The Superiority of the King James Version
© Way of Life Literature
This article is provided here, with permission, from Way Of Life Literature . The Way of Life
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity by David Cloud, is available in both hardcopy
and electronic versions. It is an excellent resource for Christians who are taking a
faithful stand and contending for the faith. I have found the Way of Life Encyclopedia of
the Bible and Christianity, based upon the King James Version and written from an
uncompromising, Bible believing position, to be an invaluable tool for study, apologetics
and helping others in these confusing times. This valuable resource may be obtained from
WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE, 1701 Harns Road, Oak Harbor, WA 98277Telephone: (360) 675-8311.
Visit http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/ency/index.html.]
HOW THE KING JAMES VERSION WAS MADE
"A study of the history of the King James Version clearly reveals it to be a
God-guided translation of the holy Scriptures. It is said that from four-fifths to
nine-tenths of the King James Version is taken from the version of William Tyndale, who
published the first printed English Bible in 1525 and died a martyr in 1536. Other 16th
century English Bibles which influenced the King James Version are the Great Bible (1539),
the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishops' Bible (1568), and (slightly) the Douay Version
(1582)."
"Work on the King James Version began in 1604. In that year a group of Puritans
under the leadership of Dr. John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
suggested to King James I that a new translation of the Bible be undertaken. This
suggestion appealed to James, who was himself a student of theology and of the Scriptures,
and he immediately began to make the necessary arrangements for carrying it out. Within
six months the general plan of procedure had been drawn up and a complete list made of the
scholars who were to do the work. Originally 54 scholars were on this list, but deaths and
withdrawals reduced it finally to 47. These were divided into six companies which checked
each other's work. Then the final result was reviewed by a select committee of six and
prepared for the press. Because of all this careful planning the whole project was
completed in less than seven years. In 1611 the new version issued from the press of
Robert Barker in a large folio volume bearing on its title page the following inscription:
`The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament & the New: Newly Translated out of the
Original tongues; & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised by
His Majesties special Commandment'" (Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 64).
THE AMAZING INFLUENCE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
"The course of history has made English a world-wide language which is now the
native tongue of at least 300 million people and the second language of many millions
more. For this reason the King James Version is known the world over and is more widely
read than any other translation of the holy Scriptures. Not only so, but the King James
Version has been used by many missionaries as a basis and guide for their own translation
work and in this way has extended its influence even to converts who know no English. For
more than 350 years, therefore, the reverent diction of the King James Version has been
used by the Holy Spirit to bring the Word of life to millions upon millions of perishing
souls. Surely this is a God-guided translation on which God, working providentially, has
placed the stamp of His approval" (Hills, p. 65).
THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
The following study is by Dr. Donald A. Waite. Dr. Waite is a Baptist scholar who has
written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean
Burgon Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in
classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and
Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he
holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He
taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools.
He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects.
The following study is a summary of Waite's book Defending the King James Bible. This
volume presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: (1) Superior Texts
(Hebrew And Greek); (2) Superior Translators; (3) Superior Technique; And (4) Superior
Theology. We are thankful to Dr. Waite for preparing this summary of his excellent
book and for granting us permission to print it in this Encyclopedia.
Introduction
We begin with a couple of introductory thoughts about Bible translations:
Readability and the King James Bible.
Many people say, "The KJV is too hard for people to read, they can't understand
it." Well, if you consult the readability index called "Right Writer" (a
computer program) that is absolutely neutral on this subject, you will find readabilities
for the portions of the KJV examined as follows:
Readability of the King James Bible
Passage Readability Grade Level
Genesis 1 8.13 8th Grade
Exodus 1 7.94 8th Grade
Romans 1 9.74 10th Grade
Romans 3:1-23 5.63 6th Grade
Romans 8 7.73 8th Grade
Jude 1 10.11 10th Grade
From the chart you can see that the KJV is NOT too difficult to understand--provided
that you can read at a 6th to 10th grade level. Our son, D. A. Waite, Jr., has written a
study he calls Six Bible Versions Compared on Readability--A Comparison of the KJB, NKJV,
ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV. He took the first chapter of every book in the Bible, from
Genesis through Revelation and compared the six versions of the Bible mentioned above. In
this sampling, the KJV, over all, has a "Flesch Grade Level" of from 6.1 to 8.6.
The NIV, on the other hand, has a "Flesch Grade Level" of from 6.1 to 11.0!! The
NIV is not only less accurate by far, but also less readable than the King James! From
this evidence, we see that it's not too hard to understand the KJV. [Click here for chart
on Readability of the King James Bible.]
I know hundreds of people whose intelligence and educational levels have not reached as
high as some of these ... people who say they can't understand this King James Bible, yet
these people do understand it. How do you figure that out? Remember 1 Co. 2:14 which
states, `But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they
are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.' This verse is still true, regardless of which translation is used.
