Here is my critique of an article on the KJB issue written by Rick Wade. My Pro-KJB comments are in blue font. --Eli Caldwell
Introduction: What the Debate is About
Have you ever been in a Bible study where everyone in the group reads a verse . . . and there are two or three Bible versions being used? Following the train of thought can be difficult when a verse in one version clashes with the next verse in another version. Since the 1940s, many new Bible versions have appeared on the market: the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the Contemporary English Version, The Message, and many more. [Over 250 more.] When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, the King James was still the dominant version. [The KJB was the dominant version among conservatives in the 1980s and it is still the Bible of most Independent Fundamental groups of believers such as some Baptists, Grace Movement, and even some unbelieving religious groups have their own KJB Only people such as the "Church of Christ", Pentecostals, and Seventh Day Adventists.] Today the New International Version leads sales followed by the KJV.(1)For some people, the multiplicity of versions is a nuisance, but they accept it, believing that it is all a matter of personal preference. For others, however, this is a serious issue; not because of the inconvenience of multiple versions, but because they believe the King James Version is the only correct version for the church.
[The issue of having EVERY WORD of God is of great importance, without it you do not have Christianity. Jesus said that man does not live by bread only, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4)....which is why He has promised to preserve it to all generations.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Deuteronomy 17:
[14] When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
[15] Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
[16] But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
[17] Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
[18] And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
[19] And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psalms 105:7-8 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalms 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.
Psalms 111:
[7] The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
[8] They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
[9] He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.]
These new versions came about because of the publication of a new Greek New Testament about a century ago. ["About a century ago"? Try Griesbach's edition of the Greek NT in 1774-77, or Tregelles's of 1857, or Lachmann's in 1831. Then look at Darby's translations of 1867 which agrees with these Alexandrian Greek texts.] Defenders of the primacy of the KJV were very vocal in their opposition to the new Greek text and the new English versions which followed its publication. This issue is not as big today, but it remains problematic for some Christians. Thus, a discussion of the King James/modern version debate is useful with a focus on the New Testament, for that is where the main concerns lie.
This debate is argued on two levels. On one level, the focus is on the King James itself (remember that our English versions are translated from Greek texts*). Some simply believe that this particular translation is the best one. They see a certain majesty in its language, and they appreciate its important role in the history of the church. It has served the church well, so there is no need to begin confusing things by bringing in all those other versions, they believe.
[*from Greek texts?
Pastor Terence McLean of the Dispensational Bible Institute has been doing a series of blog posts on the King James Bible. http://www.
He gave this list of resources available to the translators of the King James Bible ("...translated out of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised.."):
TRANSLATIONS:
the Complutension Polyglot of 1517
the Antwerp Polyglot of 1572
the writings of Chrysostom (347-407)
Martin Luther’s German
John Wycliff’s Bible of 1384
William Tyndale’s translation of 1525
Myles Coverdale’s of 1535
John Roger’s Matthew’s translation of 1537
The Great Bible of 1539
Richard Tavener’s of 1539
Geneva of 1560
the Nurnberg Polyglot 1599
the Syriac of Widmanstadt of 1555 and Tremellius of 1559
the Spanish de Reina 1569 and de Velara of 1602
the French of d'Etaples 1530; Olivetan 1535; the Louvain faculty 1550
the Geneva pastors of 1588
the Italian of Brucioli 1530 and the Diodate 1607
the Zurich 1529
Latin versions of Paginus 1528; Juda 1543; Castalio 1551; Montanus 1572; Tremellius 1579, and the Vulgate.
HEBREW:
the Soncino Hebrew text of 1488
Bomberg's of 1516
the Rabbinic Bibles of Pratensis of 1517
the Ben Chayim of 1525
The Stephanus of 1539
GREEK:
Erasmus of 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535,
Colineaus 1534;
Stephanus 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1535;
Beza of 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598
Pastor McLean also stated that "it is critical to point out that they had the Roman Catholic readings found in Vaticanus, Siniaticus, NIV, NASV, TLB, AMP, etc. in that they had the Rheims-Douai of 1582".
"Greek texts" are only a portion of where the King James Bible came from.]
