KJV-Onlyism Page

First, here is a King James Only position that I respect. It is a statement on a web page of a Christian book seller.

<< The great 19th century preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, said: "If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority....We shall gradually be so bedoubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy... and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness." [emphasis mine]

We believe that God has preserved His word perfectly down through the ages (Psalm 12:6-7) so that Christians today can have access to the same word of God that the first century church had. God is no respecter of persons, and He would not leave His people in a situation where they could not completely obey His word because "we don't have the 'original' manuscripts." How can a Christian obey God's word if he's not sure if the Bible he has can be trusted 100%? If there is no perfect, infallible word of God available today, then God has asked His children to do the impossible. In Matthew 4:4, Jesus said to the Devil, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." If there is no perfect Bible available today, then God is asking Christians to do something that they cannot do--obey EVERY WORD. (See also Luke 4:4 and Deut. 8:3.) >>

My Response:

I respect what Spurgeon said, or at least, what he is reported to have said. But the second paragraph, by the web site author, is wishful thinking, and factually wrong. The main point seems to be that if there are several versions with different wording, then it is impossible for us to obey EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. But, this ignores the fact that the same situation existed in the time of Christ and the apostles. The believers then, had at least four versions of the Old Testament that I know of: The Hebrew, The Greek Septuagint (At Least the 5 Books of Moses in Greek, probably more, see below), and the two Aramaic Targums. It seems that many Christians today still don't realize that the majority of Jews of Jesus' day, worldwide, could not understand Hebrew very well, and spoke Aramaic or Greek. Yet they need only look at evidence within the gospels themselves. For example, when Jesus said on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," he said that in Hebrew or Aramaic. Yet, the Jewish bystanders did not even recognize the word for God in Hebrew/Aramaic, let alone the whole sentence. Which they would have recognized if they were not Greek speakers, since Jesus was saying something out of Psalm 22. But instead, the bystanders said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah." (If the bystanders were not Jewish, they would not know about or care about Elijah. They were probably Jewish pilgrims that arrived from Greek-speaking countries, for the days of Unleavened Bread.)

Secondly, the verse quoted, saying "every word" does not strictly mean every "word." The Greek word is ῥήμα - hreema: "upon every ῥήμα - hreema that proceeds from the mouth of God." (Look at Deuteronomy 8:3 in the KJV, and you see that "word" is in italics.) In Hebraistic Greek, ῥήμα was used not only for words or statements, but when combined with the Greek word πᾶν - "pan" as in this verse, it can mean "every matter" or "every thing." Look at how some translations rendered Deuteronomy 8:3 as "everything that comes from the mouth of God." (ASV, JPS, Spanish Reina Valera, YLT, Darby, NASB) And the KJV in Deuteronomy 8:3 has the word "word" in italics, showing you that there is not a Hebrew word for "word" there. The Hebrew does not exactly say "every word" as the above person is understanding it; it just says something like "what proceeds from the mouth of God." So the point is, that scripture does not mean, "every exact syllable or every exact word" necessarily. It certainly means, "every statement" and "every teaching." And the fact that believers during Jesus' day accepted the statements of God worded so many different ways in their 4 versions of the Bible shows that they did not view Deuteronomy 8:3 the way the above person did.

By the way, here is what John R. Rice says on the issue: "The doctrine of infallibility in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.” John R. Rice - The Sword of the Lord March 30, 1979 issue.

Fact: The Septuagint (the translation of at least the five books of Moses into Greek, done a couple hundred years before Christ) was significantly different from the Hebrew, yet the true believers among God's people considered BOTH of them to be the very oracles of God. By the above King James Only reasoning, then, only one of them could have been the "perfect" word of God. But that was not the belief of Christ and the apostles. Thus, King James Onlyism is a new doctrine, and a man-made doctrine, and a false doctrine.

Fact: The New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint quite often. They considered it the Bible, the Word of God. Peter Ruckman and other extreme King James Onlyists spread the myth that the Septuagint did not exist until well after the time of Christ. That is simply false. The Jewish historian Josephus says that there was such a Greek translation of the five Books of Moses, at least that much, in the time of Christ, plus surely also the Psalms. Other books of the Bible were added later by various parties, but a good argument can be made that the Septuagint was done at least as early as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, because they often agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text.

For the Jewish historian Josephus’ detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4.

The fact is that the Septuagint was the one of the main Bible for believers worldwide then, both Jews and Christians. Relatively few people could read the Hebrew scriptures. I believe the Septuagint existing in the time of the apostles contained at least the Pentateuch and the Psalms, because of how quotations of those 6 books in the New Testament line up so well with the Septuagint. See this link which compares NT quotations with the various Old Testament versions of Jesus' times.This kind of KJV only writer also ignores clear translation mistakes in the KJV, mistakes translating even from the Greek texts which KJV onlyists accept. I need to post a list of such mistakes here, and I intend to do that in the near future.As for Charles H. Spurgeon, check out this link for other things he said on Bible versions and inspiration.

Guestbook Entry
"Be careful."
angelyn stevens visited from Genoa OH US

excuse me sir, you may want to be careful about what you take away from the one and only true inspired word of God, KJV 1611. i truely do not want your name taken out of the book of life. love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Messiah, angelyn

My Response

Thank-you. I appreciate that. I will be careful not to take away from the inspired word of God.
Following is what the scriptures do say in Revelation 22:19.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Following is what the scripture does not say in Revelation 22:19.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the KJV translation, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

First of all, John did not write "take away his part out of the "BOOK" of life, but out of the "TREE" of life. The KJV says "book," even though there is not one single Greek manuscript that reads that. H.C. Hoskier says that the reading "book" is found only in manuscripts 57 and 141 (296 & 2049), but he also states that those manuscripts are merely later copies of Erasmus' Textus Receptus themselves! (See the footnote on this verse in my translation of Revelation.) You cannot prove the TR reading is found in Greek Manuscripts by showing that it is found in the TR, later copies of itself. Those two manuscripts are 16th century manuscripts that Erasmus did not even have access to.

The "words of the book of this prophecy" that the apostle John was referring to, were in Greek, were written about the year 95 A.D., and the actual writings have disintegrated, because the earthly material they were written on did not last this long. God did not inspire John to write the King James Version. God inspired John to write the original Apocalypse of John, in Greek, in about 95 A.D.

As for Mark 10:21, if that is what you were referring to, the scribe who added the words "take up the cross" to the gospel of Mark, must have been more familiar with the gospel of Matthew, because he added words to Mark that were in Matthew 19:21. God did not inspire Mark to write the King James Version. What God inspired was the original writings of Mark. The question is, what words were added to the original, by the the copyists down through the centuries.

People who teach that Revelation 22:19 says that anyone who takes away from the words of the KJV will have their names taken away from the Book of Life, could it be that they themselves are the ones who are adding to the Bible? Because that is not what the Bible says. So they are adding to the Bible a teaching that it does not teach.

As for the scribes who added words to the gospel of Mark that were not originally there, will they fall under the curse of Revelation 19:21? I don't think so. They did not add anything to Jesus' mouth that he did not really say. We know Jesus did say those words, from Matthew's account. Still, they should not have added the words to Mark, if Mark did not write them. But it was probably an innocent mistake.

Following is what the scripture says in Revelation 22:18: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

The Textus Receptus, which was translated into the KJV, contains many readings that are very suspect as not being original. Witness the following:1.) Revelation 21:24. The Greek manuscripts say, "And the nations walk around by its light," but the KJV says "And the nations OF THEM WHICH ARE SAVED shall walk in the light of it." (H. C. Hoskier says in vol. 1, at the top of p. 748: "As regards xxi. 24 it is well-known that Erasmus took the commentary reading for his text, and left the real text in the commentary. It is not surprising, as the two sentences are conjoined. Our present MS. [254], however, adopts both clauses as text....There can be no doubt as to this, for his text proper is all in red ink.")

2.) Acts 9:5 "It is hard for you to kick against the pricks."

Regarding Revelation 21:24, and the words "of them which are saved, H. C. Hoskier says in vol. 2, p.74 : "As regards xxi. 24 it is well known that Erasmus took the commentary reading for his text, and left the real text in the commentary. It is not surprising, as the two sentences are conjoined. Our present MS. [251], however, adopts both clauses as text."

KJV Only people protest that people like me, out of one side of my mouth profess that the KJV is the Word of God, and out of the other side say that "not every word in the KJV is the word of God." Well that is true that I say both things, except that I say both of them out of the unabashed center of my mouth. The words "out of the book of life" in the KJV of Rev. 22:19 are not the word of God, yet I can accept that the KJV is the word of God. You see, I accept that no translation of the word of God is perfect. The KJV certainly is not perfect, as I have shown here. KJV onlyists need to accept that. It is a false doctrine that the KJV translation is perfect, or that it is the only English translation approved by God. Or that the Textus Receptus is infallible.

Indeed, when making a translation of the New Testament that is faithful to the Greek manuscripts, we often must take out words that the Textus Receptus has added to the Word of God. The TR and the KJV are chock full of examples of this. Take one verse in Revelation: 2:24. The Textus Receptus adds TWO instances of the Greek word KAI, "and," which are not in the Greek manuscripts. Thus the KJV erroneously reads the extra "and"s.

KJV: But unto you I say, AND unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, AND which have not known the depths of Satan...

Correct: And to the rest of you in Thyatira I say, as many as do not hold to these teachings– the ones who have not known 'the deep things of Satan,'

One might say that this difference is minor, but KJV onlyists are not allowed to say it is minor, because they are ones who say that not one jot or one tittle must be off. And, "things that are different are not the same," etc. They can't have it both ways, and claim their version has no errors when in truth it is full of errors.

Psalm 12:6,7 says God will preserve his words forever. That means they can't keep changing. My AV1611 is the final authority.

