifying, tearing sound as we reach
the back door.
The next morning the garbage man finds a garbage bag full of
brand new, unused "Bibles" covered by a large, torn piece of brown paper
with the words on the side saying: "This new Super Sack is made from a new
high strength paper. There is no double bagging needed."
No thank you, we will stick with our "old, reliable" King
The story has been an allegory, but the philosophy it describes
is very true.
We shall now look at some of the complaints against the
Authorized Version. Remember, being able to "find the fundamentals" in a
version is not enough. This was the claim of the corrupt Revised Version!
As Wilkenson points out, "There are many who claim that the changes in the
Revised Version did not affect any doctrine."
The problem with this statement is that even if the major
doctrines can be found in these new Roman Catholic Bibles, these doctrines
always appear in a watered down form.
Yes, the blood of atonement can be taught in spite of the
removal of the word "blood" from Colossians 1:14. The doctrine of the
blood atonement is found in other passages. The danger is this. Where the
Authorized Version teaches a given doctrine in maybe thirty different
places, the New American Standard Version may teach the same doctrine in
only twenty. The New International Version may only teach this doctrine in
fifteen passages. The next "new and improved" version may teach it only
three or four, until it is reduced to only one passage. How then can we
teach a new convert this "major" doctrine from only one passage?
All of the doctrines, which today's fundamentalists claim to be
able to "find" in these new translations, have been taught to these same
fundamentalists through the use of a King James Bible. How will the next
generation of Christians learn pure doctrine from a watered down Bible?
How can we even call something a "major" doctrine which is taught only in
one or two verses?
Remember, Satan is not worried at all about what people think
of Jesus if he can just keep us from being able to prove that He was
virgin born, shed His blood for our sins, rose from the dead, or is coming
back physically. Without scripture to prove the above, Jesus was just a
The new Bibles have no blood in them, no Lord, no second
coming, nor other vital doctrines. In other words, the new Bibles have all
of the convictions of B.F. Westcott.
"The Scholar Scam"
Many Christian educators, (especially scholars) claim that the
scholarship of today is greater than that of the days of King James. How
can they say such a thing? How can men who say that the Bible teaches that
everything will get worse and worse with time claim that education is the
exception? We see the signs of apostasy all around us. They are evident in
world economic systems. They are evident in educational systems. They are
evident in the apostasy of religious groups which were formerly loyal to
the Bible. They are evident in the worldly learnings of many once
separated Christian colleges. Are we to believe that "scholarship" has
avoided the "downhill progress?" That is far from being realistic.
Scholar for scholar, the men on the King James translating
committee were far greater men of God than Westcott, Hort, or any other
new translator. They were not only educated in a powerful, anti-Roman
atmosphere, but they looked at the MSS which they handled as the Holy Word
of God. They state such in the Dedicatory to King James:
- "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish
persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are
poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known
unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and
darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by
self-conceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto
nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their
As can be seen, they considered themselves "unworthy
instruments," for these were humble men.
Compare the words of the King James translators to the pride of
the anonymous Lockman Foundation:
- "The producers of this translation were imbued with the
conviction that interest in the American Standard Version should be
renewed and increased. Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this
undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that the
American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene.
As a generation "which knew not Joseph" was born, even so a generation
unacquainted with this great and important work has come into being.
Recognizing a responsibility to posterity, the Lockman Foundation felt
an urgency to rescue this noble achievement from an inevitable demise,
to reserve it as a heritage for coming generations, and to do so in such
a form as the demands of passing time dictate. It is enthusiastically
anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the
availability, value and need of the New American Standard Bible. It is
released with the strong confidence that those who seek a knowledge of
the scriptures will find herein a source of genuine satisfaction for a
clear and accurate rendering of divinely-revealed truth."196
The mysterious Lockman Foundation seems not only to believe
that they have done us a great service, but seems also to feel that we
"ignorant" members of the general public should be grateful to them for
their "clear and accurate" translation. Of course we are grateful. We are
just as grateful to the Lockman Foundation as we are to the manufacturers
of the "Super Sack." Their products seem to be equal in quality.
As stated earlier, the translation of the King James Bible was
achieved at a "parenthesis of purity" in English history. It was produced
during a brief period following the overthrow of Roman authority and prior
to the apostasy of the Church of England. It was translated in the era
when the still young English language was at its height of purity. Dr.
McClure succeeds in aptly describing this esteemed company of translators:
- "As to the capability of those men, we say again, that, by
the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate
time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then
ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek and of the
Oriental tongues and/or rabbinical lore had then been carried to a
greater extent in England than ever before or since."