There are some Christians, however, who go further than that. They believe that the KJV is not only the best version; they insist that it is the only valid English version. [Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course anyone who believes that the KJB is "best" would also believe that it is the only "valid" Bible. Why would anyone believe that a corrupt Bible was "valid", only the "best" one is valid. And by the way, the word of God is never spoken of in the Bible as copies being "best", "worst", "valid", etc. The terms used to describe the words of God are always words like "pure", "given by inspiration", "liveth", "life", "spirit", "truth", OR "corrupt". See for example Ps. 12:6, 119:40, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Cor. 2:17. ] Newer translations of Scripture do not reliably convey God's truth. Some arguments for this side are little more than angry diatribes which are often circular. For example, some say that since the new versions differ from the King James, they are bad versions. The supremacy of the KJV is simply assumed.(2)
[Just like you 'assume' that the King James Bible is not the word of God. The position of the KJB Only believer is scriptural, yours is not. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thes. 2:13).]
Although arguments from tradition [Mark 7:13.] and style can be powerful [Tradition and style are not "powerful", the word of God is. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12).], there might be other considerations which outweigh them. A significant problem with the KJV, of course, is the language. People who did not grow up using the KJV have a hard time understanding it. Some of its words are no longer in use, and the antiquated forms of many words impede the understanding of the text. Over time they can learn to understand it, but without any more compelling reasons than tradition and style, it is hard to see why they should bother.
[Archaic words are not the issue. All version have archaic words. Here is Dr. Laurence Vance's chart on a comparison of the plain language of the KJB with the difficult words of the NIV.
By Dr. Laurence M. Vance
New International Version King James Version
| abasement | Ezra 9:5 | heaviness |
| abashed | Is 24:23 | confounded |
| abutted | Ezek 40:18 | over against |
| acclamation | 2 Chr 15:14 | voice |
| aghast | Is 13:8 | amazed |
| alcove | Ezek 40:13 | little chamber |
| annotations | 2 Chr 13:22 | story |
| armlets | Num 31:50 | chains |
| bewilderment | Acts 2:6 | confounded |
| blunted | Ps 58:7 | cut in pieces |
| blustering | Job 8:2 | strong |
| breakers | Ps 93:4 | waves |
| brooches | Ex 35:22 | bracelets |
| brood | Is 57:4 | children |
| burnished | Dan 10:6 | polished |
| carnelian | Rev 4:3 | sardine |
| charioteers | I Sam 13:5 | horsemen |
| citron | Rev 18:12 | thyine |
| colonnade | I Ki 7:6 | porch |
| commemorate | Ex 13:3 | remember |
| cooing | Song 2:12 | voice |
| cors | I Ki 4:22 | measures |
| curds | Gen 18:8 | butter |
| dappled | Zec 6:6 | gristled |
| debauchery | Gal 5:19 | lasciviousness |
| decimated | 2 Sam 21:5 | destroyed |
| dejected | Gen 40:6 | sad |
| deluded | Is 44:20 | deceived |
| denarii | Matt 18:28 | pence |
| denarius | Matt 20:2 | penny |
| desecrate | Lev 21:12 | profane |
| despoil | Jer 30:16 | give for a prey |
| detachment | John 18:3 | band |
| disheartened | Ezek 13:22 | sad |
| disillusionment | Ps 7:14 | falsehood |
| dissipation | I Pet 4:4 | riot |
| drachmas | Ezra 2:69 | drams |
| dragnet | Hab 1:15 | drag |
| duplicity | Lk 20:23 | craftiness |
| elation | Pro 28:12 | glory |
| embedded | Ecc 12:11 | fastened |
| embitter | Ps 73:21 | grieved |
| embodiment | Rom 2:20 | form |
| emphatically | Mk 14:31 | vehemently |
| encouragingly | 2 Chr 30:22 | comfortably |
| encrouch | Pro 23:10 | enter |
| engulf | Ps 69:2 | overflow |
| enrollment | 2 Chr 17:14 | numbers |
| enthralled | Ps 45:11 | greatly desire |
| enveloped | Lk 9:34 | overshadowed |
| exasperate | Eph 6:4 | provoke |
| exterminate | Ezek 25:7 | perish |
| exult | Is 14:8 | rejoice |
| factions | 1 Ki 16:21 | parts |
| famished | Is 8:21 | hungry |
| fattened | 1 Sam 28:24 | fat |