Some people say they like a particular version because they say it's more readable.
Now, readability is one thing, but does the readability conform to what's in the original
Greek and Hebrew language? You can have a lot of readability, but if it doesn't match up
with what God has said, it's of no profit. In the King James Bible, the words match what
God has said. You may say it's difficult to read, but study it out. It's hard in the
Hebrew and Greek and, perhaps, even in the English in the King James Bible. But to change
it around just to make it simple, or interpreting it, instead of translating it, is wrong.
You've got lots of interpretation, but we don't want that in a translation. We want
exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English.
Do we need more "translations" of the Bible? It can be asked: "Do we
really need more `translations' of the Bible? Are these new versions really
necessary?"
- Complete English Bibles. In the back of our book Defending the King James
Bible, there's a chart that lists the number of "complete English Bibles" by
years. From the 1300's through the 1900's, there were a total of 135 "complete
English Bibles." This is taken from a research that's been done on English Bibles of
all kinds. We notice that, on the average, there has been one complete English Bible every
4.4. years. Do you think we need more Bibles?
- Complete English New Testaments. In the same book, there is a chart that lists
the number of "complete English New Testaments" by years. From the 1300's
through the 1900's, there were a total of 293 "complete English New Testaments."
This is, on the average, one complete English New Testament every 2.1 years. Do you think
we need more New Testaments?
- Complete English Bibles and New Testaments combined. If you put the charts
together we can see that during the 612 years, from the 1300's to the 1900's, there were a
total of 135 complete English Bibles, and 293 complete English New Testaments. This totals
428. It means that, on the average, there was either one complete English Bible or
complete English New Testament published every 1.4 years. Do we need more complete English
Bibles or complete English New Testaments? That's the question.
I believe that the major factor in the production of Bibles and New Testaments is
money. When the publishers discover that a certain version no longer brings financial
profit to their treasuries, that version runs out of print in a hurry! Very few churches
are doing what the Berean Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana, is doing--printing Bibles
and giving them out at low cost. In fact, they give many of them away without charge. To
my knowledge, only those who have the real truth found in the King James Bible are doing
this. You will find few publishers of these false perversions printing them at low cost or
without charge! Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible:
#1: The King James Bible Has Superior Original Language Texts
The first reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior texts, both Hebrew
and Greek. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible
have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek.
The KJV Has A Superior O.T. Hebrew Text
There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher,
and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's
Biblia Hebraica (BHK) (1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well as in the
Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica (BHS) (1967-77) with all of their suggested footnote
changes. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which our KJV is based is also available. It is
called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). We carry
this Hebrew Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in
1866. It has the Masoretic Hebrew text in the center and the King James Bible in the
margins. This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the unquestioned Hebrew text for the
next 400 years. Nobody questioned it. In fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of
1906 and 1912, used that text in his Biblia Hebraica. It was not until 1937, that he
switched Hebrew texts and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the
Leningrad Manuscript (B19a or "L"). He used this because he claimed it was the
oldest single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about 1008 A.D.
Both of these false Biblia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their
footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page. This adds up to about 20,000
to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. One or the other of these false
Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used as the basis for the O.T. in all modern
versions, as can be shown by reading their introductory pages. How many of these
changes in the Hebrew text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,000? How
about 20,000? 10,000? How about 5,000? How about 1,000? How many of you would like to
accept 500 changes?
If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept
more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise
in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We
must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV
is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL
to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter
of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the
years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us
He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand
generations."
The New Versions attempt to "CORRECT" The Hebrew Text in at least 19
different ways. The NIV uses all 19 of these, by the way. In effect, the new version
"translators/paraphrasers" might say, "Oh, I don't want to take this Hebrew
word here. I want to take the Septuagint (LXX) reading instead." But the Septuagint
(LXX) version for the most part is worse than a Living Version. It is the Old Testament
written in Greek. It is rotten. Its text is corrupt. Even the International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (ISBE) article on the Septuagint (LXX) states that it has a very tattered and
inferior Greek text. Remember, the ISBE is no friend of the King James Bible's text. The
use of the Septuagint (LXX) by these new versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a
serious error.
Another one of the 19 methods is when they have no textual proof at all. It is pure
conjecture. They might say, "I don't have any proof, but I think it sounds better
this way." When this is done, they often print in the footnote an "L" which
stands for "legendum," meaning in Latin, "which read." I remember Dr.
Merrill F. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written many
books, including Unger's Bible Dictionary. He was an apt and humble man, though he
reminded me of an "absent-minded professor" at times. He taught us Isaiah in our
second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way that differed from the
Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, "Why did you read it that way? It doesn't
read that way in the Hebrew text?" Dr. Unger replied, "Well, I just thought it
sounded better that way, so I changed it." Dr. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins
University for his Ph.D. work. He was taught by Dr. Albright who was far from sound in his
theology. Perhaps Dr. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. What
was Dr. Unger doing? He was "CORRECTING" the Hebrew text by conjecture.
Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Syriac Version. Some "CORRECT"
the Hebrew with just "a few Hebrew manuscripts" rather than the entire Masoretic
Traditional Hebrew text. Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Latin Vulgate. Some
"CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, there
are a few problems. Problem #1: How do you know which Hebrew manuscripts this heretical
cult (called the Essenes) took with them when they left the temple of Jerusalem and went
to the area of the Qumran caves? Problem #2: How do you know the methods they used and the
accuracy with which they copied and recopied those manuscripts? It just so happens that
the Dead Sea Scrolls, probably 99% of the time, did concur with the Hebrew text that
underlies the King James Bible. But, in the places where they don't, we should stick to
the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.
Some, like the NIV, use "quotations from Jerome" to "CORRECT" the
Hebrew text. Some use Josephus, an unsaved Jew, to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use a "variant Hebrew Reading in the margin" to "CORRECT" the
Hebrew text. Some use "words in the consonantal text divided differently" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the
Samaritan Pentateuch, or Symmachus to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use the
Hebrew Targums, Theodotion, or the "Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for the
Hebrew Word of God? Was he there? Still others use a "different set of Hebrew
Vowels" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use "an ancient Hebrew
scribal tradition" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew. Some use the Biblia Hebraica of
Kittel or Stuttgartensia to "CORRECT" the Hebrew. These are 19 of the different
methods that other English versions have used to "CORRECT" the Masoretic
Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, thus changing the very Words of God!
God authorized the Jews to be the exclusive guardians of His Words. The Jews were to be
the guardians of the O.T. Hebrew text. God did not give that privilege and responsibility
to any other race or people. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is
there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the
oracles of God" (Ro. 3:1,2).
It was the Hebrew O.T. text that God preserved, not some text in Greek, Latin, or
Syriac, or any of these other documents. It must be Hebrew. There were eight or more
important, strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew scribes who copied and recopied
the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text. These rules were to insure that each letter, word, and
sentence of the Hebrew text was preserved exactly. The Jews were meticulous and reverent
in the copying and recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. That's why I believe that we
should not change any of the Hebrew Words of God that underlie the KJV.
The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament Text is available today. I hope that the American
Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society keep printing and circulating this
Letteris Hebrew text. That's what they call it, the Letteris text of 1866. This came out
before Kittel decided to scrap it for his false Ben Asher text. These same Bible Societies
print the false Hebrew texts, too. If they stop printing the true Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old
Testament text, by God's grace, we will do everything in our power to see that it's
reprinted and put back into circulation. We'll preserve the very O.T. Hebrew Words of God
ourselves, if that becomes necessary. Sometimes this Hebrew Bible has gone out of stock at
the American Bible Society, but it has always come back in stock by a shipment from
England.
The KJV Has A Superior N.T. Greek Text
There is a simple table in our book which speaks volumes concerning the New Testament
Greek text debate.
Differences in the Greek Texts
Textus Receptus Westcott/Hort Changes
Has 140,521 Greek words Changes 5,604 places in the N.T.
Has 647 pages Changes include 9,970 words
Has 217 Greek words per page Changes 15.4 words per page
Has 100% of the Greek words Changes 7% of the Greek words
Has all 647 pages unchanged Changes total 45.9 pages in Greek text
1. The Greek Text That Underlies The KJV
If you examine this table carefully, you will learn much about the debate that is
raging concerning the Greek N.T. On the left of the table are some facts about the Textus
Receptus that underlies the KJV. The Trinitarian Bible Society has published this text and
made it available to anyone. The TBS took this text from that of Dr. Frederick Scrivener
who was commissioned in about 1885, by the Cambridge University Press, to come up with the
exact Greek text that underlies the King James Bible. Scrivener set down all of the Greek
words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of
the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version.
He inserted the exact alterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of
Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way.
This Greek text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful
tool. Scrivener's Greek text is also available on the LOGOS Computer Program which enables
the student to study more carefully. Missionary Jack Moorman counted 140,521 Greek words
in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener's Greek edition has 647 pages which would average 217
Greek words per page. That's what the Textus Receptus has.
2. The Greek Text Of Westcott And Hort That Underlies The Modern Versions
Though there was some scattered opposition to the Received Text in years before, the
concerted effort against the Received Text came in 1881, and after. In 1881, two
theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F. Westcott and
F.J.A. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my actual
count. This involved 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from
the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total
of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a
radically new Greek text. Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR
that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T.
You might rightfully ask, "How did you come up with this number of changes?"