- "This particular field of learning has never been so highly
cultivated among English divines as it was at that day. To evidence this
fact, so far as necessary limits will admit, it will be requisite to
sketch the characters and scholarship of those men, who have made all
coming ages their debtors. When this pleasing task is done, it is
confidently expected that the reader of these pages will yield to the
conviction, that all of the colleges of Great Britian and America, even
in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number
of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great
undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled with
those mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any one
Christian denomination, or out of all, a body of translators on whom the
whole Christian community would bestow such a confidence as is reposed
upon that illustrious company, or who would prove themselves as
deserving of such confidence. Very many self-styled "improved versions"
of the Bible, or of parts of it, have been paraded before the world, but
the religious public has doomed them all, without exception, to utter
As Dr. McClure has already stated, to fully apprciate the depth
of true scholarship present at the translation of the King James Bible, it
is necessary to investigate the character of the individuals on the
translating committee. His excellent book, Translator Revived,
will be the primary source of the following brief biographical comments.
Dr. Lancelot Andrews, a member of the Westmenster Company is
known for his linguistic ability.
- "Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his
parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he
learned some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after a
few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe."198
- "He was not a man of 'head knowledge' only. He was a man of
great practical preaching ability and an ardent opponent of Rome. His
conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons. Henry, Earl of
Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means
of converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations."199
- "As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day.
He was called the 'star of preachers.'" 200
Dr. Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer.
- "Many hours he spent each day in private and family
devotions; and there were some who used to desire that 'they might end
their days in Bishop Andrews' chapel.' He was one in whom was proved the
truth of Luther's saying, that 'to have prayed well, is to have studied
Although he was a mighty preacher and prayer warrior, he was
not "above" the people around him.
- "This worthy diocesan was much 'given to hospitality,' and
especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it
used to be said, 'My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all years
Lastly we review his ability as a translator of the Word of
- "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 Intepreter-General! In his
funeral sermon by Dr. Buckzidge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that
Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages."203
Dr. John Overall was another of the King James translators. He,
too, was known for his opposition to Roman rule. He was present at the
hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of 'the Gun-powder Plot.'
In spite of his opposition to Rome, he had an interest in
individual souls and urged Garnet to make a true and lively faith to
Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his
knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers. Without a man with
such knowledge it might have been impossible to verify the authenticity of
passages such as I John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among
church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of
- This disputed verse is known among textual circles as the "Johannine
Comma." Dr. Edward Hills records some of the evidence in its favor:
- "The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur
in the writings of two fourth century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, who
in 385 was beheaded by the emperor Maximus in the charge of sorcery and
heresy, and Idacious Clarus, Priscillian's principal adversary and
accuser. In the Fifth Century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several
orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against
the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Mrica from 439 to 534 and
were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. About the same time it
was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570) in Italy. The Comma is also found in
r, an old Latin manuscript of the fifth or sixth century, and in the
Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text. It was not
included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around
the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the old
Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate
manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official
Bible of the Roman Catholic Church."205
It was also cited by Cyprian in 225 A.D. 206
This is one hundred and seventy-five years before Eusebius
penned the Vatican manuscript.
We can see then that Dr. Overall's contribution to the
translation would be of the utmost importance. No "modern" translation has
so candidly investigated the evidence of the church fathers.
Dr. Hadrian Saravia, another learned translator, was as
evangelical as he was scholarly. McClure reports:
- "He was sent by Queen Elizabeth's council as a sort of
missionary to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of
the first Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a
letter, 'which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the
preaching of God's Word was planted there.' He labored there in a
two-fold capacity, doing the work of an evangelist, and conducting a
newly established school, called Elizabeth College."207
He too, as any truly dedicated soldier for Christ, was a
constant foe of Rome. In 1611 he published a treatise on Papal primacy
against the Jesuit Gretser.
He is said to have been "educated in all kinds of literature in
his younger days, especially several languages."208
Dr. John Laifield was another man of unique talents which lent
to his extraordinary value as a translator. Of him it is said: "That being
skilled in architecture, his judgement was much relied on for the fabric
of the tabernacle and temple."209
Dr. Robert Tighe was known as "an excellent textuary and
Dr. William Bedwell was "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."
- "He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St.
John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of
Raphelengius, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts
to the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a
font of types of printing them. His fame for Arabic learning was so
great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist, resided in
England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his
studies. To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it,
belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and
revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He
was also tutor to another Orientalist of reknown, Dr. Pococke."211
- "Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an
advantage in our times over the translators of King James' day, by
reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be paid at present
to what are called the 'cognate' and 'Shemitic' languages, and
especially the Arabic by which much light is thought to be reflected
upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell
and others, among his fellow-laborers, were thoroughly conversant in
this part of the broad field of sacred criticism."212
In addition to his work on the Authorized Version, Dr. Bedwell
left several other contributions to his age:
- "Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is
among Archbishop Laid's manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodelian
Library at Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the
Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran. To this was annexed his
- "Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He
invented a ruler for geometrical purposes, like that we call Gunther's
Scale, which went by the 'Bedwell's Ruler'.