My Response:
First of all, even if that passage is talking about God's words, there is nothing in it which speaks of the KJV over any other translation. And if it means the KJV, what did it mean then before 1611, before the KJV first came out? Obviously, this is not referring to the KJV Bible over any other Bible. To say it does, is to be a false teacher.

Secondly, and the main point is, that this verse is not referring to the words of God, but to the people of God. Psalm 12:7 "You will keep them, O Jehovah, You will preserve them from this generation for ever."

The original KJV of 1611 says in a marginal explanatory note that this pronoun, "preserve THEM" is singular in the Hebrew and that it means "him," "preserve HIM." That is, the godly man mentioned in the opening of the Psalm. This "them" therefore is referring to the godly, the poor, and the needy. The Septuagint says "us" here. This verse is clearly not referring to "the words of God," but to the godly person. It is the godly person that David is saying God will preserve. The first verse of the Psalm sets the subject: "Help, O Jehovah; for the godly man ceases; For the faithful fail from among the children of men."

This is one of the main proof texts for KJV Onlyism, and they don't even know what it is saying or means. They deny what the AV1611 itself says it means. This is a prime example of the ignorance, and carnal pride of KJV Onlyists, that they will not be corrected even by the translators of the AV1611! They truly are their own final authority, and the AV1611 is certainly not their final authority.

As for "Final Authority," it has to boil down to this: each person determines what translation or scholar or authority is true and reliable and final for themselves. Some might profess that they are letting a certain set of scholars determine it for them, but that is still YOU YOURSELF determining which scholars are reliable.

If you decide it is only the AV16ll or only the Textus Receptus that is reliable, YOU YOURSELF determined that, or YOU YOURSELF determined which other determiners to believe.

If we say, "The Holy Spirit's Leading" is the final authority, it is still "me and you" who determine what really is the Holy Spirit's leading v. voices from space or rioting synapses or hormones or drugs or Satan or what have you.

If I had my druthers, I would just remain in bed until God struck me blind and deaf or something, and stood in my room and declared to me without all doubt, what Bible version I must exclusively use. I would LOVE it if that happened. Who wouldn't?

But he hasn't, and I have to conclude that all this process, the very process we are engaged in right now discussing these things, is what God wanted us to be exercised in. Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

An email from a reader
Ron wrote: << I am an adult Sunday school, Bible discussion leader in a United Methodist Church. Multi translations are used in my discussion class. ... I minister to homeless persons and have been hit with "the original KJV is the only true Bible and all of the rest are the works of the devil". What do you say to these guys who have been so indoctrinated? One person really gave me a hard time and said I was not fit to teach from the Bible of Satan. That almost did me in. My faith keeps me going in this ministry ....... It ain't easy! Great stuff, and thanks! Ron >>

My response:
Dear Ron, Thank-you for your email. I have been made very sad many times by the same type of people. You asked me what I say to them. The problem is, it is necessary to say a long list of historical and technical things to them, but those people are not of the spirit to wait and learn and listen. So you can't tell them facts. The key is something you already said: "They almost did me in." Ron, who is it that wants to do your faith in? It is Satan. So now, I have reluctantly concluded, that the thing to say to those people is, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" By saying that to them, you are not telling them they are not Christians. Jesus said that to Peter, and He knew Peter was a believer. But Peter was saying things that were very harmful to Jesus' faith. And he had to be stopped in his tracks. If they seem open to you after that, then reason with them like this. Tell them that there are millions of Christians now, here and around the world, whose faith came from reading the NIV, or the New King James, or the NASB. Tell them that their words could DESTROY the faith of those little ones who belong to Jesus, whose faith came from reading other versions. Ask them, what does the KJV say about those "who cause any of these little ones who believe in me, to stumble"? Go with the peace of Jesus

Assertion: The KJV is the only English translation authorized by God and inspired by God.

Response: The translators of the KJV themselves, in their original preface to the KJV, entitled "The Translators to the Reader," recently re-published by Thomas Nelson & Co., have this to say:

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. "

(By the "very meanest" translation, they meant the most humble, common, or mediocre. They were speaking of all translations of the Bible in general, not about their own translation specifically.) They clearly did not believe that the King James Version was the only, last, and final Word of God for the English language.

Neither did they believe that their translation work was perfect. They said, "A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

They clearly stated that neither was their work perfect, nor did they as men have the privilege of infallibility. They were in a position to know this, since they knew each other, and they knew what was involved in Bible translation. Therefore this belief that the KJV translators' work was perfect, and that they were infallible, is a false belief.

Concerning the issue of whether there are other valid ways to translate Greek words than the way they themselves did it, they had this to say:

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

Amen! A variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures. Amen.

And it looks to me like they believed it was possible for themselves as translators to have made a mistake.

And as they said elsewhere: "For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables?" I urge us all to emulate the humility and reasonableness of the translators of the KJV.

You can actually view one of the original KJV's marginal notes, on the web. It is a marginal note indicating that they included the verse Luke 17:36, even though they admit in the margin that most of the Greek manuscripts did not have it. To see that, click here, then click the Back arrow at the upper left of your screen.

This is one of the most amazing of all the KJV Onlyist beliefs, because the truth is so completely the opposite. For example, the most influential scholar producing the Greek text edition from which the King James Version was translated, was a Roman Catholic, Erasmus.

Then you have the fact that there are passages in the King James Version that come from the Latin Vulgate, and not the Greek texts.

It can also easily be shown that the King James Version uses "high church" political terminology, that these very King James Onlyists would normally object to, since many King James Onlyists are Baptists and other groups that protested the "high church" denominations. An example of KJV high church terminology is the word "bishop."

The King James Onlyists sound exactly like Roman Catholics a lot of the time. I will give an example, a quotation from a web site written by a Roman Catholic apologist, instructing Roman Catholics on how to talk to "Bible Christians." It lays down ground rules, and Rule Number One is:

1. Before discussing the Bible with them, tell them that the King James version is the only acceptable Protestant version of the Bible. Normally they will not object to this, unless they are incredibly unlearned. Insisting on the King James version merely makes you seem a little fundamentalist. This version has a more correct translation than other Protestant versions. If they insist on using their version, have them compare I John 5:7 in their version with the same verse in the King James version. The comparison should convince them. If not, they are probably those whom St. Peter calls "willfully ignorant (II Peter 3:5)." They probably will not listen to anything you have to say. >>

The main reason this Roman Catholic prefers the KJV is that it contains Roman Catholic words like "bishop."

<< correct translation is "bishop." However, you find episkopous translated correctly in I Timothy 3:1>>

By the way, for a discussion of the textial variant in 1 John 5:7, read this PDF.

Assertion: The Alexandrian text type was tampered with by Origen and others, to put Gnostic and other heresies into the scriptures.

My response: Show me one instance of a heresy present in the Alexandrian text type. This is how I respond to those who make this assertion, and none of them can give me an example. (That's because there are none.) Conclusion: Such KJV onlyists are deceivers. They are lying about and slandering the current editions of the Greek New Testament, and the lifelong work of many godly Christian scholars and Bible lovers. In short, such King James Onlyists are guilty of the sins of : (1) hate for their brother; (2) lying (3) slander (4) railing (5) pride and unteachableness, and (6) the yeast of the Pharisees. On top of all that, they are not repentant, and they are not "easy to be entreated." They have a wisdom that comes from below, an earthly, devilish wisdom, with tongues set on fire of hell.

The fact is, the Alexandrian text could be said to be MORE ORTHODOX than the majority text. For example, John 1:18 in the Majority text says "the only begotten son," whereas the Alexandrian text says, "God the Only Son."

Conversely, the Majority text contains inauthentic passages like Mark 16:18, "they shall pick up serpents," that encourage such weird, cultic practices as snake handling, whereas the Alexandrian texts do not contain this passage.

One web site said: Concerning how to tell if you have the Authorized King James Version, [1] if it doesn't say Authorized (a word that liberal "Christians" don't like. I'm not surprised they took it off the title page) it should at least [2] say conformable to the edition of 1611. As a third check you can [3] take selected AKJV scriptures and compare them with your Bibles. I'd take some verses with ye's and thee's to compare. Even if it has the ye's, I'd look at 2 Timothy 3:17 to make sure they didn't change "throughly" to "thoroughly".

Response: The word "authorized" there means that it was the official version authorized for the Church of England, by the head of the Church of England. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England. Now that King James, the then head of the Church of England, is dead, should the current head of that church, Queen Elizabeth, be the one to decide which version is authorized? Or, since Christian pilgrims came here to America in order to escape the Church of England, should it be Bill Clinton who authorizes Bible translations for us?

The same web site said: Even if it has the ye's, I'd look at 2 Timothy 3:17 to make sure they didn't change "throughly" to "thoroughly".

Response: Is she saying that the only inspired English Bible has to have misspelling? Is correcting misspellings a work of Satan? Are we to conclude that God speaks bad English, and Satan speaks good English? (Archaic spellings are misspellings. If you spelled thoroughly as "throughly" in school, you would be marked down for it. If you spelled it "throughly" in your newspaper column, it would get corrected before printing time.)

Assertion: The modern Bible versions changed the word of God, to take away the deity of Christ.

Here is another change in the KJV that needs to be considered. This particular change is not a matter of variant readings, this is a translational issue and yet another case where the KJV changed God's word as preserved in His Standard.

Consider these translations of 2 Peter 1:1:

Geneva: "Simeon Peter the seruant and Apostle of Iesus Christ, to them which have obtayned lyke precious faith with vs by the rightuousnes of OUR GOD AND SAUIOUR IESUS CHRIST:"

Rheims: "Simon Peter seruant and Apostle of Iesvs Christ, to them that haue obtained equal faith vvith vs in the justice of OUR GOD AND SAUIOUR IESVS CHRIST."

