This page is meant to explain why WE use the KJV.
It is not our purpose to argue with those who choose to use an inferior translation.
Therefore, we will not respond to emails from anyone who wants to debate the issue.
If you have the time to argue the point use it win someone to Christ.
Return to our Home Page
There is but one standard that we have in this world today. It is the written Word of God. Those who would argue the reliability and accuracy of the Scriptures will always carry on the debate over the authority of the Scriptures. It is not my intent to prove the Scriptures, the Bible speaks for itself. It is my intention to show which manuscripts are the Word of God and which are not. Those who deny the Scriptures have also denied Christ. John 1:1 tells us that Jesus Christ is the Word, if the Word is not accurate then Christ is not reliable. The only way for the critics of the Bible to realize its accuracy is to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. The Holy Spirit will then give them the ability to understand. The Bible makes high claims to Divine inspiration, inerrancy and authority. Since the Sovereign God of the universe has condescended to reveal Himself supernaturally in His Book, then mankind has a sure foundation to base His existence upon. The question then arises, "Which Bible is the Word of God?" The King James Version offers traditional and scholarly reading.
Clearly the Majority Text faithfully preserves the inspired revelation. Because the Scriptures are of the utmost importance, Satan would love nothing more than to see them destroyed. During the Reformation period, the Church in Rome sought to maintain its nce by burning not only copies of the Bible, but also those cognized the supreme authority of God's Word. David Otis Fuller, in his book, "Which Bible" states that the "god of this world" directs his first attack on the and Person of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, and then on the integrity of the written Word of God - the Bible. It was Satan's plan to have the Son of God killed. Three times in Jesus' earthly ministry they sought to stone Him to death. Once they hustled Him to a hill overlooking Nazareth where they planned to cast Him down headlong. Only at the cross were the people allowed to finally take His life, and only then by His own permission.
It is Jesus Christ Himself who overrules the plans of Satan, and all else who oppose Him. Second Timothy 3:16 states, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The phrase "inspiration of God" is actually a Greek word, "Theopneustos" which could be translated God-breathed. This tells us that the Word of God is just what it says, the Word of God. The inspired text of the Scriptures is faithfully represented by the Majority Text. This text is sometimes called the Byzantine Text, the Received Text (Textus Receptus) or the Traditional Text. J. W. Burgon contends that there were once many ancient manuscripts containing the Byzantine text, manuscript's much older than the B (4th century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) or Aleph. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are said to be where the modern day paraphrases are derived. Burgon states that because of the use of the manuscripts that were the most used they wore out and perished. This is why there are only a few copies in existence today. The Byzantine texts are not as old as the B and Aleph texts (Minority Texts) which are used by errant modern revisionists. The reason that the B and Aleph lasted longer is that they were rejected by the Greek Church and not used, therefore they did not wear out. Burgon's contention was rejected by the liberals of his day, but was actually backed forty-five years later by a leading representative of the naturalistic school. Lake stated, "that the scribes usually destroyed their examplars when they had copied the sacred books." This meant that the copies used would have been destroyed; any copies that were not used would not have perished, thus the B and Aleph manuscripts are still in existence. The advocates of modern versions of the Bible often assume that they have in their possession a product that is far superior to that of the King James translators. This is of course a false presumption, since there is no historical or scholarly evidence to back up their statements. It is a fact that rather than the modern version's acceptance of scholarship, the King James scholarship far exceeds all others. The learned men who labored on the King James Version were men of exceptional ability. Although they differed among themselves on matters of church order, administration and doctrine, they approached the task with a reverent regard for Divine Inspiration, Authority, an Inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. They believed that the Bible was and is God's sacred truth. The most learned men of the day were chosen for the work of translating the Scriptures. These men had a profound knowledge of the languages in which the Bible was written. The credentials of the translators attest their scholarship. There were fifty-four scholars who were chosen to accomplish the translation of the Scriptures. Because of death or withdrawal the final committee numbered forty-seven men, which were divided up into six separate committees. The committees met at Westminster, Cambridge and Oxford. Their scholarship was accompanied by a deep conviction of the Divine origin of the records that they were translating. These men were not only scholars but they were men of faith.