- "After Bedwell's death, the voluminous manuscripts of his
lexicon were loaned to the University of Cambridge to aid the
compilation of Dr. Castell's colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton."213
Dr. Edward Lively was known as "one of the best linguists in
the world ... Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in
Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was raised a Roman Catholic and
encouraged by his family to become a lawyer. He traveled to London where
he was converted to Christ and joined the Puritan Congregation there.
215 It is said that:
- "He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew
tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them. Moreover he had diligently
investigated the numerous writings of the Rabbis, so far as they seemed
to promise any aid to the understanding of the Scriptures."216
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 two full hours by the
glass, he paused and said, 'I will no longer trespass on your patience.'
And now comes the marvel; for the whole congreagtion cried out with one
consent for God's sake, go on! He accordingly proceeded much longer, to
their great satisfaction and delight."217
Dr. McClure leaves us to ponder the direction scholarship has
taken in these modern times. "For even now people like to hear such
preaching as is preaching. But where shall we find men for the work like
those who gave us our version of the Bible?"
Dr. Francis Dillingham was so studied in the original languages
that he participated in public debate in Greek.218
Dr. Dillingham was another soldier for Christ who took
aggressive action against the teaching of Rome. "He collected out of
Cardinal Bellarmine's writings, all the concessions made by the acute
author in favor of Protestantism. He published a Manual of Christian
Faith, taken from the Fathers, and a variety of treatises on different
points belonging to the Romish controversy."219
Dr. Thomas Harrison, it is recorded, was chosen to assist the
King James translation due to his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In fact
his ability served him well in his duties as 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 public professors of these languages."220
John Harding was an ardent scholar of whom it is said
concerning his ability: "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. His occupancy of that chair, at a time when
the study of sacred literature was pursued by thousands with a zeal
amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding was the
man for the post he occupied."221
Dr. John Reynolds had been raised in the Roman Catholic Church.
As Chaderton, he too trusted Christ and became a Puritan. The attributes
leading to his position on the translation committee are recorded as
- "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 tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and
all the ancient records of the Church."222
His aggressive nature toward the false teachings of his former
church are exemplified in the following record:
- "About the year 1578, John Hart, a popish zealot, challenged
all the learned men in the nation to a public debate. At the
solicitation of one of Queen Elizabeth's privy counsellors, Mr. Reynolds
encountered him. After several combats, the Romish champion owned
himself driven from the field."
- "At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the
Goliath of the Philistines at Rome, was professor of theology in the
English Seminary at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish
doctrine, it was taken down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr.
Reynolds; who from time to time, publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus
Bellarmine's books were answered, even before they were printed."223
His skills in Hebrew and Greek made his appointment to the
company of translators a wise one. While on his death bed, it is recorded:
- "The papists started a report, that their famous opposer had
recanted his Protestant sentiments. He was much grieved at hearing of
the rumor; but too feeble to speak, set his name to the following
declaration: 'These are to testify to all the world, that I die in the
possession of that faith which I have taught all my life, both in my
preachings and in my writings, with an assured hope of my salvation,
only by the merits of Christ my Savior."'224
Dr. Richard Kilby was a man worthy of the position of
translator. One incident in his life, which occurred shortly after the
Authorized Version had been published, suffices not only to reveal his
depth, but also the dangers of the self-esteemed "scholars" changing the
translation of even one word in God's Book.
- "I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr.
Kilby was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a
critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this
University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James
appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible, and that this
Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father
and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr.
Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the
Doctor's friend, and going together to that parish church where they
were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste
a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against
the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as
Dr. Kilby) and showed three reasons why a particular word should have
been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher
was invited to the Doctor's friend's house, where after some other
confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful
doctrine, and not filled his auditor's ears with needless exceptions
against the translation; and for that word for which he offered to that
poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as
he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen more
considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed."225
Dr. Miles Smith was the man responsible for the preface to the
King James Bible. This preface is no longer printed in the present copies
of the Book. He had a knowledge of the Greek and Latin fathers, as well as
being expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. "Hebrew he had at his
finger's end." 226 And so was the Ethiopic tongue.
Dr. Henry Saville was known for his Greek and mathematical
learning. He was so well known for his education, skilled with languages
and knowledge of the Word, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to
Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. 227
Dr. McClure tells us, "He is chiefly known, however, by being
the first to edit the complete works of John Chrysostom, the most famous
of the Greek Fathers." 228
We could go on and on concerning the scholarship of the King
James translators, but we have not the space here. Dr. McClure's book,
Translators Revived, is recommended for an in-depth study of the
lives of these men.
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 early 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 men of such great spiritual stature call
themselves "poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and
We shall now briefly examine a few of the translators of the
Revised Standard Version. The reasons that we shall examine these revisors
are as follows:
First, it is due to the secrecy surrounding translations such
as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version.
The Lockman Foundation has elected to remain anonymous. This is, of
course, the safest method, as it prevents investigative eyes from
discovering truths such as those we shall see concerning the Revised
Standard Version translators.