| faultfinders | Jude 16 | complainers |
| fawns | Song 4:5 | roes |
| fellowman | Micah 2:2 | man |
| festival | Ex 5:1 | feast |
| festive | I Sam 25:8 | good |
| fieldstones | Deut 27:6 | whole stones |
| figurehead | Acts 28:11 | sign |
| filigree | Ex 28:20 | enclosings |
| fishnets | Ezek 26:5 | nets |
| flagstaff | Is 30:17 | beacon |
| flank | Ezek 34:21 | side |
| fleeting | Ps 89:47 | short |
| flinging | Acts 22:23 | threw |
| flogged | Acts 5:40 | beaten |
| floodgates | Gen 7:11 | windows |
| fluttering | Is 16:2 | wandering |
| fomenting | Is 59:13 | speaking |
| forded | Josh 2:23 | passed over |
| forevermore | Jude 25 | for ever |
| frolic | Ps 104:26 | play |
| fruitage | Is 27:9 | fruit |
| gadfly | Jer 46:20 | destruction |
| gaiety | Is 24:8 | mirth |
| galled | 1 Sam 18:8 | displeased |
| gateway | Gen 19:1 | gate |
| gaunt | Gen 41:3 | leanfleshed |
| gauntness | Job 16:8 | leanness |
| gecko | Lev 11:30 | ferret |
| glancing | Ex 2:12 | looked |
| glint | Hab 3:11 | light |
| glistcning | Job 41:32 | shine |
| gloat | Ps 30:1 | rejoice |
| gloom | Job 10:21 | darkness |
| glutted | Ezek 39:19 | full |
| goblet | Is 51:17 | cup |
| goiim | Gen 14:1 | nations |
| grapevine | James 3:12 | vine |
| Hades | Rev 20:14 | hell |
| harrowing | Is 28:24 | break the clods |
| haunt | Ps 44:19 | place |
| headwaters | Gen 2:10 | heads |
| hoopoe | Lev 11:19 | lapwing |
| horde | Ezek 17:17 | army |
| ibex | Deut 14:5 | pygarg |
| ignoble | 2 Tim 2:20 | dishonour |
| impaled | Ezra 6:11 | hanged |
| imperishable | I Cor 15:50 | incorruption |
| impetuous | Hab 1:6 | hasty |
| improvise | Amos 6:5 | invent |
| incited | 1 Chr 21:1 | provoked |
| incurs | Pro 9:7 | getteth |
| indestructible | Heb 7:16 | endless |
| indignant | Mk 10:41 | displeased |
| indispensable | 1 Cor 12:22 | necessary |
| infamy | Is 44:11 | ashamed |
| innumerable | 2 Chr 12:3 | without number |
| insolence | Jer 48:30 | wrath |
| insolent | Rom 1:30 | despiteful |
| jeered | 2 Ki 2:23 | mocked |
| joists | 2 Chr 34:11 | couplings |
| jowls | Deut 18:3 | cheeks |
| kingship | 1 Sam 10:16 | kingdom |
| lifeboat | Acts 27:30 | boat |
| magi | Matt 2:1 | wise men |
| mainstay | Jer 49:25 | chief |
| marauders | Job 12:6 | robbers |
| marshaled | Job 32:14 | directed |
| mattocks | 1 Sam 13:20 | courter |
| maxiums | Job 13:12 | remembrances |
| melodious | Ps 81:2 | pleasant |
| memorandum | Ezra 6:2 | record |
| mina | Lk 19:16 | pound |
| misdemeanor | Acts 18:14 | wrong |
| naive | Rom 16:18 | simple |
| nationality | Est 2:10 | people |
| naught | Is 40:23 | nothing |
| Negev | Gen 12:9 | south |
| Nephilim | Gen 6:4 | giants |
| nightfall | 2 Sam 19:7 | night |
| noonday | 2 Sam 4:5 | noon |
| Nubians | Dan 11:43 | Ethiopians |
| nuggets | Job 22:24 | gold |
| nurtured | Lam 4:5 | brought |
| oarsmen | Ezek 27:26 | rowers |
| oblivion | Ps 88:12 | forgetfulness |
| obscenity | Eph 5:4 | filthiness |
| offal | Ex 29:14 | dung |
| officiate | 2 Ki 17:32 | sacrificed |
| opportune | Mk 6:1 | convenient |
| ore | Job 28:2 | stone |
| overawed | Ps 49:16 | afraid |
| overweening | Is 16:6 | very |
| parapet | Deut 22:8 | battlement |
| piled | Lk 23:9 | questioned |
| pinions | Deut 32:11 | wings |
| porphyry | Est 1:6 | red |
| portent | Is 20:3 | wonder |
| portico | 1 Ki 6:3 | porch |
| poultice | 2 Ki 20:7 | lump |
| Praetorium | Matt 27:27 | common hall |
| prefects | Dan 3:3 | governors |
| proconsul | Acts 13:8 | deputy |
| profligate | Deut 21:20 | glutton |
| promiscuity | Ezek 16:26 | whoredoms |
| qualm | Jude 12 | fear |
| rabble | Num 11:4 | mixed multitude |
| ramparts | Hab 2: 11 | tower |
| rawboned | Gen 49:14 | strong |
| reeked | Ex 8:14 | stank |
| repointing | 1 Sam 13:21 | sharpen |
| reposes | Pro 14:33 | resteth |
| reputed | Gal 2:9 | seemed |
| resound | I Chr 16:32 | roar |
| resplendent | Ps 76:4 | glorious |
| reveled | Neh 9:25 | delighted themselves |
| revelry | Is 22:13 | gladness |
| revening | Jer 2:30 | destroying |
| rifts | Jer 2:6 | pits |
| sachet | Song 1:13 | bundle |
| satraps | Est 3:12 | lieutenants |
| sheathed | Ps 68:13 | covered |
| siegeworks | Ecc 9:14 | bulwarks |
| simplehearted | Ps 116:6 | simple |