That's a valid question. I took a copy of the original Scrivener's Greek N.T. to a summer
Bible Conference where I was preaching. During the afternoon, when there were no meetings,
I studied that volume carefully, making notations on it as I read. When I indicate that
there are 5,604 places in the Greek N.T. where Westcott and Hort actually altered the
Greek Textus Receptus used by the KJV translators, it is because I actually counted that
many places. I have the data in my copy of Scrivener's Greek New Testament. These 5,604
places involve a total of 9,970 Greek words. How do I know that? Again, I counted them. I
saw from the footnotes exactly how many Greek words each of the 5,604 places involved. As
you might know, some of the places involve twelve entire verses (Mk. 16:9-20 and John
7:53--8:11). In each of the 5,604 places, compared to the Textus Receptus that underlies
the KJV, Westcott and Hort either added Greek words, subtracted Greek words, or changed
the Greek words in some other way. You can see that the Westcott and Hort alterations
amount to just thirty words short of 10,000 Greek words. This means that there are almost
10,000 Greek words that are different in the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (and
probably about the same or more in the Nestle/Aland 26th edition Greek text) as compared
to the Greek text that underlies our KJV.
This false Greek text, with its approximate 10,000 alterations, was the basis for
virtually all of the modern English versions and perversions, including the ERV, ASV,
NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV, LV and the rest.
Hort's own three estimates on the extent of the Greek textual problems between his text
and the Textus Receptus. In 1882, Hort wrote an Introduction to the so-called Westcott and
Hort Greek Text of 1881. In his Introduction to the New Testament in the Original
Greek--The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.,
Hort made an estimate of the differences between various Greek texts. His estimate had
three parts. Let me quote each of the parts:
(1) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that was virtually
accepted by everyone. He wrote: "With regard to the great bulk of the words of the
New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is NO VARIATION or other ground of
doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism. ... The proportion of words virtually
accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is VERY GREAT, not less, on a rough
computation, than SEVEN EIGHTHS OF THE WHOLE. The REMAINING EIGHTH therefore, formed in
great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole
area of criticism" (Hort, p. 2).
Since the "whole" in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek N.T. as
seen in our table, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 7/8ths of the Greek New
Testament virtually agreed to by all would be 122,956 Greek words (87.5%=566 pages).
Hort's 1/8th of the Greek N.T. that he claimed was in dispute would be 17,565 Greek words
(12.5%=81 pages). In point of fact, as seen in the previous table, the area of dispute
between the Westcott and Hort Greek text as opposed to the Textus Receptus that underlies
the KJV is only 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). So Hort's estimate in this area is
incorrect.
(2) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that would still be in
doubt if his principles were followed. He wrote: "If the principles followed in the
present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognizing to the full
the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the
judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences
of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about ONE
SIXTIETH of the whole N.T." (Hort, loc. cit.).
Since the "whole" in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek N.T., as
seen in the previous table, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 1/60th of the
Greek New Testament still subject to doubt if his principles were followed, would be 2,342
Greek words. This represents 1.76% of the Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek New
Testament if put all in one place. But we don't follow Hort's "principles" at
all. Because of this, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are still
disputing 9,970 Greek words (rather than only 2,342 Greek words). This represents 7% of
the Greek words (rather than only 1.76%), or 45.9 pages in a Greek N.T. if the words were
put in one place (rather than only 11.4 pages). So Hort's estimate in this area is
incorrect again. We still maintain that the of Greek words in dispute are vastly more in
number than Hort has stated.
(3) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that contains
"SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION." He wrote: "In this second estimate the proportion
of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that
the amount of what can in any sense be called SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION is but a small
fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than A THOUSANDTH PART
of the entire text" (Hort, loc. cit.).
Since the "whole" in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek N.T. , as
seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 1/1000th of the
Greek N.T. that he thought could be called "SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION" would be
140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647 pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the
Greek N.T. This is extremely wide of the mark of truth! Since we don't follow Hort's
"principles" at all, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are
still disputing, either in "SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION" or otherwise, a total of
9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). It is Hort's last estimate that has been seized by his
modern day puppets and grossly distorted in order to fool people into thinking that the
problem is very tiny, when in reality, it is much, much larger!
The misquotation of Hort by his followers on the extent of the Greek textual problems
between his text and the Textus Receptus. Modern disciples of this false Westcott and Hort
Greek text have enlarged upon Hort's estimates. They say, in effect: "If all of the
variant readings between the Westcott and Hort-type text and the Textus Receptus-type text
were assembled together in one place, they would amount to a little over one half a page
in the Greek New Testament."
Hort's pupils are either knowingly or unknowingly misquoting their teacher. They want
to make the differences in the Greek texts very, very slight so as to minimize the
arguments against the false Westcott and Hort-type Greek text. From the above quotations
from Hort's Introduction, his differences in Greek texts would be either 81 pages (1/8th),
or 11.4 pages (1/60th), or .647 pages (1/1000th). Rather than merely "a little over
one half a page," Hort's 1/8th of total differences would amount to 81 pages. In
reality, we are faced with 45.9 pages of difference!