NIV: "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus christ, To those who through the righteousness of OUR GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST have received a faith as precious as ours:"

KJV: "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR JESUS Christ:"

Now, this one is very interesting. In the interest of time and space, I did not quote Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Cranmer who all translated the phrase I have emphasized in capital letters, the same way as these I did quote. Wycliffe and Rheims represent God's word in His Standard, the Latin Vulgate. Tyndale, Cranmer and Geneva represent God's word in His Standard, the TR (in English translations). This is a case where the KJV translators have changed God's word, whether you consider the LV the standard, or the TR the standard! And this change actually de-emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ, where the others make the deity of Jesus Christ perfectly clear.

Why did the KJV translators make this change? Did they doubt God's word? Did they doubt the deity of Jesus Christ? Were they trying to downplay His deity? Is this evidence of Satan tampering with the text? I know only know this fact: the KJV had a margin note that said this: "Gk, of our God and Saviour". I have a KJV that includes the margin notes. I believe them to be the original notes, possibly with the later additions by one of the later revisors. This note was not added by someone influenced by the modern translations because this particular copy of the KJV predates the modern translations. If the note is not one of the original notes, the original translators are not off the hook because at least 5 earlier English translations agreed with the margin note. If the note is not one of the original notes, then it was added during one of the revisions, yet, the revisors, knowing that this was the literal translation of the Greek, let the lesser translation stand.

Brent, if your criteria for acceptance of a translation rides on whether or not a translation has changed the text of the Standard, whatever the standard, (LV or TR) then I have given ample proof that the KJV is also guilty of changing the standard. I know, other than this verse, I have not given evidence that the KJV changed the standard found in the TR but, I can do so, and I did already at the Yahoo club some time ago. You need to either change your criteria, or admit that the KJV does not meet the criteria and must be rejected. I repeat, I am not trying to get you to reject the KJV. I am merely trying to show that the KJV does not meet your standards of acceptance any more than any modern translation.

If your criteria includes changing doctrine, or downplaying the deity of Jesus, then, once again, the KJV does not meet the standard. I have shown ample evidence here, too.

Once again, I am not trying to get anyone to reject the KJV. I am merely trying to show that claims made against the modern translations can be truthfully made against the KJV. If one translation should be considered to be excluded as the word of God based on these claims, then the KJV must also be excluded. We must realize that either the KJV must also be excluded, or we need to find truthful criteria that can be consistently applied. As it stands now, there is no reason to exclude modern translations that are faithfully and truthfully translated.

My Response:
First, the definition of "revise".
American Heritage Dictionary, Standard Edition:
1. To prepare a newly edited version of (a text).
2. To reconsider and change or modify.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
1. to look over again in order to correct or improve, for example, a manuscript
2. to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of

So yes, the King James Version has been revised. There have been several revisions, in 1629, 1638, 1653, 1701, 1762, 1769, and two more, the last three by Dr. Blayney of Oxford. These varied in about 75,000 details, making changes, for example, in orthography and spelling. The orthography of a language is the letters and symbols used to represent the sounds. The KJV that people read today is a revision made in the 1800's. If you found a copy actually printed in 1611, you would have to slog through some strange symbols. For example, the "s" sound was represented by "f." There have been many, many spelling changes since 1611; for example, musick to music; olde to old, etc. The letter "u" in 1611 was "v", and the letter "v" was "u." See the section on this site responding to the assertion that the KJV is the only English version authorized and inspired by God. There you will find actual quotes from the KJV translators that show old spellings of English words. And, click here to see a photograph of the first page of Luke chapter 10 from an original King James Version.

It seems unreasonable to say that the updates of the English done to the KJV up to 1881 are good and inspired by God, but to revise the English subsequent to 1881, is "heresy" or "a work of Satan" or "new age."

Here is a link to a web page that lists and details some differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV as compared to the 1769 Blayney revision. These differences are not merely spelling and orthography; they are differences in words that change the meaning of the verses.

The fact is, also, that the King James Version itself was only a revision. It was a revision of the Bishop's Bible. At the time, the most popular version of the Bible among lay fundamentalists was the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible irritated both the clergy of the Roman Catholic church and of Church of England, and King James I of England, alike. The Bishop's Bible had been made in reaction to the popularity of the Geneva Bible among Protestant dissidents. When King James I commissioned the Authorized King James Version, these instructions were issued: that they should follow the text of the Bishop's Bible unless they found that the translations of Tyndale, Matthew (John Rogers), Whitchurche, and Geneva more closely agreed with the original text. And that original Greek text edition that the KJV translators consulted, was taken and edited from only a few if any of the best available texts of the 12th to 15th centuries, since it followed the 1516 and 1522 editions of Erasmus' Greek text. Since the KJV used the Bishop's Bible as its main base, that means it kept many old ecclesiastical words from the Catholic tradition, and many Latinisms, or Latin idioms translated into English.

But thanks be to God, God has raised up servants of his who have continued to update the English Bible. Noah Webster did a revision of the KJV. Then in England the Revised Version was a revision of the King James Version, and the American Standard Version was the revision of the KJV in America. Then came the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. These are essentially revisions of the King James Version. And both the NASB and the RSV are good. In fact, if you wanted a good translation that is accepted by all the people of God in all camps, it would be the Revised Standard Version. A few conservatives may quibble about a couple words in it here and there, but I could show them more words in the New International Version than in the RSV, that would be more worth the quibbling. And God's servants who have produced these benefits of modern translations for us have certainly suffered persecution for doing so; and unfortunately the persecution comes from people who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Statement: The MOTIVE of those who point out problems with the King James Version, is to destroy people's faith in the Bible. Instead of being Bible-correctors, people should be Bible obeyers.

Response: The translators of the King James Version were themselves "Bible correctors." When they did their translation, there were already a half dozen translations of the Bible into English. So, they "changed the Bible." Now why would they make another translation of the Bible into English, unless they thought there was need to correct and improve? One of the reasons they stated, for their doing a new translation, was to make the Bible "more current." Those modernists! :) I assume they meant to update the English, and to take advantage of new knowledge in textual criticism. Yes, the KJV translators were also textual critics. That means, they involved themselves in picking and choosing which text had the reading closest to the original, in any particular passage. That means they had to involve themselves in picking and choosing which texts to follow. Sometimes they chose a reading that differed from the "Textus Receptus."

One of the primary false beliefs such KJV-only people have, is that God has chosen the King James Version as the only translation authorized in the English language, and therefore contains no translation mistakes, and also must be based on the best possible Greek manuscripts. As a result, they take a criticism of THAT ONE TRANSLATION as an attack on God, and on his word, as if the King James Version were God's word itself. Jesus Christ is the Word, and he is not paper and ink. He never changes, and never errs.

When has God ever told us that he chose the King James Version over all other translations into English, and that this one translation contains no human errors? They state this as if it were gospel truth. But, it is a great evil to say, "Thus saith the Lord," when the Lord did not say it. In the Old Testament, if a prophet said "Thus says the Lord," and it turned out the Lord had not said it, he was to be stoned to death. Yet, these people turn it around, and say to anyone who challenges this false belief, "You are another serpent, who is saying, 'Hath God really said?'" Brothers and sisters, we are to test every spirit, to see whether it is of God. Test this belief that the King James Version is the only translation into English approved by God, and you must find it false. You can like it best, and read it of course. But do not dare declare as if speaking for God, that it is the only one approved by God.

Yes, I know, they will say that it says in Psalms, "Thy word is perfect." Amen. Note that it does not say, "The King James Version is perfect." But you see, because of their false circular reasoning, you run into their brick wall false belief, that the King James Version IS the only Word of God. So therefore they believe this verse means, "The King James Version is perfect." Well, if a person weak in the faith, or a new convert is saying this, it is not wise perhaps to argue with them. But Christian leaders and pastors should know better, and not be spreading this falsehood.

Assertion: The AV (Authorized Version or King James Version) is our final authority.

The scripture says, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God..." Romans 8:14

Note that it does not say, "As many as are led by the AV, they are the sons of God."

It doesn't matter which version you use, without the Spirit's leading, none of the versions do any good.

But with the Spirit's leading, they all can be used of God.

<< 1. HOW is God our authority? Is it by direct revelation? Signs in the sky? Inner voice? How do we appeal to God as our final authority? For example when there is a heated debate as to which version to believe, how does our final authority (God) tell us? How does He answer us? >>

You are a missionary, and you don't know these things? The wind blows where it wills. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it is coming from, or where it is going. Such is everyone born of the Spirit. Only you can learn this, in your own personal walk with God.

<< 2. All religions, pagan religions included, have God as their final authority. What's the difference? Don't followers of Islam have God as their final authority? >>

The difference is, Christians are "led by the Spirit of God." That is the point here. Are you saying Muslims worship the true God? Are they led by the Spirit of the true God? Muslims are also "people of the book." But are they led by the Spirit? Jesus told the Pharisees, "You diligently search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life. And these are scriptures that point to Me." Scriptures point to Jesus, the living Word. He is the word.

<< 3. I thought the SCRIPTURES were the final authority in all matters of FAITH AND PRACTICE? >>

You did? I thought you maintain that the AV is the final authority in all matters of FAITH AND PRACTICE.

The Holy Spirit is our final authority. If not, all we have is opinions, your opinion, my opinion. Jesus spoke with noticeable authority. He quoted the same scriptures that the Pharisees quoted. What was the difference between Jesus quoting the scriptures, and the Pharisees quoting the scriptures? The Holy Spirit was the difference.

<< Is it really your intent to appeal to things that God "uses" for authority in matters of faith and practice?

God can and does use any version. He is not limited by our stupidity. He can USE a drunk to put the fear of God in a cellmate (in jail). He can USE a donkey to rebuke a prophet and a lying spirit to guide a deluded king. This is not to say we should appeal to drunks, donkey's and lying spirits for guidance in matters of faith and practice. This debate is not about what God can and cannot use. It is about which English Bible is our final authority in matters of faith and practice. >>

As to the debate about which English Bible is our final authority, there is nothing that says that that question has to be decided! You first have to convince me that this question must be answered at all. God has not led me to find out which SINGLE translation is THE authority. Now if you say that God says the AV is the single authority, you put words in God's mouth, and you are a false prophet.