| sistrums | 2 Sam 6:5 | cornets |
| squall | Mk 4:37 | storm of wind |
| stadia | Rev 14:20 | furlongs |
| stag | Song 2:9 | hart |
| stipulations | Deut 4:45 | testimonies |
| suckling | 1 Sam 7:9 | sucking |
| sullen | I Ki 21:5 | sad |
| temperate | I Tim 3:11 | sober |
| tempest | Ps 55:8 | storm |
| terebinth | Hos 4:13 | elms |
| tethered | 2 Ki 7:10 | tied |
| thong | Lk 3:16 | latchet |
| thornbush | Is 55:13 | thorn |
| thundercloud | Ps 81:7 | thunder |
| timidity | 2 Tim 1:7 | fear |
| tinder | Is 1:31 | tow |
| torrent | Rev 12:15 | flood |
| tranquillity | Ecc 4:6 | quietness |
| transcends | Phil 4:7 | passeth |
| transplanted | Ezek 17:10 | planted |
| tresses | Song 7:5 | galleries |
| tumult | 1 Sam 14:19 | noise |
| turbulent | Gen 49:4 | unstable |
| tyrannical | Pro 28:16 | oppressor |
| tyranny | Is 54:14 | oppression |
| underlings | 2 Ki 19:6 | servants |
| vassal | 2 Ki 24:1 | servant |
| vaunts | Job 15:25 | strengtheneth |
| vent | Job 20:23 | cast |
| verdant | Song 1:16 | green |
| vestments | Ezra 3:10 | apparel |
| vexed | Ps 112:10 | grieved |
| wadi | Num 34:5 | river |
| waylaid | 1 Sam 15:2 | laid wait for |
| waywardness | Hosea 14:4 | backsliding |
| weakling | Joel | weak |
| wily | Job 5:13 | froward |
| windstorm | Is 29:6 | storm |
| wrenched | Gen 32:25 | out of joint |
| wretches | Matt 21:41 | wicked men |
| yearling | Is 11:6 | fatling |
The truth is, the KJB has shorter syllable words than most versions and people used the KJB to learn how to read for over 300 years. But of course the NIV is easier to read since it is missing over 60,000 words and almost 20 entire verses.]
On another level, this debate focuses on the Greek manuscripts from which the English versions are translated. Some "King James only" proponents believe that *the Greek text underlying most of the newer versions is corrupt. As we will see, they present some good arguments for their position.
[The modern versions come from different Greek texts, there are over 75 Greek texts and the most up to date is the Nestle/Aland 28th Edition.]
Because *the Greek text is the critical issue in this debate, it will be the focus of our examination of the debate (we will not get too technical!). To set the stage, we will begin with a brief history of the King James Version.
[There is no such thing as "THE Greek text", there are over 75 Greeks texts and they all differ!]
A Brief History of the King James Version
Many of us have heard the joke about the King James Version: "If it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!" [I have never heard that joke and I have no idea what you are talking about.] Paul, of course, was fifteen and a half centuries too early for the KJV. [Again, thank you Captain Obvious.] The New Testament writers wrote in Koine Greek, the language of the common man in the first century A.D. [Of course some of the books of the NT were written in Greek, but you cannot prove that ALL of the originals were written in Greek. Hebrew and Aramaic would have also been likely. Possibly Latin, that was one of the languages written on the cross.] The first complete English Bible was not produced until John Wycliffe produced his in the fourteenth century. [What you mean is that we do not have a surviving copy of a pre-Wycliffe English Bible, but to say that one did not exist (at least in part) before Wycliffe would be utterly ridiculous.] He translated from the Latin Vulgate which was the most widely used version at that time. The next major step in the development of the English Bible was Tyndale's translation of the New Testament published in 1526 and portions of the Old Testament published later. Tyndale's version was significant because it was translated from a newly published Greek New Testament rather than from the Vulgate.After Tyndale's, a number of other versions were produced. Among them were the Coverdale Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible. In 1611 the King James Version was published to provide a Bible which could be used by both Anglicans and Puritans. Marginal notes reflecting any particular theological bias were removed, and the language used was that of the people.