A current illustration of this practice of distorting the facts in this area is found
in a tape-recorded message given by Dr. Kenneth Barker, the chairman of the translation
committee responsible for the New International Version. Dr. Barker spoke in the Sunday
evening service, September 12, 1993, at the Southside Baptist Church in Greenville, South
Carolina. A friend recorded the message and gave me a copy. Dr. Barker stated:
"There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and all of them are AGREED 98% of the
time. So all of this debate that Carson refers to in The King James Version Debate, all of
this debate, all of the hullabaloo is over less than 2% of the entire text of the New
Testament. And in that less than 2%, you can select any reading that you wish among the
manuscripts, (that's not our approach, but you can) and it won't change Christian doctrine
one bit."
Dr. Barker is wrong on TWO COUNTS! (1) His "less than 2%" difference between
any of the Greek manuscripts would be 2,810 Greek words (12.9 pages). The truth of the
matter is that there is a 7% difference between the Westcott and Hort Greek text and the
Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. This would be 9,970 Greek words (45.9 pages). This
is a most serious error. It is a blatant falsehood that is being promulgated by the
chairman of the NIV translation committee. It would give false confidence to the pastor
and members of this church that had just recently given up the KJV in favor of Dr.
Barker's NIV. (2) The second serious error is Dr. Barker's statement relative to the fact
that variations in manuscripts "won't change Christian doctrine one bit." In our
book, we specify 158 such passages. Jack Moorman lists 356 such passages. These two
falsehoods, from someone who should know better, are the major ones used to lull
Bible-believing Christians into deep slumber concerning the Bible version controversy that
has been raging.
The King James Bible's Greek text is worth fighting for! The Greek Text of the New
Testament is truly a BATTLEGROUND! Someone might say to you that there is really very
little difference in the two Greek texts. They may tell you that you shouldn't be fighting
about these differences. It seems to me that almost 46 pages of the Greek N.T. ARE worth
fighting about. 9,970 Greek words are worth fighting about. 7% of the Greek N.T. is worth
fighting about. This is a BATTLEGROUND! We must not retreat. We must do battle for the
Lord's Words! We must stand fast. If we lose in this battle between truth and error,
there's no stopping the onrush of more error. In the tug of war with truth and error,
there is no middle ground. Those of us who believe in standing up for the Lord Jesus
Christ should remember His Words: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of
my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be
ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mk. 8:38).
The KJV Greek Text Attested by the Evidence
| Manuscripts |
Total |
WH/TR |
%MSS WH/TR |
| Papyrus |
81(88) |
13/75 |
15%/85% |
| Uncials |
267 |
9/258 |
3%/97% |
| Cursives |
2764 |
23/2741 |
1%/99% |
| Lectionaries |
2143 |
0/2143 |
0%/100% |
| Totals |
5255 |
45/5210 |
1%/99% |
As of 1967, Kurt Aland, of Munster, Germany, counted a total of 5,255 Greek manuscripts
still in existence. Though there are a few others since 1967, I use these figures which
are still very close. Aland is the lead editor of the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland
Greek New Testament which is being used as the critical text of today. I am using Aland's
1967 figures.
As you can see from the table, there are 81 (now 88) papyrus fragments. There are 267
uncial manuscripts. These are large, capital letter documents. There are 2,764 cursives
manuscripts. These are the flowing hand manuscripts. There are 2,143 lectionary
manuscripts. These are portions of Scripture that were read on certain days of the church
year. This totals at least 5,255 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. that have been preserved
and are available for us today.
The table gives the approximate number and percent of each type of Greek manuscript
that supports the Westcott-Hort (WH) Greek text, as well as the number and percent of each
class that supports the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text. These approximations are taken
from the careful research of Jack Moorman in his book Forever Settled (see Bibliography).
The WH figures are given first and those for the TR second. For the papyrus fragments the
score is 13 to 75 (15% to 85%). For the uncial manuscripts the score is 9 to 258 (3% to
97%). For the cursive manuscripts the score is 23 to 2,741 (1% to 99%). For the lectionary
manuscripts the score is 0 to 2,143 (0% to 100%). For the totals for all classes of
manuscripts the score is 45 to 5,210. This is a ratio of less than 1% to more than 99%!
The King James Bible's Greek Text has been preserved by God. Which of the two kinds of
Greek text has God preserved? How do you define preservation? The Scripture says: "The
words of the Lord are pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever" (Ps. 12:6,7).
Obviously God has "KEPT" and "PRESERVED" His Words in the 99% of
the evidence, rather than in the 1%. By very definition, this is "PRESERVATION."
Suppose I had 100 million dollars to begin with and a thief stole it from me. Suppose I
reported this to the police; and after long investigation, they were able to recover 99
million dollars out of the 100 million dollars. The thief would keep one million dollars.