Are you saying the NASB is a donkey, or drunkard? I think you lack respect for your fellow believers.

Statement: The New Age PERversions remove the name Jehovah from Exodus 6:3, as found in the KJV.

Response: This word "JEHOVAH" is translated in Exodus 6:3 in the King James Version, from the Hebrew YHVH, also known as the "Tetragrammaton," (this is Greek for "four-letter word") or the four-letter name of God. For the most part, the King James Version and most all other English translations, read "the LORD" with the word "Lord" in all capitals, to translate the Hebrew YHVH. I don't know why the KJV translators rendered YHVH into Jehovah in that one verse, Exodus 6:3, but not most all the other verses. I found the word Jehovah in the KJV only 4 times: in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4. But that makes no sense, since the tetragrammaton, YHVH, occurs 6039 times in 5222 verses in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew scriptures. . Wherever you see "the LORD" with Lord in all capitals, it should say Yahveh or such like instead.

But neither is this translation "The LORD" correct. This is all a result of the people of Israel refusing to pronounce God's name, for fear of taking his name in vain. Thus, they forgot how it was originally pronounced. A few priests perhaps knew how to pronounce it, for very special ceremonies. (But God never commanded his people to refrain from uttering his name, only to not utter it in vain.) By the time the Nakdan and Masorete scribes produced the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures, it was a totally accepted practice to say "the Lord" or something other than the real name.

Some people believe God's name probably sounds something like "Yahweh," or "Yahwah," for various reasons, one of which is that the Samaritans, who had no belief against uttering the Name, pronounced it that way. Others believe that the vowels to the traditional "Jehovah" are correct. There is good scholarly basis for that, such as Davidson's treatment of the subject in the Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. It means something like "I am because I am," or, "I always am," or, "I am what I will be." Or simply: "I Am."

But the bottom line is, if Gail Riplinger is going to condemn Bible translations that take out the name Jehovah, she should just as well condemn the King James Version, since that version takes it out practically as much as the others. Here is a Bible version that has all the Yahweh's in it, every one. It is a Microsoft Word 97 for Windows document; it is a 1.7 MB zip file, and 6 MB after unzipping. A PDF (Adobe Reader) edition is also available from this link.

Assertion: Modern translations take away from the Word of God, like taking out John 7:53 thru 8:11.

My Response:
Here is an email I just got from someone who downloaded and read my translation of the gospel of John. It was entitled "Textual problems???"

<< I have a question, did your trnslation end somwhere towards the 8th chaper of John.? For some reason my Word -pad document ended righ arround there, Please comment! >>

I looked in my copy of it, and it doesn't end there. There's 21 chapters. You're pulling my leg, right? I have a footnote about it, right? Does yours not have the footnote?

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph B L N T W X Y Delta Theta Psi 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc,s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (italic manuscripts a,1,*,q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.
When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive."

On the style of Greek, I agree that it is true that John 7:53 to 8:11 are not written in the style of John. You can check it out yourself and see that it is true. For example, John does not use the Greek word "de" near as often as Luke or Mark, but in this passage, it is found MUCH more often than in the rest of John.

Out of the other 867 verses in the gospel of John, the word "de" is found 203 times, or in an average of 23% of the verses, while in these 12 verses, John 7:53 to 8:11, the word "de" is found 11 times, or an average of 92% of the verses.

"A final factor makes the unjohannine nature of the incident certain. Numerous terms, while common in the synoptics, appear nowhere else in John.[17] Unconscious syntax stands out as well. Sentences are connected with DE in the pericope (vv 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) and this is unparalleled in John (for every five uses of de in Matthew, John has two).
Together these items result in a consensus of opinion among scholars. The internal evidence makes it clear that the passage is foreign to its present setting and interrupts it. Most likely, it is not even Johannine."

A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11), Gary M. Burge (assistant professor of Bible and religion at King College in Bristol, Tennessee.) (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 27, p 144. June, 1984; 2002).

As for DE suddenly occurring “much more frequently”, this is not the only place in John where a run of DE’s happens to occur. Cf. DE in Jn 2:17, 21, 23, 24; 3:1; cf. also DE in Jn 3:18, 19, 21, 23; cf. also DE in Jn 3:29, 30, 36, 4:4, 6; cf. also DE in Jn 6:3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12; cf. also 7:2, 6, 7, 9, 10. Basically there is not much difference, and John simply fluctuates in his usage at different points.

Again, the Pericope contains 11 instances of DE in 12 verses. But the examples given above are:

4 instances in 10 verses. ( I don't accept the 2:17 instance; it is not in my Greek New Testaments.)

4 times in 6 verses. This is a lot, but the impact of this sampling is lessened because its 6 verses is such a small sample of verses compared to the 12 verses of the Pericope, one half the number of verses.

5 times in 10 verses. ( I don't accept the 6:11 instance; it is not in my Greek New Testaments.)

The Pericope is just 12 verses. Out of the other 867 verses in the gospel of John, the word DE is found 203 times, or in an average of 23% of the verses, while in just these 12 verses, John 7:53 to 8:11, the word DE is found 11 times, or an average of 92% of the verses. That is almost once per verse. The examples this person gives show about one half the rate of increase of DE's as does the Pericope. What he must be trying to say is that John fluctuates in his frequency of the use of DE a few times, and this Pericope of the Adulteress just happens to be the most extreme example of such a fluctuation.

But you see, add to this the sudden increase of participial phrases, which John just does not use as often as other NT writers, and add other non-Johannine traits, and it all adds up to being non-Johannine in my mind. Again, it is a whole different thing when you have been reading and meditating on John in the pure Greek for months, then you come to this passage, it is very different, and I believe it is not John.

Here are more arguments showing how the passage is not like John's writing. In addition, it discusses other external evidence like church father quotations.

There is no doubt in my mind that John 7:53 to 8:11 was not written by the apostle John. Thus, my translation gives a footnote as to why, and has the story in the back. Does your copy have it in the back? My translation of John can be downloaded directly by clicking here.

My Response: Anecdotally, this is definitely not the case. Take any group of 100 people and have them read the book of Leviticus in both the New International Version and the King James Version. I guarantee you the vast majority, if not every single one of them, would tell you that the NIV is easier to read.

I have a software program called "Grammatik," a grammar, style, and spelling checker for the Macintosh. I took the passage John 6:1 - John 7:52 out of the KJV, the NIV, and the DRP (my own translation), and ran the program to analyze for readability, and to get word statistics. To make it a pure test, I first removed extraneous items like subject headings and verse numbers. Thus only the actual English writing of the actual words of scripture is analyzed. Here are the results. It is a less than perfect test, since it takes only a small sample, but I did enough typing as it is!

Flesch Reading Ease: KJV- 85; NIV-85; DRP-82
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: KJV- 5; NIV- 5; DRP- 6
Gunning's Fog Index: KJV- 8; NIV- 8; DRP- 9
No. of Sentences: KJV- 164; NIV- 163; DRP- 164
Words in Sentences: KJV- 15.2; NIV- 14.9; DRP- 15.7
No. of Words: KJV- 2,500; NIV- 2,436; DRP- 2,579
Letters in Words: KJV- 3.96; NIV- 3.9; DRP- 3.98
Syllables in Words: KJV- 1.26; NIV- 1.26; DRP- 1.29

Of course, the software is limited by its programmed parameters. It does not know, for example, that people no longer speak adding the "eth" suffix for present tense, and therefore might find that hard to understand. Nor does it realize that many people do not understand words like "whither," or "even" meaning "evening." It also probably does not know what to do with oddities of the KJV, like how it often violates rules of English grammar.

For example, it capitalizes words that are not at the beginning of a sentence: (John 6:16-17) And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea, And entered into a ship,

And on the other hand, it does NOT capitalize words that ARE at the beginning of a sentence: (John 6:42) And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (John 6:68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

And it uses incorrect parts of speech, like an adjective modifying a verb, instead of an adverb doing so. (John 7:8) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

Furthermore, in the KJV, the scripture is put at the mercy of the verse numbers that were not inspired by God, but added much later. Thus, the verse numbers break up sentences, and break up the flow of thought. This is because the KJV makes every verse a new paragraph, even though a new verse is often still part of the same sentence as the previous verse! On the other hand, the formation of true paragraphs along with the addition of subject headings in newer translations, makes the line of thought easier to follow.

- chambering (Rom 13:13)
- churl (Isa 32:7)
- cockatrice (Isa 11:8)
- cotes (2 Chr 32:28)
- wot (Rom 11:2)
- wist (Acts 12:9)
- sackbut (Dan 3:5)
- brigadine (Jer 46:4)
- amerce (Deut 22:19)
- crookbackt (Lev 21:20)
- habergeon (Job 41:26)
- the scall (Lev 13:30)
- superfluity of naughtiness (James 1:21)
(Examples from Dr. Ed. Palmer.)

Here is an example of where the KJV wording means something the precise OPPOSITE of what was intended if read by a modern reader:

[2 Thess 2:7 KJV] ...he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

[2 Thess 2:7 NIV] ...the one who now holds it back will continue to do
so until he is taken out of the way.

Some more examples (from Jack Lewis). What do these verses seem to say to a modern reader?

First check out this link to Wayne Leman's Bible version poll results. The poll question is Which English Bible version has wordings closest to how you normally speak and write?

http://vote.sparklit.com/poll.spark?pollID=896555

According to this poll, 10% of the people voting claim that the King James Version is the English Bible version that has wordings closest to how they normally speak and write. According to the poll results at the time I posted this, there had been 4,000 votes, so that makes 400 people.

Did these 400 people:

1.) honestly have the opinion that the KJV is written in the manner in which they themselves speak and write every day?

2.) constitute illiterate people who could not read the poll instructions?