[The statement "the language used was that of the people" is highly debated. The evidence looks like the KJB was put into a 'theological English' that used terms that were not always used in every day English but rather words and idioms taken directly from other languages such as Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There are also a lot of English words in the KJB that were not common words used in 1611.]
I noted earlier that Tyndale used a Greek text for his translation. The first published Greek New Testament appeared in the year 1516. It was edited by Erasmus, a Dutch scholar. Erasmus had at his disposal no more than six Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today). These manuscripts were part of what is called the Byzantine text family.
[Rick Wade did not do his research. Erasmus studied dozens and dozens of manuscripts and took notes giving him access to variant readings from MORE than "six" manuscripts. The evidence shows that he could have used up to 12 manuscripts in his first edition, even so he did go on to produce NEWER editions (he had 5 editions) with more manuscripts. Not that it matters significantly, the Byzantine manuscripts agree 95% of the time.]
Although Erasmus' edition provided a great boost to the study of the New Testament, it had a number of problems. [And I suppose you know all about the problems and how to fix them in order to give us an infallible Greek Bible?] For one thing, none of his sources had the last six verses of the book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek! [That sentence is contradictory. "none of his sources had the last six verses of the book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate"...is the Vulgate not a resource? Wow. The truth of the matter is that the Vulgate is a fairly old text that contains ancient readings. So are there errors in the KJB's Revelation? Not one!] Thus, in his text "several words and phrases may be found that are attested in no Greek manuscript whatsoever."(3) [Who needs an ancient Greek witness when you have a Latin witness?] In the first two editions of his New Testament, Erasmus left out I John 5:7 because it did not appear in any of his Greek manuscripts. That verse reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This omission created a furor, so he promised to include the verse in a later edition if it could be found in any Greek manuscript. One was brought forward, and, although Erasmus did not think the text was genuine, he kept his promise and included the verse. It is now believed to have been a very late and unreliable manuscript, and some think it was forged to include the verse.(4)
[A lot of people do not believe that 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Bible. However, I believe it does.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (King James Bible)
God has preserved this verse of scripture throughout all generations (Ps. 12:6-7), it would not make sense for it to not be authentic. Why would God have it in the preservations of His word for so long?
Latin Vulgate (800 AD), 1 John 5:7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.
Tyndale Bible (1526), 1 John 5:7 For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one
Geneva Bible (1557) 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
As for pre-800 AD evidence, the verse is cited by Priscillian (385 AD) "As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." from Liber Apologeticus.
And here is additional evidence provided by John Henry in his article "The Johanine Comma, Is it inspired scripture"
LATIN EVIDENCE
1) Included in the 2nd century Old Latin Bible.
2) Old Latin MS r has the verse (AD 550).
3) Old Latin MS l has the verse.
4) Latin Vulgate from AD 800 on.
GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.
1) 61 (late 15th century) (Aland's Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)
2) 629 (14th century) (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
3) 918 (Aland's; 3rd ed., p. 824)
4) 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
5) 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
6) 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
7) 636, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
8) 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
9) 429, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
10) Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
11) 635, margin (Holland)
12) Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)
13) Dr. Waite lists 10 other Greek MSS that are unconfirmed as yet.
GREEK LECTIONARIES (These contained extracts of the New Testanent):
1) Lectionary 60
2) Lectionary 173
WRITINGS AND CITATIONS BY CHURCH FATHERS AND OTHERS:
1) AD 170 - Old Syriac Version (G.A. Riplinger, p. 381)
2) AD 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
3) AD 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
4) AD 385 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
5) AD 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
6) AD 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
7) AD 380 - Varimadum
8) AD 435 - Cassian
9) AD 427 - The Speculum, MS m, a treatise containing an Old Latin texts arranged by topic.
10) Sixth century - Ps-Athanasius
11) Eighth century - Ansbert
12) AD 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
13) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse]
Erasmus' Greek text was reworked and reprinted by others including Robert Estienne who divided the text into verses. Theodore Beza then built upon Estienne's work, and his Greek text provided one of the major foundations for the King James Bible. The term Textus Receptus, or Received Text, came from a blurb in another Greek text produced in the early seventeenth century by the Elzevir brothers. This title is still used in connection with the King James, and it is one you will see again in this article.