The translating committee of the New International Version is
also nameless. We are assured of their "scholarship" although words
without proof ring of a snake oil salesman in the days of the Old West. Of
course, it must be admitted, they are both in the "selling business."
Secondly, we have chosen to examine the Revised Standard
Version translators because they are of the exact same conviction
concerning biblical MSS as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, the Lockman
Foundation, the New Scofield Board of Editors, and the majority of
unsuspecting college professors and preachers across America today.
Namely, they believed the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS are more reliable than
the God-preserved Universal Text.
Thirdly, due to this mistaken preference for Roman Catholic
MSS, EVERY Bible translation since 1881 is linked directly to the Revised
Version, and had nothing to do with the Authorized Version. These new
translations follow the same MSS family as the Revised version. This
family is the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt and has no relationship
whatsoever to the Authorized Version. It is the text which Satan has
altered and promotes as a replacement for God's Universal Text.
All modern translations, such as the New American Standard
Version, are linked to the Revised Standard Version of 1952, which is a
revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, which was originally
marketed as the American Revised Version - an American creation
growing from the English Revised Version of 1881.
Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee.
Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus
Christ as a social reformer who gave His life as a martyr for a "cause."
Goodspeed said, "Jesus' youth was probably one of the dawning and
increasing dissatisfaction with the prevalent form of the Jewish religion
in Nazareth and in his own home. HE DID NOT IN THOSE EARLY YEARS SEE WHAT
HE COULD DO ABOUT IT, but he must have felt a growing sense that there was
something deeply wrong about it, which should be corrected."229
Goodspeed continues, "He faced the question of his next step in
his work. He had no mind to die obscured in some corner of Galilee, to no
purpose. A bolder plan was now taking shape in his mind. He would present
himself to Jerusalem ... publicly offer them their Messianic destiny, AND
TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. And he would do this in ways that would make his
death something that would never be forgotten, but would carry the message
to the end of time. Yet how could this be done?" 230
Goodspeed also, like Westcott, seemed to think it necessary to
explain away Christ's miracles. Here we see what he thought took place at
the feeding of the five thousand:
- "He took the five loaves and two fishes and looked up to
heaven and blessed the loaves, and broke them in pieces, and gave them
to the disciples to pass to the people. He also divided the two fishes
among them all. And they all ate, and had enough. JESUS' SIMPLE EXAMPLE
OF SHARING ALL he and his disiciples had with their guests must have
MOVED THOSE GALILEANS as it moves us still. THEY COULD NOT DO LESS THAN
HE HAD DONE. THEY FOLLOWED HIS EXAMPLE. He simply showed the way, and
they gladly took it." 231
Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an "Oriental story
teller at his best." 232
Julius Brewer, another revisor, stated, "The dates and figures
found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether
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." 234
He also doubted the deity of Christ. "A psychology of God, if
that is what Jesus was, is not available." 235
Cadbury, like Westcott, was a socialist, and he attempted to
fit Jesus Christ into the same mold. "His (Jesus') gospel was in brief, a
social gospel." 236
Walter Bowie was another revisor who believed that the Old
Testament was legend instead of fact. He says in reference to Abraham,
"The story of Abraham comes down from the ancient times; and how much of
it is fact and how much of it is legend, no one can positively tell."
In speaking of Jacob wrestling with the Angel, he says, "The
man of whom these words were written (Genesis 32:31) belongs to a time so
long ago that it is uncertain whether it records history or legend."
Bowie did not believe in the miracle of the burning bush. "One
day he (Moses) had a vision. In the shimmering heat of the desert, beneath
the blaze of that Eastern sun, he saw a bush that seemed to be on fire,
and the bush was not consumed." 239
Clarence Craig was one of the revisors who denied the bodily
resurrection of Christ. "It is to be remembered that there were no
eyewitnesses 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 VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE
CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL
RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 240
Craig also held Westcott's view that Christ's second coming was
a spiritual coming, not physical. "In other words, the coming of Christ is
to THE HEARTS of those who love him. IT IS NOT HOPE FOR SOME FUTURE TIME,
but a present reality of faith." 241
Strangely enough, Craig is found to agree with the position of
the present day "godly Christian scholars" who believe that God is not
able to preserve His Word. "If God once wrote His revelation in an
inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this
could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility...The
true Christian position is that the Bible CONTAINS the record of
Frederick Grant was in agreement with Westcott and Hort's
belief in prayer for the dead. "It would seem that modern
thought...demands that if prayer be real or effective at all, it shall not
cease when those who have gone before advance, as by a bend in the road
beyond our sight...must we cease to pray for them? The answer is CEASE NOT
TO PRAY, for they are living still, in this world of the other, and still
have need of prayers." 243
Willard Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the
following statement. "Some of these sayings, it is true, come from the
Fourth Gospel (John), AND WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL
ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS." 244
It is a known fact that all liberals attack John's gospel, due
to the fact that it makes the strongest statements of the four gospels
concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.
