a
 

 

 Texe Marrs: ƏJames
ƏJames White, a
boastful King James Bible opponent,
continues on his baseless crusade to
bash King James only believers. It
makes for a rather sad spectacle to
observe critics of the King James
Bible like Mr. White humiliate
themselves and show disrespect for
servants of God. I am praying he
will be given a repentant heart and
know the grave damage he is doing
to the kingdom of our Saviour.Ɛ
Saviour.Ɛ
Elsewhere, Marrs calls White Əa
servant of SatanƐ and Əa devil.Ɛ
Gail Riplinger,
author of New Age
Bible Versions,
Versions, calls
White Əa rude,
crude hereticƐ and a
Əserial soul-
soul-killer.Ɛ
 þonƍt They Have A Point?
Point?
Compare:
1 Timothy 3:16, KJV:
without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the fleshƕ.
But look at the NASB:
By common confession, great is the
mystery of godliness: He who was
revealed in the flesh,
 ïnd Compare These:

Reference Modern Vers. KJV

Matthew 4:18 he Jesus

ïcts 19:10 the Lord the Lord Jesus

1 Cor 9:1 Jesus Jesus Christ

2 Cor 5:18 Christ Jesus Christ

ïcts 16:31 Lord Jesus Lord Jesus Christ

2 John 3 Jesus Christ Lord Jesus Christ

ï test for all the folks using an NIV
in the audience: þonƍt think
thereƍs really much of a difference?
Think your translation is just
Əeasier to readƐ? OK, letƍs say you
are sitting in your front room with
a Mormon missionary, and he
takes out his Bible (KJV) and asks
you to read with him from John
5:4. Go ahead, look it up. What
will you do?
But the defenders of the
modern translations are not
without their arguments as
well. There are many issues
one can raise in looking at
the KJV. Letƍs look at a few
examples:
First, remember the
appearance of ƏGodƐ at 1
Timothy 3:16 in the KJV?
Well, look at this:
 John 1:18, KJV, says:
No man hath seen God at any time;
Son, which is in
the only begotten Son,
the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
him.
But the NRSV reads:
No one has ever seen God. It is God
the only Son,
Son, who is close to the
Father's heart, who has made him
known.
In the same way, the KJV agrees with
the Jehovahƍs Witnessesƍ NWT in not
having a reference of prayer to Christ
at John 14:14. Modern translations
agree that here the Lord speaks of
prayer to Himself, while the KJV lacks
the word ƏmeƐ in the phrase ƏIf you
ask ME anything in my nameƕƐ

NïSB: ƏIf you ask ME anythingƕ.Ɛ

KJV: ƏIf you ask anythingƕ.Ɛ
 Compare the KJV at Rev. 1:8:
I am ïlpha and Omega, the
beginning and the ending, saith the
Lord,, which is, and which was, and
Lord
which is to come, the ïlmighty.
But the NïSB:
"I am the ïlpha and the Omega,"
says the Lord God,
God, "who is and who
was and who is to come, the
ïlmighty."
 How is this for a Conspiracy?
NïSB, 1 John 3:1:
See how great a love the Father has
bestowed on us, that we would be called
children of God; and such we are.
But Look at the KJV!
Behold, what manner of love the Father
hath bestowed upon us, that we should
be called the sons of God:

What happened to adoption as sons?

 But, in reality, there is no conspiracy
involved on either side. There are
simple, logical reasons why there are
differences in translations.
Unfortunately, few people take the
time to learn the backgrounds of the
Bible, hence, they are easily misled and
upset by variations that are perfectly
understandable and do not indicate
any kind of evil intention or corruption.
Letƍs look at some of the
passages cited above and seeƕ
Letƍs start with 1 Timothy 3:16, one of
the favorite passages of KJV Only
advocates. To understand why
modern translations differ from the
KJV/NKJV, we need to know
something about the texts from which
these translations came. The KJV/
NKJV NTƍs are based upon a 16th
century Greek text known today as the
ƏTextus Receptus.Ɛ Modern trans-
trans-
lations are based upon the Nestle-
Nestle-
ïland Greek text of this century.
 The ƏTextus ReceptusƐ represents what
is called the ƏByzantineƐ family of
manuscripts. These manuscripts
constitute 4/5th of the extant Greek texts
in our possession. Yet, the vast majority
of them come from the 10th through 15th
centuries. That is, they represent the
later, ecclesiastical text, rather than the
more primitive text of the first centuries.
This is the ƏMajority Text,Ɛ though the TR
differs in over 1800 places from the
ƏMajority TextƐ type.
 What was the ƏMajority TextƐ
during the First Millennium?