There are many Greek manuscripts that they used available today. A recent list gives
these figures as:
Along with the above mentioned manuscripts there are also those manuscripts containing the Scripture lessons that were read publicly in churches. These numbered 2,143. Together the manuscripts number 5,255. For a book as ancient as the Bible, there is more than sufficient manuscripts available to provide an accurate translation. Approximately 95% of the manuscripts confirm the accuracy of the King James Version.
Our line of attack as to where we stand on the Scriptures is an offensive-defensive approach. Showing not merely that the attacks are futile, but that the events recorded and the persons and things described are true to history, that is, that they harmonize with what we learn from the contemporaneous documents of other nations. That the names should have been transmitted to us through so many copies and so many centuries in so complete a state of preservation is a phenomenon unequaled in the history of literature.
John William Burgon spent his life examining the Scriptures. In 1860, while he was a
temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of
Codex B. Two years following Burgon's examination of Codex B, he had the opportunity to
inspect the treasures of St. Catherine's Convent on Mt. Sinai. Although Burgon had
intended to accumulate enough information to write a defense of all the Traditional Text,
his defense of the last twelve verses of Mark is what he is famous for. The Majority Text
is usually called the Byzantine Text by modern textual critics. This is because all modern
critics acknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament text in use throughout the
greater part of the Byzantine Period (312-1453). It was therefore that Burgon named the
Traditional Text the Byzantine Text. Burgon was convinced that the Byzantine Text was the
true text because it is that form of the Greek New Testament known to have been used in
the Church of Christ in unbroken succession for many centuries, first in the Greek Church
and then in the Protestant Church. All orthodox Christians who show due regard for the
Divine inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture, must agree with Burgon in
this matter. For in what other way can it be that Christ has fulfilled His promise always
to preserve in His Church the true New Testament text? "If the foundations be
destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3)
Only the supreme lessons of the Bible can reach the deeper feelings of the heart."If man is no better than his word, is it only fair to conclude that God is as good as His Word." If God cannot keep His Word then He is not God. If God is not powerful enough to preserve His Word for us, then He in turn must not be powerful enough to preserve us. Since God gave language in the first place in order for Him to communicate to man, then we find that language is of the utmost importance. God spoke in literal terms to mankind in order for them to heed His message. He did not speak in ways that would confuse the righteous, but rather in ways that would guide their lives. The King James is important in that it in the English language conveys the Word of God to whoever has received Christ as their Savior and are willing to follow Him. The Majority Text is of the utmost importance in that it can be traced back historically to the churches that experienced true revival. There will always be those who attack the Word of God. The reason; they are not willing to follow the Scriptures.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for
ever." Isaiah 40:8
Apart from a few translations that have not yet received recognition, the King James Version of the Bible is the only version that is taken directly from the Majority Text. The N.I.V., N.A.S.B. ,Douay, Good News for Modern Man and many other popular paraphrases today have been taken from the writings of Westcott and Hort or more popularly known as the Minority Text.
The problem with the various translations lies with the Greek New Testament manuscripts
themselves. The problem is unique with the New Testament since the Old Testament
manuscripts were settled years before. The Hebrew manuscripts have been carried down
intact to the day of their printing in 1450 AD by the unrivaled methods of the Jews in
transmitting perfect Hebrew manuscripts. This gives us a settlement with the Old Testament
texts. The Apostle Paul pointed out the coming apostasy. In II Thessalonians 2:3 Paul
declared that there would come a "falling away." In II Thessalonians 2:7 he said
that the "mystery of iniquity doth already work." There are fundamentally only
two streams of Bibles. The first stream that carried the Received Text in Hebrew and
Greek, began with the Apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian
Era among enlightened believers. This stream was protected by the wisdom and scholarship
of the pure church in different phases. Manuscripts were preserved by the church at Pella
in Palestine where the Christians fled in 70 AD The Syrian Church at Antioch produced
eminent scholarship, the Italic church in northern Italy, the Gallic church in southern
France, the Celtic church in Great Britain, and the pre-Waldensian and Waldensian churches
of the Reformation all played a key role in the preservation of the Received Text. The
second stream is a small one. Only a relative few manuscripts exist. These manuscripts are
represented by the Vatican MS or Codex B, the Sinatic, or Codex Aleph, The Latin Vulgate
of Jerome, the Catholics Douay Version and the English versions are taken from the
minority texts listed. There are no Scriptures that attest to the fact that the Roman
Church should have any prominence. In fact the honor belonged to the churches at Judea. It
was according to the Judean churches and not the Church at Rome that the Asiatic churches
were formed. Had the preeminence belonged to the Church at Rome, Paul would have proposed
it as a model to all those that he formed, either in Judea, Asia Minor, Greece, or Italy.