William Irwin believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the
position of God in the Bible. "The prophets were forced by the disasters
that befell to do some hard, painful thinking. THEY WERE FORCED BY THE
HISTORY OF THEIR OWN TIMES TO REVISE THEIR MESSAGES AGAIN AND AGAIN IN
ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE AGE. THE ASSYRIANS AND THE
BABYLONIANS FORCED THEM TO REVISE THEIR CONCEPTION OF YAHWEH FROM TIME TO
TIME UNTIL THEY FINALLY MADE HIM GOD OF THE UNIVERSE." 246
Fleming James was yet another Bible revisor who was as much an
infidel as any secular college professor in America today. He said
concerning Moses' authorship of the first five books of the Bible, "The
idea has been shown by scholars to be untenable on many grounds. The view
that now prevails is that through these five books, there were FOUR
DIFFERENT STRANDS OF NARRATIVE WHICH HAVE BEEN PIECED TOGETHER to make the
present story...Two are older and more reliable as history, two proceed
from later time and are so coloured by later ideas that they can hardly be
called history at all." 246
This almost coincides with Fenton John Anthony Horts' belief
concerning the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
- "I quite agree that it is most essential to study each
Synoptist by himself as a single whole. Only I should add that such a
study soon leads one to the fact of their having all largely used at
least one common source, and that fact becomes an additional element in
their criticism." 247
We also find that he doubted the miracle of the Red Sea
- "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 both 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." 248
Concerning Elijah's action in 2 Kings 1:10, he said, "The
narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon soldiers sent to arrest
him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY." 249
Millar Burrows finalizes the true convictions of the revisors
in his statement, "We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part
as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do." 250
Earlier we studied the beliefs of Drs. Westcott and Hort. We
can see how all of these men fit together so well and were able to
completely reject God's text in favor of Rome's. Many may make a defense
for new translations in claiming that these men are "liberal" scholars,
while today's modern translations such as the New American Standard
Version and the New International Version are translated by "conservative"
scholars. This claim is an empty one, though, because concerning which MSS
are to be judged as "best, most reliable, etc...," "conservative" scholars
of the day agree wholeheartedly with the conviction of the "liberal"
revisors of the 1881 and 1952 revision committees. They BOTH believe that
the Roman Catholic text found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc., is better
than the Universal Text of the Authorized Version.
Conservative "scholars" also agree with the liberal "scholars"
in their conviction that God could not preserve His words through
We see then that the men of the King James Bible were men of
great education, education which was tempered by true spirituality and
biblical convictions. They were used by God as instruments in His plan for
the preservation of His words. They were not "inspired" to write a new
revelation. They were empowered by the Holy Spirit to preserve that which
had already been written. This is what God had promised in Psalms 12:7.
The King James Apocrypha
Another one of the assaults on the Authorized Version is that
the early editions contained the Apocrypha between the Old and New
Testaments. In defense, we shall list the seven reasons why the Apocrypha
was NOT considered inspired by the Authorized Version translators. 'The
reasons assigned for not admitting the Apocryphal books into the Canon, or
list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following:
- Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by
the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
- Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
- These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the
Jewish church and, therefore, never sanctioned by our Lord.
- They were not allowed among the sacred books, during the first four
centuries of the Christian church.
- They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict
not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two
books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different
deaths in as many places.
- It includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers
for the dead and sinless perfection.
- It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination,
and magical incarnation.
For these and other reasons the Apocryphal books, which are all
in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as
"ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions, and
history of the East." 25l
We see then that the King James translators did not accept the
books of the Apocrypha as inspired by God.
The Greek Game in Action
Still another complaint against God's Authorized Version is the
manner in which certain Greek words have been translated. Today's
"God-honoring" scholars "love the Lord and His Bible" but are quick to
point out and attack any seeming inconsistency in translation in the
Authorized Version. Even the most infinitesimal Greek article is attacked
under the guise of seeking to give a more "grammatically correct"
translation. This is the claim consistently made by the translating
groups, such as the anonymous Lockman Foundation.
This is all very noble sounding. It puts into one's mind a
picture of these "hard working scholars" slaving away to remove all of the
"mistakes" from the Authorized Version so that we can finally have the
pure "Word of God." This is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth
is that the new "Bibles" are translated by men who first, desire to
eliminate the detested Authorized Version and second, though never
admittedly, to make money in the "Bible business." Sad as that is to
think, it is true.
The problem with their hypercritical examination of the
Authorized Versions is that the same scrutiny is never
applied to their own work.
The Greek Game in Reverse
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who is known for being very Burgonian in
his comments, is nonetheless an outstanding authority in manuscript
readings. In several of his works, he has done no more than to examine the
new translations under the same unyielding eye with which the modern
translators examine the Authorized Version.
Before examining any of his findings and the evidence of the
critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd edition, it must first be remembered
that the present day translations and translators act under the premise
that the Nestle's Greek New Testament is the closest to the original text.