Which of the two parties could most accurately be described as having
"PRESERVED" the 100 million dollars: the thief who had the one million dollars,
or the police who recovered the 99 million dollars? The one million would be a
"PRESERVATION" of practically nothing (1%) compared to the 99 million (99%). And
so it is with the Greek manuscripts of the N.T. The fulfillment of God's promise to
"KEEP" and "PRESERVE" His Words is to be found in the more than 99% of
the manuscripts we have today. And these support the Greek Text that underlies the KJV,
and NOT the Greek text that underlies the modern versions and perversions!
The false Greek texts of "B" and "ALEPH" contradict one another in
over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone. In the total numbers of manuscripts, you'll notice
that the Westcott-Hort type has only 45 manuscripts that go along with it as over against
5,210 that go along with the TR that underlies the KJV. This 45 includes "B"
(Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and forty-three of their little heretical puppets
that follow them. The theory behind the acceptance of these less than 1% is that "The
oldest are the best." The oldest are not necessarily the best, especially if they
have been tampered with by heretics!
Both Dr. Frederick Scrivener and Dean John William Burgon agreed that the greatest
pollution of the stream of pure manuscripts was accomplished in the first 100 years after
the New Testament was written! So the oldest are not necessarily the best! This is
especially true since the heretics had their knives out "correcting" the Greek
N.T. almost as soon as it was written. The Egyptian scribes and editors of "B"
(Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) were some of the most vicious
"correctors" of God's Words; yet these two Greek texts form the very bedrock of
the new versions and perversions of our day. "B" and "Aleph"
contradict each other, as Herman Hoskier has so accurately pointed out in his two volume
work entitled Codex B and Its Allies, in over 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone! So,
they are not good witnesses. They are false witnesses indeed!
#2: The King James Bible Has Superior Translators
The second reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This
correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior
translators.
Let's take a brief look at the superior translators of the KJV. Why do I say that the
KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because they ARE superior! I think
that there is no question about the expertise and ability of the translators who gave us
our KJV. The new version people often say that the KJV translators were rather ignorant
and didn't know as much about translating as the "translators/paraphrasers" of
today. This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic qualifications
are unequaled!
The accomplishments of Lancelot Andrews. Let's mention Dr. Lancelot Andrews. He was
certainly a superior KJV translator. He had mastered fifteen languages. Someone said that
if Dr. Andrews had been present at the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, he
could have served as interpreter general. I don't know any of the modern
"translator/paraphrasers" who have mastered fifteen languages, do you? Send me
their names, if you have proof of this.
The acumen of William Bedwell. How about Dr. William Bedwell? He was famed in Arabic
learning. I don't know how many of these new men who are
"translating/paraphrasing" for these modern versions and perversions who have
studied as much of the Arabic language as he had. In fact, he published in quarto, an
edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. I don't know how many
men today could do that. Dr. Bedwell left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of
Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. In fact, he wrote an
Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary which
is among Archbishop Laud's manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford
today. I don't think anyone among our modern "translators/paraphrasers" of today
has done this or could do this! Do you know any of these men who have written an Arabic
dictionary and begun a Persian dictionary, or done anything similar in the scholarly world
that will even come close to the accomplishments of William Bedwell? If so, send me their
names and the proof. In our day, many people watch too much television. They attend too
many football games, baseball games. and basketball games. We are ignoramuses today
compared to the scholars who gave us our KJV!
The acceptability of Miles Smith. Look at the acceptability of Dr. Miles Smith. He was
an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost as familiar to
him as his native tongue. Dr. Smith went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers,
making annotations on them all.
The activities of Henry Saville. Sir Henry Saville was proficient in both Greek and
mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. I don't know how
many queens or kings our modern "translators/paraphrasers" have tutored, do you?
Saville translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes.
He published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, The
Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on the Elements of Euclid.
He was the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek
Fathers. He was a profound and exact scholar.
The academics of John Bois. John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. He studied
at his father's knee. In fact, at the age of five, he had read the whole Bible IN HEBREW!!
At the age of six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. If you
know anything about the Hebrew letters, it's difficult to write in an elegant style, or in
any style, for that matter. Much more could be said about John Bois.
The superior translators in general. Have you ever heard of Gulliver's Travels? It
tells of Gulliver's adventures with the inhabitants of Lilliput. Do you remember what the
Lilliputians did to poor Gulliver? They were tiny, tiny people, and Gulliver was like a
giant to them. While he was asleep, they tied up Gulliver with tiny cords so he couldn't
move. I liken the KJV translators to the giant Gulliver and the
"translators/paraphrasers" of today to tiny Lilliputians. It states in Ge. 6:4:
"There were GIANTS in the earth in those days..." It was true also from 1604 to
1611, when these profound scholars gave us our incomparable King James Bible! They had
mastered English as well as the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. They also knew the cognate or
brother-sister-cousin related languages that shed light on the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek
such as the Aramaic, the Arabic, the Persian, the Coptic, the Syriac, and the others. When
the modern "translators/paraphrasers" come upon a word they don't understand,
they throw up their hands in dismay. The KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty
because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. Our
modern "translators/paraphrasers" are linguistically illiterate when compared to
the men who gave us our KJV. They truly were "GIANTS"!!