3.) vote dishonestly in order to promote their agenda?

One web site responds to the following email from Jerry Falwell: FALWELL'S SECOND E-MAIL TO OUR READER

Subject: Re: TV show- 8/15/98 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:50:49 EDT From: TallOaksVA@aol.com

S-----, I did misunderstand you. I agree...The KJV is the best of the versions, in my opinion. But, I am unwilling to say that all Bibles prior to 1611... or all Bibles in other than the English language... are inferior. God bless. Jerry Falwell

The web site author responds: "Didn't nobody ask him about Bibles before 1611 and didn't nobody ask him about foreign language Bibles. The question was about modern ENGLISH corruptions. He is so scared of what people will think of him that he WON'T think straight. He purposely side-steps the issue. Anybody who is looking for the truth, cannot help but see that there ain't no comparison between the King James Bible and the modern corruptions. Mr. Jerry "Sellout" Falwell, instead of evading the issue, you need to take a good look at the facts and stop worrying about what your followers (or should I say customers?) will think or say. Sellout.

Response: She appears to believe that sinister workers of Satan have removed words from the Greek text, out of theological bias. But in fact, the opposite can usually be shown to be true. Generally speaking, the authentic Greek reading is the shorter one, and monks both unintentionally, or intentionally with a theological axe to grind, added words to the Greek text that they were reproducing. For example, the apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:18 against those whose puffed up minds have imaginations about angels, and worship angels. Some passages about angels were added to the Greek text later. See these examples: Luke 22:43-44; John 5:4.

Or another way that things got added to the text was that notes, comments, or reminders written to the side of a manuscript, got mistakenly copied into the manuscript by the scribe who was copying it.

But concerning translations into other languages, this sister SHOULD be considering them, because they are completely pertinent. Here is how. She is of the belief that only the Textus Receptus edition of the Greek manuscripts is correct, and that the others (the United Bible Societies' 4th Edition, and the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition) are works of Satan, and thus also translations based on them, such as the New American Standard, are works of Satan, and that people who advocate them, are workers of Satan. But what she does not realize, is that she has in effect labeled the vast majority of Christian missionaries today, as workers of Satan. You see, there are 5,000 languages in the world, requiring their own Bible translation. And since Revelation 5:9 says that the church consists of believers from all languages and tribes, God's people are making an effort to translate God's word into every one of those 5,000 languages. The two largest organizations involved in this translation effort, are Wycliffe Bible Translators, and New Tribes Mission. Since I myself have been trained by both those organizations, and am personally acquainted with many of their Bible translators (my parents being two of them), I know that what I am going to tell you is true. These organizations do not use only the Textus Receptus as their basis for their work of translating the Bible into those other languages. Many of those missionaries use the UBS and Nestle-Aland editions, or English translations such as the New American Standard, and other translations based on the UBS and N-A Greek editions.

I think this sister would agree with me, that it is a work of the Holy Spirit to take the gospel and God's word to every tribe and language in the world. And Christ IS building his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But she has, unwittingly perhaps, labeled this effort, or at least those doing the effort, as "workers of Satan" and "reprobate humans." I urge her and all others of her opinion, in the name of Jesus our Lord, to ponder Mark 3:21-30. There, some humans stated that Jesus' work of casting out demons, was the work of Satan. And Jesus said that by crediting Satan for a work that was actually being done by the Holy Spirit, they had committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and would never be forgiven for it. Shouldn't you be more hesitant before you label people "workers of Satan" and "sellouts" and "reprobate humans?" Because I tell you, it appears to finite, human me, that she and others are in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, if not already doing it. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Like I said, I personally know many, many Bible translators who are doing God's work of Bible translation, and not using only the Textus Receptus. For people to call them workers of Satan, or reprobate humans, is truly mistaken. I know these Bible translators, and I know they are led by the Holy Spirit. I cannot say the same about many of the "KJV-only" people I have met. Some of them are very mean, and malicious. And, in my opinion, ignorant and prideful. The Bible tells us that malice and pride are works of the flesh, not of the Spirit. Also, divisiveness is not a work of the Holy Spirit, but of Satan.

If you believe the UBS and NA Greek editions of the Greek text are "hybrid mixtures," don't you know that the Textus Receptus also is a hybrid mixture? You see, of the roughly 5,000 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, not one is identical to any other.

This one is not really a rebuttal, but, At 08:45 AM 5/12/00 Joe Trinkle of Australia wrote:

Dear Brother Dave, Thanks so much for taking the time to reply to me on the KJO issue. I am glad to hear you say that it is passe to assume that new versions rely heavily on Westcort and Hort (and therefore also the 2 codexes).

Well, I wouldn't quite say I said that. What I said was that the modern Greek editions differ quite a lot from the Westcott and Hort text; but the modern Greek editions like the United Bible Societies' 4th Edition, are still closer to Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus than is the Majority text, and also the Textus Receptus.

Here is an example of where my translation of the gospel of Luke differs from the text of Westcott and Hort. Mine includes Luke 24:12, whereas Westcott and Hort's text deletes that verse. Also, the Alexandrian texts are erroneous in the genealogies, in both Matthew and Luke. Mine follow the "Majority Text" in those instances.

I have been trying to look into the issues, and a lot of KJO material seens to attack the credibility of the codexes (ie some suggest Origen tampered with them etc).

I view what they say with great skepticism. I have read some of the main books by some of their main spokespeople, and was not at all impressed with their evidence, or even with their carefulness to only tell the truth. That said, I do not really know whether Origen tampered with the two codices or not; I suppose it is possible, but I doubt it.

I do know, however, that Origen was responsible for some of the readings of the Textus Receptus, where that differs from Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. For example, in John 1:28, the Textus Receptus says "Bethabara" where the Critical Text says "Bethany." Origen himself comments on this, that he wanted to standardize the text as Bethabara, even though, he admits, "most manuscripts say Bethany." He did this for two reasons, one, that he could find no village named Bethany that was beyond the Jordan river, and two, that he liked the Hebrew etymology of Bethabara better. (He was mistaken about the etymology.)

So people must realize that the Textus Receptus and the King James Version are not always based on the Majority Text. Another way that the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text in John chapter one, is that the TR has 52 verses, and both the Majority Text and the Critical Text have 51 verses. Also keep in mind, that the people who yell the loudest about these issues are usually the people who know the least about it.

I do wonder though, just how much the codexes are used in textual criticism. - ie are they given more authority/credibility because of their age than the majority text group manuscript?

Yes, they are given authority/credibility because of their age. Yet, they clearly have some erroneous readings, but so do the Byzantine "majority" manuscripts. (Codex Sinaiticus has MANY blunders; but of the obvious kind; that is, we can often still tell what was meant to be there.) It is not an "either / or" situation, as far as as the Alexandrian versus the Byzantine text streams. The strong point of these two codices is that they resisted the adding of material from apocryphal sources, unlike what you find in the Byzantine stream. For example, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus do not contain the part in John 5:4 about the angel taking a bath in the pool (as if angels take baths!). Then, some manuscripts a little later than these two, say at the end of verse 3, and then also add verse 4: "..., waiting for the movement of the water. For an angel of the Lord from time to time would bathe in the pool, and stir up the water. So the first one getting down in after the stirring of the water would be healed, whatever disease he had formerly been afflicted with." Then manuscripts subsequent to those, appear to have replaced the clearly absurd "bathing" by the angel with "an angel would come down into," in place of "would bathe in.." There should not be any doubt that this passage was not in the original gospel of John.

The Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were done in the 4th century, in all capital letters, no spaces between words and sentences, and little or no punctuation. It was easier to make mistakes in that circumstance, than later in centuries. Also, there was more persecution stressing the copyist. In addition, in the 4th century the Greek language had changed much in pronunciation since the time of Christ. The scribes of Sinaitucs and Vaticanus had to deal with more "allophones," that is, different vowels and dipthongs that were now pronounced the same, but different in meaning and part of speech. So when one person read the original manuscript to the scribe who was writing down a copy, it was easier to make a mistake in hearing/receiving what had been meant in the saying.

One thing the KJV-only people seem to ignore is that the number of N.T. Greek manuscripts that are older than the "majority text," is not at all limited to just those two codices. The Bodmer Papyri, such as Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, and the Chester Beatty papyri, agree pretty much with those two codices against the majority text, and these papyri are even older than the codices. We have one papyrus, Papyrus 52, that is dated the year 125. That is older than the oldest manuscript of the majority text by several hundred years. Surely this great a difference in age has to count for something.

I personally give the two codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus some weight, because of the fact that they have resisted the additions made to the text by other manuscripts. For example, the passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery, also known as the Pericope of the Adulteress, of John 7:53 - 8:11 is not found in these two codices. This is impressive to me when it comes to reliability, since there is no doubt in my mind that the apostle John did not author this passage. For proof of this, see the end note in my translation of the gospel of John, which can be downloaded by clicking here.

What do you make of the reliability of the codexes? Is it true that sinaticus (i think) has had some 10 different people modify
it at different times?

Codex Sinaiticus and Papyrus 66 were indeed "corrected" several times. This is not a secret. The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament shows clearly in footnotes when the original readings of Codex Sinaiticus or Papyrus 66 differ from the "first corrector" and the "second corrector, etc. " Praise God for modern textual forensics: the technology exists and is put to use, such as chemical reagents and ultra-violet lamps, to detect what was originally written on the vellum or papyrus, versus what was written on it after the original was rubbed out. There is no need for fear of conspiracies to cover this up, or fear that we cannot know what was originally on these manuscripts. As to the number of "10 different people modifying" them, there is difference of opinion among scholars as to the number of correctors. Somewhere from 3 to 10. By the way, many of the older manuscripts that are the basis of the "Majority Text" also have correctors.

Is it true that one of the 2 codexes was available to the KJ translators but they refused to use it on grounds of unreliability?