Nestle's text is basically Westcott and Hort's text, which is in turn
primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as Dr. Wilkenson has recorded.
- "It was of necessity that Westcott and Hort should take this
position. Their own Greek New Testament upon which they had been working
for twenty years was founded on Codex B and Codex (Aleph), as the
following quotations show:
- "If Westcott and Hort have failed, it is an overestimate of
the Vatican Codex, to which (like Lachman and Tregelles) they assign the
supremacy, while Tischendorf may have given too much weight to the
Sinaitic Codex." 252
All modern translators give B and Aleph unbalanced superiority,
assuming them to be more accurate because they assume that they are older.
They unfortunately overlooked the fact that the Universal Text
has MSS just as old, plus the backing of the church fathers. They also
seem not to realize that Egypt is NOT the location for the pure text - old
manuscripts maybe, but not pure readings.
Modern translators build their arguments for changing the
Authorized Version readings around two very loose rules:
- The oldest reading is best.
- The majority reading is best.
This sounds very good except for one small problem. What
happens when the oldest reading conflicts with the majority?
The answer is: Do what you want as long as you do not agree with
the Authorized Version. This is not an over statement, but it describes
the animosity which modern scholarship has for the text of the Authorized
Following will be examples of translations in which modern
translators break all their own rules of translating in order to eliminate
the readings of the Universal Text of the King James Bible.
The readings to be examined are those which have been pointed
out by Dr. Ruckman. We shall compare his references to the footnotes in
the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd Edition, unless he states such
evidence already. The English translation to be examined will be the New
American Standard Version, since it is the one which is assumed by most
fundamentalists to be sound.
First, the verse to be discessed will be quoted from the
Authorized Version, then it will be quoted from the New American Standard
Version. The word, words, or passage in question will be italicized.
- AV: "As it is written in the prophets,
Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way
- NASV: "As it is written in Isaiah the
prophet, Behold, I will send my messenger before your face, who
will prepare your way."
Here the New American Standard Version sticks with the premise
of using the "oldest" reading. The phrase, "Isaiah the prophet" appears in
the Hesychian (Local Text) family represented primarily by B, C, and
The problem arises when you read the remainder of
verse two and then verse three, the Old Testament quote in verse two is
NOT from Isaiah! It is quoted from Malachi 3:1. Verse three
is from Isaiah. (Isaiah 40:3) Malachi plus Isaiah does not equal
"Isaiah the prophet;" it equals "the prophets."
The reading "the prophets" is found in W along with the Textus
Receptus (Universal Text) which is represented by E, F, G, and H in the
gospels. It is also found in the majority of witnesses. Also it
was cited in 202 A.D., 150 years before Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.
Immediately we run into the problem of the "oldest" versus the
"majority." It happens though that neither of these two groups is
to be judged just because of what they represent. The deciding
factor is, which group reads with the Universal Text? That group is the
In sticking with the Local Text, the Lockman Foundation has
managed to print a Bible with a MISTAKE in it! It is obvious that
the reading "Isaiah the prophet" is wrong, because Isaiah never said what
is quoted in verse two.
Why would anyone try to hide the quote by Malachi? Dr.
Ruckman explains, "You see, the quotation from Malachi was reference to
Jehovah God the Father! If anyone were to find this reference, they would
see that "thy" and "thee" of Mark 1:1,2 is the "me" of Malachi 3:1!"
Thus the deity of Christ is hidden in the New American Standard
Version even though it claims to "confirm" the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately for the egos of the nameless Lockman Foundation, the
Lordship of Jesus Christ was "confirmed" in the wilderness in Matthew
chapter four, and God did not have to wait over 1900 years for them to
- AV: "And it came to
pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up
- NASV: "And it came about that while He was
blessing them, He parted from them."
Here we see a portion of Scripture where both the "oldest" and
"majority" texts read in favor of the Authorized Version. The
inconsistent Lockman Foundation has omitted the phrase "and carried up
into heaven" (kai ephereto eis ton houranan) which is in P75, a
papyrus MS of the second century, as well as the entire Receptus
family, plus A, B, C, E, most other witnesses, and every Latin copy.
On what "weighty" evidence does the Lockman Foundation remove
the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ? On the weight of ONE copy
of Sinaiticus and ONE copy of D.
As stated before the only rule which is consistently
kept by supposed "godly Christian scholars" is the practice of attacking
the Authorized Version reading because it upholds the deity of Christ.
It might be advisable for us to look at Acts 1:1,2.
- "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that
Jesus began both to do and teach.
- "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he
through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he
You will notice that Luke claims that his "former treatise"
(the gospel of Luke) ended with a record of Jesus being "taken up." But in
the New American Standard Version's translation of Luke's gospel, Jesus
Christ does NOT ascend, but He is left standing flat-footed on
the Mount of Olives. Thus, we see that if the gospelist, Luke, could
examine both a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version, he
would quickly expose the New American Standard Version as a fraudulent
adulteration of his 'former treatise."