The last of the apostles was John. He is thought to have died around the year 100 AD. He
is said to have cooperated in the collecting and forming of the New Testament. Acts
Chapter 15 shows the care in which the early church guarded her sacred writings. Shortly
after the death of John in the year 100 AD corruption soon began. Eusebius is a witness to
that fact. He relates that the corrupted manuscripts were so prevalent that agreement
between the copies was hopeless, and that those corrupting the Scriptures were claiming
that in actuality they were correcting them. There are four names that stand out in infamy
regarding the introduction to the corruption found in some texts; Justin Martyr was born
in 100 AD and it was due to his influence that he would spawn other generations to follow
heresy. One of his students, Tatian was a proclaimed Gnostic who would follow in his
teachers footsteps and the Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria was a student of
Tatian's who lived around the year 200 AD. He went much further than Tatian in that he
founded a school at Alexandria which instituted propaganda along heretical lines. Origen
was the fourth heretic. He mightily influenced Jerome and his Latin Vulgate. Origen stated
that the "Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they were
written". Origen was perhaps a genius in many ways, but he held to many heretical
views. He should not be reckoned among the orthodox Fathers of the Church. It is manifest
that Origen is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology. When
Constantine became emperor of Rome in 312 AD, he eventually embraced a form of
Christianity. During his reign he found three types of manuscripts vying for supremacy.
They were the;
The Revised Version of 1881, produced by two liberal Theologians, by the name of Westcott and Hort, contained 36,000 changes from the Authorized Version. The great concerns that true Bible scholars have with the Revised Version are its changes in the text. The value of indirect evidence is such that one could independently arrive at conclusive evidence concerning the correct text. The church Fathers were scattered across Christendom of their time. Their acquaintance with the text was derived from many independent sources. Their quotations agree with one another, and with our later manuscripts many, of which must have been copied from manuscripts more ancient than any which have survived, this agreement will satisfy any one who is versed in the rudiments of the science of evidence. Since we possess Versions that are older than any known manuscripts, and the writings of the early Fathers abound in quotations from the New Testament, we are thus enabled indirectly to reach manuscripts much older than the oldest that have survived. There are absolutely no grounds for the Westcott-Hort followers to base their changes upon. They base their opinions on four manuscripts. All other known copies of the Gospels being against it, and there are thousands.
Westcott and Hort's theory was that there was a revision at Antioch in Syria that
produced the Traditional, Received, or Majority Text. John Burgon was chiefly concerned
with the lack of a scientific basis for textual criticism. He believed that it was
absolutely necessary to grasp this fact for a proper understanding of the whole matter.