 
 
 


jj jjj j j jj jjj j


j

j

jjj

jj

j

j

jjj

jj

j
  
  
 
 

jjj

jj

      

 ïn example of the style of the early
manuscripts of the New Testament:
!   
  


! 
!
 
 
  
  


ïround the 9th century the minuscule
text became predominant, which is
very similar to our modern texts:
þ

!" #$ % 
" #
 &" & 
'$(  $)#$) !$) 
)$ *
"$ 
&+( *  j&$ V

j

j

jjj

jj

j

j

jjj

jj

j
  
  
 
 

jjj

jj

      

 The ƏTextus ReceptusƐ was created by
the work of a Roman Catholic priest and
scholar, the ƏPrince of the Humanists,Ɛ
þesiderius Erasmus. Erasmus printed
and published the first edition of the
Greek NT in 1516. The 3rd edition of his
text was particularly influential. ï total
of five editions came from him; after him,
Stephanus (1555) and Beza (1598)
edited the work, and it was used by the
KJV translators for their NT (1604-
(1604-1611).
Modern texts, however, are based upon
an ƏeclecticƐ text that draws from a
wider variety of sources than the TR,
including manuscripts unknown in the
days of Erasmus. Some of the papyri
manuscripts used in the modern Nestle-
Nestle-
ïland 27th edition date to as early as ïþ
125. But these different sources, being
more primitive, do not show the effect of
long--term transcription seen in the
long
Byzantine texts, and hence are not as
ƏfullƐ as the TR.
 When we speak of textual differences
between the TR and modern texts, we
need to immediately emphasize
something that is often lost in the
debate. There is no doctrine of the
Christian faith that is based upon any
single text; and no doctrine of the faith
is changed or altered by any variation
of the text. If one applies the same
rules of exegesis to the TR and the Nï
27th edition, the results will be the
same. The variations do not change
the message.
 Latin Vulgate
Byzantine Tradition ïlexandrian
Tradition
Textus Receptus

Nestle--ïland
Nestle
KJV

NïSB
NKJV NIV
1611

1960
1984 1978
 What does all of this have to do with 1
Timothy 3:16? Letƍs see:
The difference between the two passages, as
they would have been written originally, would
be:




 What does all of this have to do with 1
Timothy 3:16? Letƍs see:
The difference between the two passages, as
they would have been written originally, would
be:







 
  God

  He who
 KJV Only literature abounds with
examples of circular argumentation at
this point. Keep in mind that for the vast
majority of KJV Only advocates, this is the
starting point in their thought:
The King James Bible ïLONE

The Word of God ïLONE
When we realize this, we can understand
why they argue as they do.
 The result of this mindset is seen in the
language used in this debate: instead of
asking ƏWhat did John or Paul or Peter
originally writeƐ we hear about how
modern translations have REMOVEþ this
or þELETEþ that or ïþþEþ this or
CHï GEþ that. ïll these loaded words
assume that the KJV is the standard by
which all others are to be judged. Some
KJV Only folks go so far as to say the
Greek and Hebrew manuscripts
themselves must be judged by
comparison with the KJV!
 How about John 5:4? This passage is
not only omitted by 466, 475, , B and
others, but even in the manuscripts
where it does appear, there are a
number of variants within the text, and
some even mark the passage with
asterisks or obeli. Most likely this was a
marginal note, an explanation, written in
an early manuscript and accidentally
inserted into a later copy by a copyist
who thought it was a part of the original
text.
 How about John 1:18?
The earliest manuscripts of John, 466
and 475 (papyri manuscripts dating
around ïþ 200), as well as two of the
earliest uncial manuscripts,  and B,
(i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus) all read, ($ $, &)#!$)#,
&)#!$)#,
literally, Əunique GodƐ or Əthe only Son
who is God.Ɛ The bulk of later
manuscripts read ($ $, &)#
+$"#,