In other words, "If the King James Bible is good enough for the
disciple Luke, then it's good enough for me!"
- AV: "And they worshipped him, and
returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
- NASV: "And they returned to Jerusalem with
In the case of "And they worshipped him" (proskunesantes auton),
the New American Standard Version translators actually lose a
witness, for in Luke 24:52 even Aleph joins the innumerable mass of
witnesses in favor of the King James translators' scholarship. This leaves
D to stand alone against several thousands of MSS which uphold
the deity of Christ.
With evidence like this, it seems somewhat hypecritical to hear
"good, godly men" deride Erasmus for using only five MSS, which
represented the oldest and the majority, to collate his text, a text which
upholds our Savior. While here we see the Lockman Foundation's
corrupters use a minority of the minority to attack two
major doctrines of the Bible, the bodily ascension and the deity of
The argument may be forwarded that "I can still find
these doctrines in the New American Standard Version." Yes, but not
in as many places as in the Authorized Version. There is NO Bible
which upholds Christ's deity as much as the Authorized King James Version.
2 Timothy 2:15
- AV: "Study to shew thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth."
- NASV: "Be diligent to present yourself
approved to God as a workman who need not to be ashamed, handling
accurately the word of truth."
The critics of the Authorized Version often complain that the
scholars of the translation of 1611 have translated a Greek word with an
English word which supposedly does not correspond with the correct
meaning. This makes the modern translators seem very sincere in that they
present themselves as if they would never do such a thing. Here
in 2 Timothy 2:15 we find them guilty of that very thing for which they
assail the King James translators.
The Greek word the King James translators translate "rightly
dividing" (orthotomeo) means just that. The Analytical Greek Lexicon
(Zondervan 1970) has it as "to cut straight." There is no
Greek evidence for the two words "handling accurately." The Greek word for
'handle'(pselapho) is found in I John 1:1. The Greek word for "accurate" (doloo)
does not appear in the Bible. These two words together in no
way resemble the Greek word used in II Timothy 2:15 and correctly
translated "rightly dividing." As Dr. Ruckman points out, "The Greek word
for 'rightly dividing' is found in all four families of manuscripts, all
cursives and uncials, of any century." 254 It might be good to
note here that Nestle's Greek Text does not even give an
The question which naturally arises in our mind is, "Why would
anyone want 2 Timothy 2:15 to read "handling accurately?" The answer is
found in the preface to the New American Standard Version in which it (the
NASV)is called a translation of "linguistic accuracy." 255
In other words the Lockman Foundation says, "Be diligent to
present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be
ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." The Lockman Foundation
then says that IT has handled God's Word accurately! To pat one's self on
the back so often and so obviously must make for tired arms.
Let us look at a word change which is designed to keep the
Roman Catholic Church "in business."
- AV: "Confess your faults one to
another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
- NASV: "Therefore, confess your sins
to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The
effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
Confession of sins has been a teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church for centuries.
The Greek word for "faults" (paraptomata) is found in MSS E, F,
G, H, S, V, Y, and Omega, plus the rest of the Receptus family and the
greater number of all remaining witnesses. Nestle's text inserts
"sins" (tax amarties) with NO manuscript authority, and the misguided men
of the Lockman Foundation accept it with no evidence. Perhaps
there are more Jesuits lurking in the shadows than we think! Anyone
accepting an alternate reading with no evidence CANNOT be
credited with acting ethically or scholarly.
One last passage shall suffice:
- AV: "Jesus heard that they had cast him
out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on
the Son of God?"
- NASV: "Jesus heard that they had put him
out; and finding him, He said, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?'"
Here once again the "conservative scholars" of the New American
Standard Version and other "Bibles" have attempted to water down the deity
The word for "God" (Theou) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y,
Omega, Theta, the majority of the remaining miniscules, most of the
remaining witnesses, plus the entire Latin tradition.
The Greek word "man" (anthropouo) is upheld by one Twentieth
Century Greek scholar.
It is strange indeed that the Lockman Foundation is quick to
strip Jesus Christ's Godship away from Him. Here, the "conservative"
scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation are in complete agreement with
the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version. These are strange
bedfellows! I am certainly glad that the translators of the
Christ-exalting Authorized Version never "slept" in this bed.
This is, of course, NOT a "God-honoring" translation. I know
that the deity of Christ "can be found" in other places in the New
American Standard Version, but it now "can be found" in one less
place than in the Authorized Version.
Would John, in penning the gospel that is intended to exalt
Jesus Christ as God, use the term "Son of Man"? Dr. Ruckman explains:
- "One of the great critical dictums for correcting the A.V.
1611 Greek manuscripts is that 'one should always choose language and
expressions most charcteristic of the author.' Well, what in the world
would possess a man who was acquainted with John's style (in the
Gospels), to suddenly write "Son of man" where Jesus is dealing with a
sinner on matters of doctrinal belief? Is this characteristic of John?