No, not true. That is a fiction invented by KJV-only people. None of the manuscripts available to the KJ translators was older than the 10th century. Codex Siniaticus, for example, was discovered in 1859, so the KJV translators certainly did not have access to that one. The KJV translators did not have access to the Bodmer Papyri, or the Chester Beatty papyri. There is evidence that Erasmus was given a list of some particular passages from Codex Vaticanus that Erasmus had requested; but Erasmus did not have access to Vaticanus itself. One certainly cannot say that the KJV translators or Erasmus "rejected Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus."

Another issue concerning the KJ translators, is that they did not have access to as much Bible-era literature in general. For example, the KJ translators could not figure out what English word to use to translate the Hebrew word "pim." That was because there was only one known occurrence of it in any literature in the world, and that was in the Bible in 1 Samuel 13:21. So they took a guess, from the context of the Samuel passage, about Israelite farmers taking their farming tools to Philistine blacksmiths to be sharpened, that the word meant "file," the tool. This guess, though, we now know was wrong. Because in the early 1900's, archaeologists found in Palestine some sets of weights, having Hebrew words inscripted on them. One of the words was the Hebrew word "pim." This shows that a "pim" was the name for one of those measurements of weight, eight grams. So now, modern translations of the Bible correctly state that the Philistines charged the Israelites one "pim" in exchange for sharpening a plowshare or a mattock.

Also in the late 1800's and early 1900's, thousands of papyrus documents in the Greek language of the time of Christ, were discovered in the dry sands of Egypt, an environment in which the material does not rot or deteriorate as rapidly. These documents, concerning all sorts of everyday concerns, such as personal letters, merchant receipts, shed much new light on the meanings of the Greek words of Jesus' time. From them we know that the Greek of the New Testament was quite different from the Greek of the earlier Greek classical writers. This is another reason why the King James version is not likely to be as accurate as some of the better recent translations.

Just one other question David. We often hear that the Word of God is the bible we have (be it the NIV,NASB,NRSA,KJV etc). And we are also told that the Word of God (ie is absolute truth, totally reliable, inerrant and infallible. Is it really honest to make such claims about our bible when we realise that our 5000 greek manuscripts are all different and we can only really be 100% sure of 95% of the text?. Would it be more honest to say that 95% of our bible is inerrant, the other 5% (which is usually in footnotes in modern translations) is questionable? It doesn't sound good i know, but isn't this the way it really is?

I note that the vast majority of the variances are not doctrinally significant. The only ones that come to mind that might be, is the ending of Mark, and the passages in Matthew and Mark on how one kind of demon can only be made to go out by prayer, versus prayer AND fasting.

I have made available, on my links page, a paper written by Brian T. Bennett, a Sunday School teacher in the states, concerning this issue. It is a Microsoft Word for Windows document, compressed by WinZip.

On June 21st, 2000, Joe Trinkle of Australia wrote:

Hi David..... I was just wondering what you make of Dr Hills argument in "The King James Version Defended" for the Traditional Text based on the doctrine of preservation... He argues that the bible can not be viewed as other ancient manuscripts when it comes to textual criticism as God has promised to preserve it -So the manuscripts that have been used most and have a sense of continuity should be given more weight (ie the Majority Text type). Joe.

Well, that argument has a logic to it. It sounds good. But, wait. If the fact something has been around, widely circulated and accepted for a long time, makes it blessed and approved by God, then what about other long-standing traditions? Is everything the Roman Catholic church or anything else any church has believed for a long time, valid solely because it is widely spread and accepted? I think not. So, that argument is one giving weight to tradition, and nothing more.

ASSERTION
The "older and better manuscripts" may be older, but not better. Codex Vaticaus (B), for example, is corrupt. The reason it was in such good shape, is that it was cast aside as no good.
My Response
Codex Vaticanus, on the contrary, is more accurate, and closer to the original autographs than is the Textus Receptus. Take for example the gospel of Mark. The Textus Receptus contains what is known as "the longer ending of Mark," which contains verses that contradict the gospel of Luke. Codex Vaticanus also does not include the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery, John 7:53-8:11. This story is most certainly not originally written by the apostle John. To see my notes in my translation of the gospel of John, click here.

Peter Ruckman

Peter Ruckman is one of the second generation of the fathers of KJV Onlyism.

In The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272, Peter Ruckman claims: "The King James Bible was `given by inspiration of God.'"

"A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned `coincidences' which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later"
The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Peter Ruckman, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 127

"We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew."
(Preface, Problem Texts, Peter Ruckman, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

"The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611."
The Monarch of Books, Peter Ruckman, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9

As you can see, Ruckman and his disciples elevate the translators of the King James Version above the original apostles and prophets! This heresy is where King James Onlyism ultimately leads.

Notice that he actually says, that the English words of the King James Version are more accurate than the Hebrew and Greek. This is laughable, but, alas, it is not really funny, because many people, professing Christians, apparently agree with him.

Ruckman is bold in a bad way. He says that the door of revelations slammed shut again in 1611. But, on what basis does he believe it was still open before 1611? Equally without authority is the notion that it shut in 1611.

Ms. Riplinger believes that there is a New Age conspiracy to corrupt the Bible, and that it has been going on for centuries, comprising for example, the makers of the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, papyri and codices produced in the 2nd through 4th centuries. Now I am not one of those who dismiss believers in conspiracies as nutty. In fact, I declare that those who say that there are no conspiracies, they are the nutty ones. We don't have the word "conspiracy" in the language for no reason. And the Bible tells us that there is a conspiracy of evil, in II Thessalonians 2:7, "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way." (NIV)

Thus I am sympathetic to her to begin with. I am a Christian also, and I too am zealous to preserve and defend the Bible.

But the problem with conspiracy theories, is they are hard or impossible to prove. I will now give an example, that is typical of Ms. Riplinger's whole approach to evidence. She showed something she found in a Sunday News Supplement. She put up a transparency of a photograph from the newspaper that showed a girl selling a t-shirt with writing on it. I, the author of this page, kept putting my VCR on pause so that I could carefully write down exactly what she and the t-shirt said. The shirt said:

(The part above that is represented as a blank line, is blank, because there was a motor scooter in front of the t-shirt, and its handlebars were covering up that word.)

Now following is what Ms. Riplinger said on her video about this transparency, starting with where she was reading the t-shirt.

"Living as one planet, under one...what? Under one, what? That was covered up, and I didn't wanna go out and buy the shirt to find out what it was, but I'd read the Bible, so I knew what it was, it was 'under one leader, under one ruler, a new world.' Okay."

Did she really know what that covered up word was, on the t-shirt? No, she did not. Yet she declared in a very flat sure manner, that she knew what it said, "because she'd read the Bible."

Here is an example of circumstantial evidence, from her video. She put up a transparency of a picture of a 19th-century woman influential in "theosophy," in which the woman is holding her right hand up against her chest. Then, she put up a picture of evangelist Pat Robertson, in which he is holding his hand up against his chest in a fairly similar way. I got the impression Ms. Riplinger meant to imply that Mr. Robertson is therefore a theosophist! That is one of the worst attempts at circumstantial evidence I have ever seen. Would you want to be a defendant in a court in which Ms. Riplinger is prosecutor? Would you like Ms. Riplinger's followers to be your jurors?

She listed references from the New International Version where the latest edition of that version no longer says "the LORD," but now says "the Name." The context of this, shows that her intent was to link the NIV to a conspiracy to get people in church to betray or arrest Christians who will not take "the name" of the beast on their right hands or foreheads. Is Ms. Riplinger really that unaware of the meaning of "the LORD"? Yes, she really is. Because in another place in the video, Ms. Riplinger makes a big point about the superiority of the KJV in that it uses the word "Jehovah" a total of exactly seven times. (Although I could only find four: in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4). She is apparently completely unaware that the Hebrew underlying "the LORD" and "Jehovah" are the same, the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, which appears many more times than seven. She is also oblivious to all the Jews around her, I guess. She does not know that Judaism substitutes the words "the Name" (ha-Shem) for the Tetragrammaton. This by the way, is ammunition for my long-time assertion that it is bad translation to put anything in the Bible for YHVH other than YHVH or Yahweh. It is simply misleading; for example, it leads to erroneous conclusions like these of Ms. Riplinger's. (And the King James Version also has "the Name.")

She listed places where the KJV says "the" something, and the NIV says "a" something instead. From this she was alleging that in the NIV everything is indefinite. Now, this is meaningless, unless you also tabulate the other direction. Ms. Riplinger, now list all the places where the KJV says "a" something, but the NIV says "the" at the same place. The meaning of the presence or absence of the definite article in the Biblical languages is one of the harder things to interpret. The experts do not agree on particular passages quite often. Ms. Riplinger certainly does not know how to interpret the article.

She makes sweeping statements about newer translations, that a doctrine is "entirely omitted from the Bible," because they do not have a verse in one of the gospel accounts that the King James does. Yet, the same newer translations DO have that teaching in one of the other gospels. So how is that doctrine "entirely omitted"? One of the main causes of additions being made to the Bible, was when copyists added a verse to a gospel to make it harmonize with one of the other gospels. The KJV translators were certainly aware of this. In fact, in a real, original 1611 KJV, they put notes in the margin indicating when this happened. You can actually view a scan of one such marginal note, on the internet. The KJV translators included Luke 17:36, even though they admit in their marginal note, that most of the Greek manuscripts lack it. If you want to see a scan of that margin note, click here, then click the "back" arrow in the upper left of your screen.

Ms. Riplinger says that new translations are "antichrist" because they have taken out the phrase "is come in the flesh." She points out that in I John 4:3, the KJV says, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist..." But that the NIV says, "but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist." (By the way, Ms. Riplinger, note that the NIV has "the" antichrist here, and the KJV does not have "the." Does that mean the KJV is indefinite? That is the argument you used about the NIV.)

But this is really absurd. The NIV does have the phrase "is come in the flesh," TWICE.