Westcott and Hort
I noted earlier that the more substantial arguments for the "King James only" position focus on the Greek texts underlying the different versions. There are four significant issues in the debate involving these texts which I will develop: the science of textual criticism, the number of Greek manuscripts available, the history of the Greek texts, and the dates of the manuscripts. Before getting into the debate itself, it will be helpful to mention the historical event which brought the debate to a head, and to introduce a central element in New Testament textual studies.Between the thousands of Greek manuscripts available there are differences of one kind or another (although there are not any which effect doctrinal matters). Certain Greek manuscripts share enough similarities that they are believed to have come from the same source. Each of these groups is called a text family or a text-type. There are four text families which are generally agreed upon by scholars. The manuscripts which were used to produce the Textus Receptus (and later the King James Version) were of the Byzantine family. The other three text families generally agreed upon by scholars are the Alexandrian, the Caesarean, and the Western.(5)
[Actually the KJB is not a strict TR Byzantine translation, it has some Alexandrian readings such as the last ten words of 1 John 2:23.]
The fundamental debate between scholars in the King James/modern version controversy is over the question of the most accurate Greek text family or families. Which of the four families, if any, most accurately represents what the New Testament authors wrote? The Byzantine text was the dominant Greek text from about the eighth century until the end of the nineteenth century.(6) In 1881, however, two scholars named Westcott and Hort published a new Greek New Testament which relied more on other text families than on the Byzantine family. Their Greek text became the basis of the New Testament portion of modern Bible translations.
Westcott and Hort evaluated the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament according to the principles of textual criticism. This is the science of the study of ancient texts, the originals of which are lost. [LOL. Textual criticism is NOT "the study of ancient texts, the originals of which are lost" because you do NOT have the originals and cannot study them! You cannot study something that does not exist.] Based upon their studies, they argued that the Byzantine text was not the closest to the original writings as the King James advocates claimed. It seemed to have combined readings from other text families, and some readings appeared to have been modified for greater clarity and understanding. Thus, they believed it was at least two steps removed from the original writings. Also, they found no clear evidence of its existence in the writings of the early church fathers, and there are no copies older than the fourth century. [That is just plain untrue, a lie, and Wescott/Hort were liars. The so called "church fathers" agree with the Byzanitine readings MOST of the time and you can see Dean John Burgon's works and also Dr. Jack Moorman's books for thorough evidence.] Those who agree with Westcott and Hort believe that the Byzantine text was produced in the fourth century probably in an attempt to give the church one New Testament (there were a number of different Greek texts being used at the time). [There is no evidence for this theory whatsoever. It has been thoroughly refuted by many scholars. See Dr. Edward Hills and Wilbur Pickering.] Other text families, on the other hand, appear to have more original readings and are quoted by the early church fathers, and are thus closer to the originals. [Why don't you tell us what an "original reading" is? Do you have the originals? How do you know that you have the readings?] So, the conclusions drawn from the application of textual criticism along with the ages of the manuscripts led them to believe that the most accurate Greek text is to be found by drawing from all the Greek text families, especially the Alexandrian family.(7)
[Further info on the "church fathers": Dean John Burgon said "For the 76 Church Fathers examined, [Fathers that died before A.D. 400] there were 2,630 references to the Traditional Text and only 1,753 to the Neologian [Westcott-Hort type of ] text. The Traditional Text was definitely in existence well before 400 A.D. In other words, not only is the Traditional Text present in these church fathers' time, who lived and died prior to 400 A.D., the Traditional Text predominated over the Neologian [W-H]"]
Supporters of the Byzantine or Received Text responded that it was inappropriate to use naturalistic methods of study such as textual criticism on Scripture. They said that this amounts to elevating man over God in determining what the Bible says.(8) They also argued that the vast numbers of Byzantine manuscripts along with the centuries of history behind this text family should not be set aside on the basis of a few manuscripts discovered relatively recently. They insisted that the Spirit of God would not allow His true word to lie dormant so long while the church was being guided by inferior texts.