#3: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE
The third reason for defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior
technique of translation. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions
of the Bible have inferior technique of translation.
The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal
equivalence--not dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and perversions have used, to a
greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained
both verbal and formal equivalence.
Alleged Dynamic Equivalencies In The KJV
- "God Forbid." Some people allege that the KJB translators used dynamic
equivalence in their expression "God forbid." Even if it were the case (and I do
not accept that it is), it is found only fourteen times in the New Testament: Ro.
3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. It is a
rendering of "mE genoito" which is "may it not be" or "let it not
be." This is perfect 1611 parlance for "God forbid." It was quite literal
in 1611. If you don't believe it, consult the Oxford English Dictionary which gives you
the meaning of "God forbid" in 1611. It is found only seven times in the O.T.:
Ge. 44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:23; 1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5. It is a rendering of
"chalal" which is "may it be something profane" or "may it be far
from me." Again, "God forbid" is a perfect 1611-parlance for the Hebrew
words used.
- "God Save the King." Another favorite allegation of dynamic equivalency
in the KJV is the expression "God save the king." Even if it were the case (and
I do not accept that it is), it is only found four times in the O.T.: 1 Sa. 10:24; 2 Sa.
16:16; 2 Ki. 11:12; 2 Ch. 23:11. It means "may the king live long" or "may
the king be preserved or safe." Well, if the king lives long, he is "saved"
is he not? [Editor: The term "salvation" was used in a much broader sense in
past centuries.] So why not let the 1611-parlance of "God save the king" alone?
The fact is that such examples are very, very few in the KJV, whereas they abound in the
modern versions and perversions because in those, the dynamic equivalent technique is the
rule rather than the exception.
The KJV's Verbal And Formal Equivalence
The KJV basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence.
Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from
Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal
equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of
the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the grammar. They didn't
take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a
noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper concept of what
"translation" really is. It comes from translatus which in turn comes from two
Latin words, trans ("across") and latus which is the past participle of fero
("to carry"). It means to "carry across" from one place to another, or
from one language to another. It does not mean to CHANGE, or to ADD, or to SUBTRACT!
Let me illustrate "translation." If I have my wife's pocketbook and I want to
translate it from one side of the church to the other, I would simply pick it up, take it
across the aisle, and put it on the other side of the church. I wouldn't leave any of it
behind, even though there may be some things in it I wouldn't want to take over. I
wouldn't add anything to it, and I wouldn't drop any of it in the center aisle. Now that's
translation, translatus. That's what the KJV translators did. They just simply took the
Hebrew words and put them into English. They picked up the Greek words and put them into
English. That's translation. That's the superior technique.
The Modern Versions' Use Of Dynamic Equivalence
I have a computer print-out research of three of these modern versions--the New King
James, the New American Standard, and the New International. When compared to the Hebrew
and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had over 2,000 examples of
dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Words of God.
In a similar study of the New American Standard Version, I found over 4,000 such examples.
In a similar study of the New International Version I found over 6,653 such examples.
What is meant by dynamic equivalency? "Dynamic" means "moving or
changing." "Equivalence" means "the same or unchanging." You
can't have it both ways! It is either changing or unchanging. Those who use this false
technique in the various "translations/paraphrases" think it's a great
technique. The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right
to ADD to God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God's Words (which is sin), or to
CHANGE God's Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest possible CURSE on anyone
who dares to do any of those three things to God's Words!! Those who use this false
technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek
words, para ("along side or beside") and phrasis ("a word or phrase").
It means to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning. It is to state
something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators sought, to put into
English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather than to
give something that is "beside" or "along side of" the word or phrase.
#4: The King James Bible Has Superior Theology
The fourth reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior theology. This
correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior
theology.
Some Denials That Theology Is Affected By Greek Or English Versions.
It is said by those who use the new versions and perversions of the Bible that there is
no difference in any of them when it comes to theology. It is also said that there is no
difference in any of the Greek texts in the matter of theology. This is even said by those
who are looked up to as Bible believing leaders. There are two phases of their theological
denial:
- These men believe that the Greek textual variants between the two basic Greek texts do
not affect theology or doctrine. They believe that the false Westcott and Hort Greek text
(when compared to the Greek text of the KJV) contains nothing that is theologically
deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is false.
- These men also believe that the modern English versions do not contain changes from the
KJV that affect theology or doctrine. They believe that you can take any modern English
version you wish and when you compare it to the KJV, that version does not have anything
in it that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is also false....