1 John 4:2-3 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ HAS COME IN THE FLESH is from God. But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist,...."

2 John 1:7 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus as COMING IN THE FLESH, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

You may as well never believe her when she declares that a new translation "entirely omits" a doctrine. Her statements are almost always false. Who is a deceiver?

I had originally been planning to rebut more of Ms. Riplinger's video, but I have decided that it really doesn't deserve the time and space. I was appalled by her selectiveness and dishonesty. For example, she states that the Dead Sea Scrolls support and confirm the text underlying the King James Version throughout. This is simply not true. Sometimes, the Septuagint reading is confirmed over the KJV. But, these people are so out of the know, that they say that the Septuagint did not exist. They don't even know that the King James Version translators, whom she and her ilk say were correct and practically inspired, say in some of their introductory statements that the Septuagint existed in the time of Christ.

Furthermore, Ms. Riplinger shoots herself in the foot, by knocking the Dead Sea Scrolls in one part of her video, saying they are cultish and evil, and not to be trusted, but in the same video, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls as validating the King James Version! This is the kind of laughable inconsistency you will find throughout her works. Don't waste your time by buying her video or her book.

There is a man named David Cloud, who is one of her own kind as far as believing that the King James Version is the only preserved and perfect word of God in the English language. But even he calls her "a slanderer and a liar." Here is a link to Cloud's page on Gail Riplinger.

The following is from a web site, not by Gail Riplinger, but typical of her and her enthusiasts. The web site's words are in black, and my words are in blue. There were a few other passages discussed, but I have only included the ones in the gospels, since that is my area of specialty.

Bet you can't find answers to the following questions using a New International Version (NIV) bible! Answers must be found in the text, not in the footnotes. This is an easy test, because it is open book. But it is an important test. Your salvation is at risk! (Take note of this assertion; let's see if any of the examples given would put your salvation at risk.)

1. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

NIV: Matthew 17:21 is entirely missing.

KJV: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

The only way certain devils will go out is through prayer and fasting. Yet, this vital information is missing from the NIV text.

His statement that the only way that this kind of devil will go out is through prayer and fasting, is dependent on the King James Version having the correct reading. But what if the earlier Greek manuscripts that do not contain this, are the correct ones? Then his assertion would be false. Thus his argument hangs on itself, on a hook in the sky attached to nothing but his own argument that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV. The point is, he has not proven or backed up his assertion in any satisfactory way whatsoever. What we should do is (A.) examine the textual evidence in the variations of readings in the Greek manuscripts, and (B.) examine the internal evidence of the Bible story itself.

Witnesses not containing Mt 17:21	Witnesses containing Mt 17:21
Aleph, 4th century, Alexandrian Branch	C 5th century, Alexandrian Branch
B 4th century, Alexandrian Branch	D 5th century, Western Branch
Italic e, 5th century, Western Branch	W 5th century
Syriac, Sinaitic, 3rd-4th cent, Western Branch	Italic a, 4th century, Western Branch
Syriac, Curetonian, 3rd-4th cnt, Western Branch	Italic b, 5th century, Western Branch
Syriac, Palestinian, 6th cent, Caesarean Branch	Italic d, 5th century, Western Branch
Coptic, Sahadic, 3rd cent, Alexandrian Branch	Vulgate, 4th-5th century, Western Branch
Coptic, Bohairic, 3rd cent, Alexandrian Branch	Coptic, Middle Egyptian, 4th-5th century
Ethiopic, about year 500	Armenian, 5th century, Caesarean branch

Observe that the gospel of Matthew WITHOUT verse 17:21 had spread to Caesarea, Syria, Egypt, and Rome by the 200's, before the verse was ever added. There would have been no reason to take the verse out. What happened is that some copyists added the verse to harmonize Matthew's account with Mark 9:29. This adding a verse to one gospel, to make it harmonize with one of the other gospels, is one of the most common reasons that words were added to the text, that were not originally penned by the author.

14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is a lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. [21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.]

I would make four observations: (1.) Jesus succeeded in casting this demon out, and he did not have to fast to do it. (2.) Jesus told the disciples very clearly and specifically, that the reason they could not cast this demon out, was because of their unbelief (not their lack of fasting.) In fact, he said you don't even have to have faith any bigger than a mustard seed, so fasting won't improve your faith. (3.) If fasting is indeed necessary to cast out this demon, then how long must you fast? A fast means going without meals, so that would have to be at least half a day, to even begin to be maybe considered a fast. What do you do with the demoniac in the meantime, while you are fasting? Imprison him? Shackle him? Drug him? (4.) There is not a single instance in the Bible where Christ or his apostles had to fast in order to cast out a demon.

CONCLUSION: In the parallel passage in Mark 9:29, the earliest and best manuscripts do not have the word "fasting" there, either. Ascetic elements gained much influence in the church a few centuries later, but the apostle Paul warned us in Colossians 2:23 against the idea that harsh treatment of the body has any spiritual value. And in terms of textual genealogy and the science of determining which is the original reading, this case is given an "A" rating of certainty by the United Bible Society's editorial committee, that it is certain that the original did not include Matthew 17:21.

NIV: Matthew 18:11 is entirely missing.

KJV: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

What a tragedy. This important verse on the reason Jesus came to earth is lost to the readers of the NIV.

My immediate response to this is just to laugh. Such alarmism. This concept is not lost to readers of the NIV! The NIV says in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." In fact, the entire 15th chapter of Luke, is devoted to this single concept! Matthew 18:11 is only a "tragedy" if you are the kind of interpreter of the Bible who relies on only one verse as basis for your teaching. That is what cults do: rely on only one verse for their doctrine. (And my experience is that cults overwhelmingly prefer to use the King James Version.) At any rate, the verse Matthew 18:11 is absent in essentially the same witnesses as was Matthew 17:21, and I am confident that the original gospel of Matthew did not contain this verse.

How can you properly study the Bible when vital passages are missing? Even the command to "study" is missing from 2 Timothy 2:15 in the NIV.

NIV: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

KJV: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Greek word in question is speudw, which simply does not mean "study." It means, "urge on, exert oneself, hasten, seek eagerly, strive after, be industrious." There is not one instance in any Greek literature anywhere, where it means "study." Perhaps in the year 1600, the English word study did not mean what it means today. This is a good example of what is wrong with the King James Version.

3. Who commits adultery by marrying a divorced woman, according to Matthew 19:9?

NIV: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

KJV: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The entire clause on marrying a divorced woman is omitted in the NIV. Someone might be deceived into marrying a divorcee and not realize he is committing adultery. The NIV does not tell him about the sin he is committing.

Yes, the NIV does. Matthew 5:32 in the NIV says, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." And Luke 16:18 in the NIV says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

This is a grave omission because, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9, adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

As I have shown, the NIV does not omit this teaching. In fact, it teaches again, a THIRD TIME, in I Corinthians 7:10b-11, that a divorced woman is not allowed to remarry. "A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband..." I think three instances of this teaching is enough to show that the NIV does contain it! Just because it does not say it in Matthew 19, is hardly any excuse for someone not to know the teaching. It is found elsewhere in Matthew in the NIV, and also in Luke and I Corinthians. It is certainly clear that the translators of the NIV had no agenda to remove this teaching from the Bible.

NIV: Matthew 23:14 is omitted in its entirety.

KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

That's a harsh indictment against the scribes and Pharisees. But you won't find it at Matthew 23:14 in the NIV because that verse has been stripped out.

No, not stripped out of the Bible, but ADDED to the Bible by scribes to make Matthew harmonize with Luke 20:47 and Mark 12:40. So the NIV does have this accusation against the Pharisees, in the gospels of Mark and Luke.

The NIV makes Jesus a little more polite. He has been toned down. Jesus is made more palatable to everybody in the NIV. He's not so offensive. Maybe now more people can carry the Bible. Maybe the Way is not so narrow. Maybe the Way is much wider now than when Jesus preached. If you look back at Matthew 16:3, Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites in the King James Bible. But in the NIV, the phrase "O ye hypocrites" is omitted.

From this verse, it is impossible to know what we are supposed to be watching for. (Yes, it is impossible IF you are the kind of exegete that only looks at one verse. The rest of the context around this verse answers your question. The entire context, over a couple chapters, is one of the coming of the Son of Man.) How can we watch for something when we don't know what it is? The King James Version tells us we are to be watching for the coming of the Son of man.

It is the same with the gospel of Mark, in the NIV. The whole passage of Mark 13:32-37 is about watching for the return of the Son of Man, and that we don't know the day or the hour. 13:31: "No one knows about that day or hour, ...v. 35 Therefore keep watch because you do not know..."

6. Fill in the missing words of Jesus in Mark 2:17, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners ________________" to what?

Jesus is calling sinners, but to what? For all we know He is calling them to dinner. Yes, he is in fact calling them to dinner (among other things). That is what Jesus and the sinners were doing when he said this.

KJV: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

In the NIV, the words "to repentance" are found in Luke's account of this story of the calling of Matthew, in ch. 5 v. 32. The gospel of Mark is much shorter than Matthew or John (the real gospel of Mark). Again, this is an example of copyists adding a phrase to one gospel to make it harmonize with another one. This addition to the gospel of Mark is so clearly not originally in Mark, that I would bet if you found a real, original 1611 KJV, its marginal note on this passage would admit that the words "to repentance" are not in most of the Greek manuscripts of Mark.

7. At Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to do what?

It doesn't say anything else. That's the only power you receive, according to the NIV at Mark 3:15.

Jesus Christ gives His followers power to heal sicknesses. Today we have plenty of doctors. Still it concerns us that the NIV threw out that passage. What if a doctor is not around? We would rather have the power from on High so that we can heal the sickness.

8. There's another verse about healing sickness at Luke 8:43. According to this verse, how much did the sick woman spend on doctors?