[That is all true. If God has preserved His word for every generation, then we should not be looking to past generations for the word of God. Why would God preserve His words to every generation if we must look at the "originals" to confirm our preserved copies? Would not preservation be pointless if it must be confirmed with ancient copies? I refuse to accept the 'scholarship' of textual criticism over what the Scriptures say about themselves.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/being-bible-believer.html ]
Textual Criticism
As I noted above, those who argue for the Byzantine or Received Text say that it is improper to subject the Bible to the scrutiny of textual criticism. The Bible, being the inspired Word of God, is unique. One begins with it as inspired and then accepts what it says. But those in the Westcott-Hort tradition note that we cannot simply shut our eyes to the fact that there are differences between the various Greek manuscripts, even those in the Byzantine family. Even those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture recognize that the original writings of the New Testament were inerrant, not the copies. It is our responsibility to apply the most sound principles we know of to determine what the original manuscripts said. This is the aim of textual criticism.[Rick Wade has just denied the Bile doctrine of PRESERVATION, he does not believe that God has preserved His word.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Deuteronomy 17:
[14] When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
[15] Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
[16] But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
[17] Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
[18] And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
[19] And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psalms 105:7-8 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalms 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.
Psalms 111:
[7] The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
[8] They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
[9] He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.]
So, how does textual criticism work? Differences between Greek manuscripts are called variants. There are several causes of variants. Some are accidental, such as misspelled words or repeated or reversed words. Some resulted from a scribe not hearing a dictation correctly. Also, deliberate changes seem to have been made to bring passages in different Gospels into harmony or to make a doctrinal point clearer.
What are some examples of differences between the Greek texts which show up in our English Bibles? One example is the Lord's Prayer as it is recorded in Matthew and in Luke. In the KJV the two versions are almost identical, while in the NIV the prayer in Luke 11 is significantly shorter than that in Matthew 6. Most scholars believe that, at some point in history, a scribe added to the text in Luke to make it agree more with Matthew.
[That is stupid, how could anyone know that? They just made it up to look smart, there is no evidence for that.]
The last half of Mark 16 is a lengthy section which is disputed. The KJV retains verses 9 through 20 while the NIV includes the passage with a note saying it is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts. Scholars who believe it should be excluded also note that the style and vocabulary are very different from the rest of Mark.(9)
[THE
LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK
Support
for the reading:
A
(5th century)
C
(5th century)
D
(5th century)
Theta
(9th century)
X
(5th -9th century)
D
(5th -9th century)
Q
(5th -9th century)
P
(5th -9th century)
It is cited by: Justin (165 AD), Irenaeus (177 AD) Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) Augustine (430 AD).
Support against the reading:
Aleph (4th century)
B (4th century),
304 (12th century),
Latin k (4th/5th century),
Syrus Sinaiticus
A Sahidic manuscript,
Armenian manuscripts]
To add one more, in the KJV, three verses in Mark 9 (44 ,46, and 48) are identical: "Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." The NIV puts verses 44 and 46 in footnotes and notes that some manuscripts include the phrase. Since each verse follows a reference to hell, it is very possible that a scribe simply repeated the warning to strengthen the message.
[That is stupid, how could anyone know that? They just made it up to look smart, there is no evidence for that. Would it not be just as likely that the scribe accidently skipped one of the verses thinking that he had already wrote it down, not realizing that the phrase is used three times in the text?]
If all this makes you nervous about the accuracy of your Bible, it is important to note that textual criticism is used on all documents for which the originals no longer exist. New Testament scholar J. Harold Greenlee noted that, with respect to the Bible, "No Christian doctrine . . . hangs upon a debatable text."(10) This conflict provides no fodder for critics of Christianity who might ask how we can know what the Bible really says. We can be confident that we have a highly accurate text, especially given the number of New Testament manuscripts available and the antiquity of some of them.(11) As one writer has said, "It is well to remember that the main body of the text and its general sense are left untouched . . . textual criticism engages in turning a magnifying glass upon some of the details."(12)
[So we should not worry about people attacking the Bible because there are people that attack other books with the same scrutiny? Wow.]