It isn't in any 20 passages, anywhere, in the Gospel of John! "The Son
of God" is the correct reading, and the ASV, RSV, and all the new
'Bibles' are greatly in error, 'not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
power of God.'" 256
The Apostle John NEVER called Jesus Christ the "Son of Man"
anywhere in his gospel when dealing with a doctrinal belief. Furthermore,
the context of the book defines the correct translation in that the
multitude cried for Jesus Christ's crucifixion in John 19:7 because "he
made himself the Son of God." (Greek: huion Theos heauton epoinsen.) This
statement so struck the already frantic Pilate, that "he was more afraid"
(John 19:8) at which time he hurried back to where Jesus Christ was
waiting and asked, "Whence art thou?" Pilate realized that there was
something supernatural about Jesus Christ. It is too bad the elusive
Lockman Foundation has never come to such a realization.
We have looked at only a few passages where modern
translators have made unwarranted changes in God's Word. The result is a
change in doctrine. It is evident then that, no matter what Bible
salesmen may say about being able to "find" the fundamentals in any
of the new translations, they are still weaker on doctrine than
the God-honoring Authorized Version. I repeat, EVERY new "Bible" is
doctrinally weaker than the King James Authorized Version. Why then
should any school or preacher use a "Bible" in which they must "search" to
prove doctrines which are more than evident in the King James Bible? If we
honor Jesus Christ, then we should just naturally choose and use the Bible
which honors Him the most. In case after case, the Christ-honoring Bible
is found to be the King James Bible.
Virtue, Not Fanfare
Finally, it must be remembered that the Authorized Version is
the only Bible ever released without fanfare.
The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised
Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the Living Bible, the
Good News for Modern Man, the New International Version, the New King
James Version, and all other new translations have been published with a
great advertising "blitz." They have all attempted to replace the
Authorized Version in the study, in the pulpit, in memorization, and in
the hearts of believers. They have all failed. Those which have not failed
are destined to fail, except for one.
To explain the last statement, let us look at a few facts. For
every truth which God has, Satan has many counterfeits and then one
ultimate counterfeit. Look at the following example:
||Satan is "god" of this
||Many false churches
||One ultimate church,
|One Bible (AV)
||Many "Bibles" (ASV, NIV,
||One ultimate false
We see from the above example that there is one true
God. Satan has many false "gods" for people in this world to worship.
Satan himself is the ultimate "false god."
We further see that there is one true Christ. Satan has many
spirits of anti-Christ. During the tribulation there will be a
manifestation of "the Antichrist."
God has one true church made up of born-again believers. Satan
has many congregations serving him on this earth today. During the
tribulation the ultimate Satanic church located in Rome (Babylon the
Great) will again be in power.
God has preserved His Words in one Bible. Satan has many
"Bibles." I believe it seems certain that someday in the future he will
have one ultimate Satanic "Bible." It will probably be called a "New
Notice that in the examples above, the "many"
counterfeits seem to run in conjunction with the Church Age. Satan's
ultimate counterfeit is always manifested during the Great
Tribulation when the Holy Spirit has ceased to deal with mankind. I
believe that there is a time when Satan will have an anti-bible exalted as
the true Word of God just as surely as he will have an Antichrist exalted
as the Son of God. It seems likely that this will not take place until the
great Tribulation. Until then, God will be exalted, Jesus
Christ will be exalted, Christ's church will be exalted, and
the Authorized Version will be exalted.
The ASV "Bust"
In spite of the publicity campaigns to sell "Bibles," they all fail.
The American Standard Version is a prime example. It was heralded as a
replacement for the King James when it was published in 1901. Twenty-three
years later it went broke and sold its copyright to the National Council
of Churches. Was God's hand on this "Bible?" If so, WHY wasn't it accepted
and used by Christianity even MORE than the Authorized Version? Was Satan
able to overcome God's Will? If God's hand was not on the American
Standard Version, why would the Lockman Foundation try to "resurrect" it?
- "The producers of this translation were imbued with the
conviction that interest in the American Standard Version should be
renewed and increased.
"Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be
attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of
1901 was fast disappearing from the scene." (From the Preface of the New
American Standard Bible.) 257
If God wouldn't use the American Standard Version, WHY would
the Lockman Foundation want to? If God's blessing was on the American
Standard Version, and it died in twenty-three years without even a
minor revival, HOW has the Authorized Version lasted nearly four
hundred years in spite of all of the "better translations" which God has
supposedly been "blessing"?
Of course, there is no answer for these questions, unless it is
admitted that God's Bible is the Authorized Version and that He
will preserve it whether the Christian educators can help it or not. God
will continue to use this English version of sthe Universal Text and will
continue to ignore the English versions of the Local Text, no matter who
the fundamentalist is that recommends them and no matter what size college
may use them. Advertisement will not help.