"A scientific basis can only be obtained after we have made ourselves masters of a
scientific knowledge of the real history of transmission and the interaction of the
versions upon each other and of the versions upon the Greek texts." The Westcott and
Hort position is seriously shaken, even in the opinion of former Hortians and those who
would logically be expected to be Hortians. Martin says that although this is true,
innumerable secondary works go on repeating the false views of Westcott and Hort. Many
people accept what Westcott and Hort have to say. He says that Westcott and Hort's theory
is accepted because it is easy and at first sight plausible to the beginner. Burgon's
views are rejected simply because his views are horribly laborious, although precious in
results. Alfred Martin's thesis is then, that the Westcott and Hort theory is based upon
false principles. That their view follows fallacious methods, and is not worthy of the
credence given to it by so many. The position of Westcott and Hort is that although over
four thousand manuscripts of the New Testament are in existence (in fragmentary, partial,
or in a complete state), with the great majority, perhaps as many as ninety or ninety-five
percent in substantial agreement, they willingly choose to reject the majority of the
texts. The Syrian text insisted on by Westcott and Hort is said to be a full, smooth text,
containing many "conflate" readings, that is, combinations of readings of two or
more earlier texts. Westcott and Hort consider all texts to be worthless unless supported
by "pre-Syrian" readings. Of course there is no proof for the claims that
Westcott and Hort allege. The problem is to account not only for the agreement of the
majority, but also for deviations in other manuscripts and in versions and Fathers. The
Majority text disproves the Westcott and Hort theory, and it can be seen that the
traditional text is closer to the original autographs than any other. It is important to
note that the scribe of B or the Codex Vaticanus has given evidence that he was conscious
of omission in that he left an entire column blank immediately after Mark 16:8, a space
large enough to contain twelve verses. Many Church Fathers recognized the last twelve
verses of Mark. Among them are:
The two German critics who would enhance the cause of Higher Criticism were called Protestant Griesbach and Catholic Mohler. They brought about the hour of revision of Higher Criticism. It was Griesbach who would attack the Received Text of the New Testament in a new way. He did not stop at bringing to light and emphasizing the variant readings of the Greek manuscripts; he classified readings into three groups, and put all manuscripts under these groupings, giving them the names of "Constantinopolitan," or those of the Received Text, the "Alexandrian," and the "Western."
Tischendorf would eventually produce eight Greek New Testaments. His eighth was produced after reviewing the Codex Sinaiticus, in which he contradicted his seventh Greek New Testament in 3572 places. The Earl of Sheftesbury stated what he believed would happen when someone was asked of their opinion of a particular version of the Bible. He said; "When you are confused or perplexed by a variety of versions, you would be obliged to go to some learned pundit in whom you reposed confidence, and ask him which version he recommended; and when you had taken his version, you must be bound by his opinion. I hold this to be the greatest danger that now threatens us. It is a danger impressed upon us from Germany, and pressed upon us by the neological spirit of the age. I hold it to be far more dangerous than Tractarianism, or Popery, both of which I abhor from the bottom of my heart. This evil is tenfold more subtle than either of these, because you would be ten times more incapable of dealing with the gigantic mischief that would stand before you."
The lives of Doctors Westcott and Hort are taken from their own letters, and comments from their respective sons, who collected and published their lives and letters. In these writings we find the heretical views that Westcott and Hort shared. The obvious biases they shared for the Catholic Church and the means in which they planned to the Scriptures to justify their liberal views. There are seven areas in which the blatant attempts of Westcott and Hort's liberal views are seen. The fact of their (1) higher criticism, (2) their mariolatry, (3) their anti-Protestantism, (4) their tendency towards evolution, (5) their ritualism, (6) their papal atonement doctrines, and (7) their collusion before the revision. Archbishop Trench offered up as his summation of the fears of the public concerning the revisions this statement, "A question affecting . . . profoundly the whole moral and spiritual life of the English people, and the "vast and solemn issues depending on it." "For years there had been a determined and aggressive campaign to take extensive liberties with the Received Text"; The first efforts to secure revision were cautiously made in 1857 by five clergymen. A resolution was issued on February 10, 1870, which expressed the desirability of revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament. The Southern Convocation adopted the rules that ordered that Revision should touch the Greek text only where found necessary; it should alter the language only where in the judgment of most competent scholars, such change was necessary; and in such necessary changes, the style of the King James should be followed; Also the Convocation should nominate a committee of its own members who would be at liberty to invite the cooperation of other scholars in the work of the Revision. W. F. Moulton was a devotee of the Latin Vulgate. He made the following statement, "The Latin translation, being derived from manuscripts more ancient than any we now possess, is frequently a witness of the highest value regarding the Greek text that was current in the earliest times, and . . . its testimony is in many cases confirmed by Greek manuscripts which have been discovered or examined since the 16th century." Dr. Moulton obviously looked upon the Latin Vulgate as superior to the King James, and upon the Greek manuscripts used in the Latin Vulgate as superior to the Majority texts used in the King James Version. Hort's early life reaction to the Textus Receptus is shown by a statement made in 1851, when he knew little of the Greek New Testament, or of texts, he was ted with the idea that the Received Text was "vile" and "villainous," There were two men who served as chairman on the Revision committee.