+$"#, Əonly-
Əonly-
begotten Son.Ɛ The KJV, following the
TR, reads Əson.Ɛ
But some insist that the literal rendering, Ơonly-
Ơonly-
begotten God,ơ actually undercuts the deity of
Christ, hence, Ơit canƞt be right.ơ Allegations of
Ơgnostic corruptionơ abound in KJV Only books.
But this is determining the text of Scripture not
on the basis of the best evidence available, but
on the basis of oneƞs own ideas of theology. In
point of fact, the phrase does NOT necessitate
any idea of inferiority regarding Christ: in fact,
while the phrase Ơonly-
Ơonly-begotten Sonơ was
prevalent in gnostic writings, the phrase
Ơunique Godơ does not appear in the extant
gnostic literature from the time period.
1 John 3:1 is an excellent example of a
simple scribal error, an error of sight
that is common to us all. Look at the
passage in Greek:

'  $ &) ," & "  &+(

* 
$+ &) -
.  "  !$ *&! *( -

)(" /
You donƍt have to know Greek to see
how an error could be made here. Look
at the last three words:

&! *( -

-
))("
(" /
 otice how two of these words end with
the same three letters:

( -
)
&! **( -
)("
("
Just as we often inadvertently skip
something when our eyes come back to
what we are copying because two words
end in a similar ending, such as Ə-
Ə-ingƐ or
Ə-tion,Ɛ so too an ancient scribe, upon
writing &! *(
*( then returned to the
text and instead of starting there, saw
("
(" and inadvertently skipped the
phrase.
In the same way, there is no
ƏconspiracyƐ at John 14:14.
Here the ïlexandrian texts join
with a large portion of the
Byzantine texts in containing
the word Əme.Ɛ But a part of
the Byzantine tradition does not
contain the word, and this part
underlies the TR. The Majority
Text contains the reading ƏmeƐ
at this point, demonstrating
that the TR is not identical to
the Majority Text.
 Likewise, Revelation 1:8, and the
reference to Əthe Lord GodƐ is another
example of where the TR even departs
from the entirety of the Byzantine
manuscript tradition. The vast majority
of texts, including the later ones, contain
this reading.
The TR in the book of Revelation is
particularly suspect. This is due to the fact
that Erasmus rushed his work on the book
and utilized only one manuscript of
Revelation. ïs a result, entire words exist
in the TR that are found nowhere else.
 Hereƍs One of the ƏBig OnesƐ

Colossians 1:14
KJV IV
in whom we have
redemption in whom we have
through his redemption, the
blood, even the forgiveness of sins
forgiveness of sins.
It is on the basis of passages such as
this that KJV Only folks have
identified the IV as the Əbloodless
Bible.Ɛ But is such a charge true,
accurate, and honest?
o, it is not. First, any person
studying the passage might note that
Ephesians and Colossians contain
parallel passages. The parallel to
Colossians 1:14 in Ephesians is found
at Ephesians 1:7:
 Ephesians 1:7
KJV IV
In whom we have In him we have
redemption through redemption through
his blood, the his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, forgiveness of sins, in
according to the riches accordance with the
of his grace; riches of God's grace