Dr. Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not
effect [sic] in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr.
Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No
major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. Dr. H.S.
Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated:
"Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine
command to us." False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences
of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian
doctrine." False again!
Some Examples Of Theology That Is Affected By Greek And English Versions.
I have given 158 examples of the theological superiority of the KJV in my book. I
selected these from Jack Moorman's compilation of a total of 356 doctrinal passages that
have been changed in the Egyptian heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican),
"Aleph" (Sinai), and others. I'll give you some examples of doctrines that are
affected by these false Greek texts and new versions.
1. John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life."
Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts
do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two
false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek
texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows
them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn.
3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?
2. John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively
Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus
declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting
life."
That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive "everlasting life." But,
the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the "B" (Vatican) and
"Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words,
"on me." Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV
also removes "on me." So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do
the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with
those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to
Christ, because "on me" (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions!
All they say is something like this: "Whoever believes has everlasting life."
Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says "believes." ...
That's major false doctrine in my judgment, and it stems directly from false Greek texts
and false English perversions!
3. Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed of
the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai)
remove the two words "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also
removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other
modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. "Gospel" means
"good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be
inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a
pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the
gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!
4. John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text,
"Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: "Go ye up
unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."
According to the Greek text "Aleph" (Sinai), the word "yet" must be
removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other
modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the
Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He
told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that
feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological
doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages [which are corrupted in the modern
versions and listed in Jack Moorman's book], the KJV has superior theology here. The
perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!
Concluding remarks: I believe that in the King James Bible we have the Word of God kept
intact in English. I believe we should defend the KJV for four reasons: (1) It has
superior original language texts (Hebrew and Greek); (2) It has superior translators; (3)
It has superior technique; and (4) It has superior theology.
We ought not to be ashamed of the Book of books that has stood the test of time and
will continue standing. Let's stand for it and with it. ... The KJV, which is being
hammered and beaten on every hand today (by so-called "friend" and foe alike),
can be very much likened to the "ANVIL" in that famous poem with which I close:
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 1611 KJV AND THE PRESENT KJV
In the New King James Version they have the history of the King James Bible in the
back. On page 1229 of my edition, the editors wrote:
"Over the years from 1611 to 1616, words and phrases in the King James Bible were
changed, and printing errors were corrected.
"In 1629 the first edition of the Authorized Version, printed by the presses of
Cambridge University, underwent a thorough and systematic revision of the text, the
italics and the marginal references. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dean Bois [he is the one who read
the Hebrew Bible when he was five] two of the 1611 translators, participated in that
revision. A still further revision, more thorough than the first, was carried out in the
Cambridge edition of 1638. This carefully supervised revision covered `from the beginning
of the volume to the end.'
"The first Bible to contain dates of biblical events in the margin was a
three-volume edition in 1701 ... In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris, a Fellow of trinity College,
Cambridge issued a major revision of the King James Bible; and seven years later the
Oxford Revision, the work of Dr. Benjamin Blayney was released. ... Marginal notes were
increased to almost 65,000, half of which were cross-references."
Basically, those were the revisions up to 1769. The question is, how great were those
revisions? How much was the wording changed? That is why I compared the present day Old
Scofield King James Version and read the original 1611 and looked not just at the spelling
changes. Some say there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, and if you listened to them you
would think we don't have anything like the original today. That would be a tremendous
number of changes in my judgment. More confusion. They want an excuse to give us a
"new" King James Version. That is why they give the history of the changes, to
make us think this is JUST ONE MORE CHANGE. If there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, they
are related, by and large, to spelling differences, NOT to changes in the meaning or
sounds of words.
For instance, take John 9, the account of the man born blind. Now, the word
"blind" in verse 1 is spelled "blinde." It's a change. But is
"blind" any different from "blinde"? If that is a change you're
talking about, it doesn't affect the ear. Now, in the second verse, "sin" is
spelled "sinne." That is a change. Then the word "born" is spelled
"borne." But the sound is the same. What I did, was to count only the changes
that could be HEARD. And from Genesis to Revelation, did I get 30,000? No. Did I get
20,000? No. 1,000? No. I got 421 changes to the ear, that could be heard, out of the
791,328 words. Just 421. That is actually one change out of 1,880 words. As for those 421
changes to the ear--most of them minor, just changes in spelling.
There were ONLY 135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only
285 minor changes of form only. Of these 285 minor changes, there are 214 very minor
changes such as "towards" for "toward"; "burnt" for
"burned"; "amongst" for "among"; "lift" for
"lifted"; and "you"; for "ye." These kinds of changes
represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only. Now you're talking about only 136
real changes out of 791,328 words. Many people imply that the King James Bible is
completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences.
You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only.
(D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible).
email