The first was Bishop Wilberforce. After one meeting he resigned because of the presence of the Unitarian, Dr. G. Vance Smith, who denied the Divinity of Christ.
The second chairman was Bishop Ellicott who would serve as chairman throughout the
proceedings. Dr. Hemphill stated, "Nor is it difficult to understand that many of
their less resolute and decided colleagues must often have been completely carried off
their feet by the persuasiveness and resourcefulness, and zeal of Hort, backed by the
great prestige of Lightfoot, the popular Canon of St. Paul's, and the quiet determination
of Westcott, who set his face as a flint. In fact, it can hardly be doubted that Hort's
was the strongest will of the whole Company, and his adroitness in debate was only equaled
by his pertinacity."There are several letters that show the mood of the meeting of
the Revisionists.
The following are excerpts from two biographies released by the descendants of Westcott
and Hort. "The Life of Westcott", and "The Life of Hort":
On July 25, 1871, Dr. Hort wrote his wife that there were still some stiff battles in the Revision, he stated, "though without any ill feeling, and usually with good success. But I more than ever, felt how possible it would be for me to absent myself."
Another letter written by Westcott on March 22, 1886 stated, "I should be the last to rate highly textual criticism; but it is a little gift which from school days seemed to be committed to me."
Westcott wrote on May, 24 1871, "We had a hard fighting during these two days, and a battle royal is announced tomorrow."
On January 27, 1875, He wrote, "Our work yesterday was positively distressing . . . however I shall try to keep heart today, and if we fail again I think that I shall fly, utterly despairing of the work." On the same date he wrote, "Today our work has been a little better - only a little, but enough to be endurable." (Preconceived Ideas and Collusion on the part of Westcott and Hort and the Revision Committee to impart their beliefs into the Revision.)
Hort wrote to Rev. John Ellerton, April 3, 1860: "But the book which has engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so it opens up a new period.
Hort wrote to Westcott: "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry.
Hort to Westcott, October 17, 1865: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their causes and results."
Hort to Westcott: "But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of the priesthood" Hort wrote to Dr. Lightfoot, October 26, 1867: "but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist (The office of a Priest)
Hort wrote to Westcott September 23, 1864: "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that "Protestantism" is only parenthetical and temporary." "Perfect Catholicity has been nowhere since the Reformation".
Westcott wrote the Archbishop of Canterbury on March 4, 1890 "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did".
Hort to Mr. John Ellerton: "I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."
Hort wrote to Ellerton, July 6, 1848 "The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical. We should bear in mind that the hard and unspiritual medieval crust which enveloped the doctrine of the sacraments in stormy times, though in measure it may have made it unprofitable to many men at that time, yet in God's providence preserved it inviolate and unscattered for future generations. We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us."
Westcott to Lightfoot "Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should be agreed."
Westcott to Hort, July 1, 1870 :"The Revision on the whole surprised me by prospects of hope. I suggested to Ellicott a plan of tabulating and circulating emendations before our meeting which may in the end be valuable".
Hort to Lightfoot, "It is I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision, by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian."
Hort to Williams: "The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear fruit in due time, if the process is allowed to go on quietly; I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten many back into the merest traditionalism.
Only the supreme lessons of the Bible can reach the deeper feelings of the heart."If man is no better than his word, is it only fair to conclude that God is as good as His Word." If God cannot keep His Word then He is not God. If God is not powerful enough to preserve His Word for us, then He in turn must not be powerful enough to preserve us.
Return to our Home Page
Last Updated
July 20, 2009 by New Hope Bible College