NIV does not mention physicians or how much she spent trying to get well. But the KJV tells us:

KJV: "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,"

Maybe the NIV translators did not want to offend the physicians so they left this phrase out.

This is reckless, unscholarly, unloving, and carnal. Here the writer of that web site has committed a sin. He has judged the motives of his brothers in Christ, falsely. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that not offending physicians was NOT the reason the NIV translators left this phrase out. The reason they left this phrase out, is because many early and diversified manuscripts and versions do not contain it. The NIV does, however, contain this phrase in Mark 5:26: "She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse." I don't think anybody anytime deliberately expunged anything originally written by Luke. If the NIV translators wanted to avoid offending physicians, would they not have also left the phrase out of Mark 5:26? But if anybody had a motive to go easier on physicians, it would be Luke himself, since he was a physician. It is more likely for Mark to have written this, since his main source was Peter, a more blunt kind of person. And indeed, the gospel of Mark is known for being more blunt.

9. Here's an easy one. According to Mark 6:11, it shall be more tolerable for which two cities in the day of judgment than for that city?

NIV: "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

KJV: "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city."

This is a warning to the cities that refuse to receive Christ. Yet NIV readers are not aware of the condemnation that comes to entire cities.

Yes, NIV readers ARE aware of the condemnation that comes to entire cities. Try Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:22, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12, and Luke 10:14 in the NIV. But the fact that the phrase about the cities, was not in the original text of Mark 6:11, is a slam-dunk as far as textual science goes. I would bet that if you found a genuine, original 1611 King James Version, it would have a marginal note by the KJV translators, stating that most of the Greek manuscripts do not contain this phrase.

10. According to Mark 11:26, is it required to forgive in order to be forgiven?

NIV: Entire verse is missing.

KJV: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

This is another critical doctrine. If you don't know you must forgive in order for the Father to forgive you, you could be shut out of the Kingdom.

Yet another instance of scribes adding a phrase to one gospel to make it harmonize with another gospel; in this case, Matthew 6:15. The verse known as "Mark" 11:26, is absent from many early witnesses, Greek manuscripts and versions that represent all branches of textual tradition, making this another slam-dunk case. There should be no doubt that "Mark" 11:26 was not in the original gospel of Mark. At any rate, this "critical doctrine" IS found in the NIV, in Matthew 6:15.

NIV: Entire verse is missing.

KJV: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Here's a major Bible prophecy that is missing from the NIV. Check out Matthew 27:35 where another Bible prophecy about the parting of Christ's garments is fulfilled - but is missing from the NIV.

More examples of scribes harmonizing the gospels. What you want is a harmony of the gospels, which I am working on. As for Mark, he is not usually known to quote the Old Testament. If Mark really did quote the Old Testament in 15:28, that would be a very rare instance. But the earliest and best manuscripts and versions from the Alexandrian and Western branches of text do not have this verse in Mark. Some, however, do have it in the margin, as a note mentioning what Luke 22:37 says. Later copyists incorporated it into the actual scripture text of Mark. This is one way in which words got added to the original text of scripture. It is certain that Mark 15:28 is not original in Mark.

In the Matthew passage, it is even more certain that the phrase in question was added later, influenced by John 19:24.

KJV: "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

The NIV leaves out the fact that we are to live by every word of God. Yet, over 64,000 words have been removed from the NIV which were originally in the King James. There are also many verses that are entirely missing. Won't NIV readers be left starving because they do not have "every word of God?"

Did you notice the setting for the above verse? The devil is tempting Jesus in the wilderness. I wonder if the devil had a hand in writing the NIV. Later in the same chapter, at verse 8, Jesus said to Satan,

But the phrase IS found in the NIV, in Matthew 4:4 (and Deut. 8:3). Again, a case of copyists adding words to one gospel, to harmonize it with another gospel. Do you see a pattern yet?

These are just a few of the many omissions and distortions we found in the NIV. Can the NIV and other modern translations even be called the Christian Bible with so many doctrines missing or mutilated?

No doctrines are missing! The doctrines are still there, in other passages in the other gospels. This is simply false. Actually, let's call it what it is: LIES. People who write this kind of stuff are simply LIARS, and we know who is the father of such people. They know full well that those doctrines are not missing from the NIV, but they want to mislead people and make disciples for their heresy. If they are not consciously lying, then they are pathetically ignorant of the Bible, and do not deserve to have any students or readers of their worthless writings. They certainly do prey on the new Christian and the unlearned. Rather than feeding Jesus' lambs, they are confusing them and putting hate in them for other believers who have other translations of the Bible. This kind of false teaching needs to be firmly and universally condemned.

All these different translations have added confusion to the Church. Just try having a Bible study on John 7:53-8:11. It is the story of the woman caught in the very act of adultery. Some modern versions have deleted it from the text. Others like the NIV, cast doubt upon it by saying, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

No, I wouldn't try having a Bible study on "John" 7:53-8:11, since that may not have been originally in the Bible. (I have noticed over the years, that the people who quote that story most, are people who are deliberately living in sin, and don't want you to call them on it.) Even if you believe that the story is scripture, it would not be wise to make a big point from it, in view of the fact that so many of your brothers in Christ do not accept it as scripture.

I disagree that it is the modern translations that are to blame for the confusion. The fact is, that if the copyists of the Bible manuscripts over the centuries had not added words to the Bible, we would not have this confusion. Perhaps the Devil had a hand in getting all those words added to the Bible. The effort to remove words that are not authentic scripture, is an effort to LESSEN the confusion, and restore the true Bible. I would rather have a little confusion, than have a Bible that has words added to it from traditions of the dark ages.

The translators of the King James Bible knew about these earlier manuscripts, but they rejected them because of their questionable source and accuracy. They have been kept in the custodial care of Rome and they originated with Constantine.

This is fiction, propagated by Peter Ruckman and others like him. These are the same people who say that the Septuagint was not done before the time of Christ, but instead done by Catholics centuries after Christ. This defies all historical facts, and contradicts what the KJV translators themselves said in their foreword. It is humorous how this type of people denounce Catholic tradition, yet defend a version of the Bible, the King James Version, which contains so many additions to the Bible which are from the Latin Vulgate, or are solely from Catholic tradition! (They like to say the KJV is from the Old Waldensian Bible, which in turn was translated from very Old Latin, but the Waldensian Bible has been proven to have been translated from the Vulgate, which is more recent than the Old Latin they claim.)

The fact is, there are several manuscripts that do not contain the passage of the woman caught in adultery, that were not discovered until well after the King James Version and Tyndale's were translated: Codex Sinaiticus, Papyrus 66, and Papyrus 75. In addition, there are many other manuscripts which do not contain the passage. No church father prior to the 12th century comments on the passage, either. So how could the KJV translators have "rejected" those manuscripts since they did not know they existed? It would be interesting to know what the KJV translators would have done had they had Codes Sinaiticus, Papyrus 66 and 75 in front of them. Maybe the KJV would not contain the passage today.

The NIV was translated by scholars, but not necessarily by men called by God. One NIV translator is a confessed lesbian. She doesn't confess Jesus. She confesses lesbianism.

This is not true. The woman in question was not a translator. She was consulted on English style and wording. And the NIV committee did not know at the time that she was lesbian. But this brings up another point. Are we as Christians not able to learn one thing from nonbelievers? I think it is arrogant and ugly, this attitude that no non-believer can teach us anything. It is a poor Christian testimony. At any rate, many people today would have labeled some of the KJV translators non-believers also. And many KJV enthusiasts would think unqualified the KJV translator who had a whiskey night cap every night.

Those who put together the NIV did it to make money. The NIV bible is a copyrighted book.

Really? How do you know the motives of another human being's heart? Only God knows that. Besides, translators and publishers need money like the rest of us. They have to eat, provide for their families, pay their living expenses, and purchase equipment. Yes, the NIV bible is a copyrighted book. I hate that also. It is a shame. But in this world, there are so many evil, unscrupulous people, that perhaps the Bible needs to be copyrighted in order to protect it from evil people. The King James Version was also copyrighted. Only certain publishers had a right to print (copy) it. This right could only be granted by the king of England. All copies of the KJV stated this in the front, in a Latin phrase that means (by privilege). Even today in England, only designated publishers can print the King James Version, because it is copyrighted by the Crown and its church, the Church of England. This is what is meant by "Authorized Version." Authorized by a church you probably don't even agree with.

The King James Bible, on the other hand, is 80 to 90 percent the work of William Tyndale. He received revelation from God to translate the Bible into English so that even the plowboy could understand the scripture.

Good! Tyndale put the Bible into language that a plow boy could understand. Today, a plow boy cannot understand the King James Version (or Tyndale's either). That is why we need modern translations. And the people doing the modern translations are also persecuted, by people like you.

He tried to obtain a license from the State church, but was turned down. Because God was calling him to do it, he fled England and went to Germany. He secretly translated and printed the Bible, often fleeing for his life.

Do you really want to bring up the issue of licenses? Your pastor is probably licensed, and your church is probably a state corporation. This is contrary to both the Bible and the founding fathers of America. Patrick Henry said his famous "Give me liberty or give me death," after seeing a pastor being whipped until dead by British authorities for not having a license to preach. My Bible says we already have authority to go and preach in all nations. And that in this matter "we ought to obey God rather than men."

I am translating the Bible, without a license from the state church. I never applied for one in the first place. Neither did I ask permission from the scholars' club. I believe I am called by God to do it. And I am persecuted for doing it. I do not rely on Roman Catholic tradition and all the additions made to your Bible by that tradition. I am so independent, I am denounced from the right and the left. I must be doing something right.

Tyndale's concern was not making money or copyrighting the text. Even today the King James Bible is not copyrighted. Tyndale was driven by God to do the translation and was eventually strangled and burned for his efforts.

Just change the caption to "Verses in the KJV that were ADDED to the New Testament."

Click here to read a good rebuttal of Gail Riplinger, by Jacob Prasch. Requires Acrobat plugin or reader.