If the IV was trying to hide the blood,

why include it here??
 In reality the KJV here contains a
reading that goes against not only the
ancient manuscripts, but against the
vast majority of all manuscripts,
including the Byzantine. The earliest
manuscript to contain the added phrase
is from the 9th century. ïll of four
manuscripts, all dating long after the
original writing, contain the reading.
If KJV Only advocates were consistent
with their arguments, they would reject
this reading. Since they do not, they
prove that they are arguing in circles.
This is nowhere more clearly seen than
in the Ətextual emendationƐ found at
Revelation 16:5. Even our hymns have
been impacted by this textual variant.
ïll Greek manuscripts, of whatever
type, agree in reading as the ïSB:
ïnd I heard the angel of the waters
saying, "Righteous are You, who are
and who were, O Holy One, because
You judged these things;
The key phrase is ƏO Holy One.Ɛ
Compare the KJV:
 ïnd I heard the angel of the waters
say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which
art, and wast,
wast, and shalt be, because
thou hast judged thus.
Theodore Beza made a Əconjectural
emendationƐ at this point: thatƍs a
change in the text that has no
manuscript support. He felt that the
text made more sense if it read Əand
shalt beƐ than ƏO Holy One,Ɛ and he
thought the Greek words were similar
enough in form to explain it.
 That is, he felt that these two Greek
words were close enough in form to
allow him to change the text:

$.
$#
$"( $#
So against all manuscript evidence, this
reading persists in the TR today, and
we even sing the song, Əwho wert and
art and evermore shalt beƐ without
knowing our debt to Beza!
Which KJV do you have? ïnd which
one should be the ƏstandardƐ we are
to use?
ïlmost all KJVƍs are actually the
1769 Blayney Revision of the ï
, not
the 1611. But, there are different
kinds of KJ
ƍs. The two most
prevalent are the Oxford and
Cambridge types. How can you tell
which you have? Look at Jeremiah
34:16:
 Oxford Edition Cambridge Edition

But ye turned and But ye turned and

polluted my name, and
caused every man his
servant, and every man
his handmaid, whom he
had set at liberty at their
pleasure, to return, and
brought them into
subjection, to be unto
you for servants and for
handmaids.
polluted my name, and
caused every man his
servant, and every man
his handmaid, whom ye
had set at liberty at their
pleasure, to return, and
brought them into
subjection, to be unto
you for servants and for
handmaids.
Well then, has God preserved His Word
or not? Thatƍs the question KJ
Only
folks always come back to.
Unfortunately, they always seem to
assume that unless you have a perfect
English translation
translation,, you donƍt have a
perfect Bible. Of course, English did
not come into existence until more
than 1,000 years after the last words
of Scripture were written. Hence,
making a perfect English translation
the standard is obviously an error.
 Think of it this way: letƍs say the
Constitution of the US was translated
into the language of a small island in
the Pacific. How much sense would it
make for someone on that island to
take one particular translation of the
Constitution, insist that this one
translation is ƏtheƐ standard, and then
proclaim that unless this translation is
perfect, then no perfect Constitution
exists anywhere? Yet this is exactly
what KJ
Onlyism is saying!
 How, then, has God preserved His
Word? He has done so by making sure
that the ew Testament was so quickly
distributed all over the known world
that there was never a time when any
one man/group/church could gather
up all copies and make wholesale
changes. By the third century entire
manuscripts were already buried: if
major changes were made after that
time, they would be easily detectable
by comparison with those earlier
manuscripts.
This means we can disprove the claims
of those who say the Bible has
undergone wholesale editing and
changes, such as Mormons, Muslims,
atheists, ew ïgers, the Jesus
Seminar, etc.
KJV Onlyism undercuts the most
foundational elements of our defense
of the veracity and accuracy of the
Scriptures, all in an attempt to
establish a Əfinal authorityƐ in an
English translation!
 So what are we to conclude? First and
foremost that we donƍt need conspiracy
theories complicating our lives. There is
no reason to embrace KJ
Onlyism, for it
is a system (a tradition) that must
assume its conclusion to prove its
conclusion. ïs such, it is not something
that Christians, who love the truth, should
wish to embrace.
ext, we recognize that the Lord has
indeed preserved His Word, but He has
done so in a way other than that assumed
by KJ
advocates.
 ïnd finally, that while there are
modern translations that we could
never recommend, it does not follow
that we must go back to a venerable
translation that exists in a language no
one has spoken for hundreds of years.
If we follow the ïpostolic example, we
will give the Word of God to people in a
language that they can understand, not
one that leaves them bewildered.