Other Issues in the Debate
In addition to the question of textual criticism, questions regarding the number of manuscripts, the historical dominance of the Byzantine text, and the dates of the manuscripts still need to be considered. First is the matter of the number of manuscripts. Between eighty and ninety percent of existing manuscripts are of the Byzantine family and are in remarkable agreement. [95%] This fact is not in dispute. King James supporters say that the few manuscripts to which Westcott and Hort gave preference cannot override the witness of the vast majority of manuscripts in existence which are of the Byzantine tradition. It is normal to expect that the oldest manuscript will have the most copies.(13) In response, those who follow Westcott and Hort point out that hundreds of copies could have been made from one defective text while a better text was not copied as often. The copying of New Testament texts was not as carefully monitored as the copying of the Old Testament text by Jewish scholars. As we have seen, errors were made and changes were deliberately introduced. Simply finding a lot of manuscripts which are in agreement is not enough. To illustrate their point, they ask whether one would rather have one real $100 bill or five counterfeits.A second issue is the preservation of the text through history. Supporters of the Received Text ask why God's Spirit would allow the church to be under the authority of a defective text for almost 1500 years. Textual critics respond that this argument exaggerates the issue. They do not consider the Byzantine text to be a "'bad' or heretical text [Wrong, Wescott and Hort referred to the TR as "vile".]; it presents the same Christian message as the critical [or Westcott-Hort] text."(14) Again, there are no doctrinal differences between the Greek texts. [Yes there are. The Alexandrian texts attack the Deity of Christ, blood atonement, and introduce contradictions.] Members of the Byzantine family are used along with members of other text families to determine what the true reading of a passage should be. The major text families are neither absolutely corrupt nor absolutely perfect. Text critics must use all the available resources to determine what the original documents said.
[Wow, so "text critics" "determine what the original documents said"? That makes me feel real good (not really). A lot of the "text critics" usually turn out to be pretty odd fellows when you study them closely.]
Finally, the dates of the manuscripts are important in this debate. Textual critics point out that church fathers before the fourth century "unambiguously cited every text-type except the Byzantine."(15) If the Byzantine text-type comes directly from the original writings, one would expect unambiguous quotations of it from the beginning. They also point out that there are no Byzantine manuscripts older than the fourth century, whereas there are copies of other text families older than that.
[My sources (Burgon, Pickering, Hills, etc.) disagree with your sources on this issue.]
In response to this, King James supporters note that the New Testament manuscripts began to be altered very soon after they were written. Eusebius, the ancient church historian, reported that heresies sprang up early after the turn of the second century, and proponents of these heresies sometimes altered Scripture to accord with their beliefs.(16) Thus, antiquity is not the crucial test. That there are no copies older than the fourth century can be explained by the fact that the material manuscripts were written on was fragile; it's reasonable to conclude that the early copies probably wore out through frequent handling.
Summary and Concluding Thoughts
To summarize, those who support the King James/Received Text tradition emphasize the number of manuscripts, the church's history with the Byzantine text, and God's interest in preserving His Word, whereas those following Westcott and Hort say that the variants in the manuscripts - even between those in the Byzantine family - prove the need for the textual criticism of the New Testament. The results of their analysis along with the ages of the manuscripts leads them to believe that the Byzantine family is just one text family that can lead us back to the originals - or close to it - but it is not the one best text family. So, which way should you go on this debate? If you are concerned about the issue, I suggest that you study it more. The texts cited in the notes will give you a place to start. If not, I would recommend using a version that is as close to the Greek text as possible while being understandable to you. But whichever version you choose, be very sure of your arguments before insisting that others use it, too. It seems to me that, with all the difficulties we face in our often hostile culture, we should not erect walls between Christians on the basis of Bible versions. We are not taking God's Word lightly here. We are simply calling for a more well-reasoned discussion and for the rule of love to govern the debate.["I would recommend using a version that is as close to the Greek text as possible". Again, there is no such thing as "the Greek text", that is bad terminology. "we should not erect walls between Christians on the basis of Bible versions", really? You do not believe that we should divide over someone using a DIFFERENT bible than us? Why would we not separate from those who use a corrupt version?]
Notes
1. Marketplace, Christian Booksellers Association, May, 1998.
2. An example is the pamphlet by J. J. Ray, The Eye Opener (Junction City, Oregon, 1953).
3. D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 34.
4. Ibid., 35.
5. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments 3d ed., (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1963), 185.
6. J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 61-62.
7. To be more precise, while Westcott and Hort gave the greater weight to the Alexandrian text over the Byzan- tine, they gave even greater weight to the manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which they considered to be "neutral texts." Later, sympathetic scholars grouped these two with the Alexandrian family. See Carson, 41.
8. Edward F. Hills, "The Magnificent Burgon," in Which Bible?, 5th ed., David Otis Fuller, ed. (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975), 101-105.
9. Greenlee, 133.
10. Ibid., 68.
11. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, also available for study are ancient lectionaries, various translations into other languages, and the writings of the early church fathers. See Greenlee, pp. 44-58.
12. Ibid., 17.
13. Zane C. Hodges, "The Greek Text of the King James Version," in Which Bible?, 37.
14. Greenlee, 81.
15. Carson, 47.
16. Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 215-216. See also Benjamin G. Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?, 190-193.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your questions or comments welcome.