Which Bible Do I Use? - Razor Planet



IntroductionWhich Bible do I use? This is a question that seems to have been moved to the fore front of a lot of people’s minds. There is a lot of confusion and controversy when it comes to this area. When you go to a Christian store these days, it is not an easy task choosing what Bible to purchase. Being from the Bible belt, there is no question as to what Bible to use, you are either in the KJV only camp or you are not. There are the hyper conservatives, and who seem to think that they are the experts of higher thinking when it comes to Bible translations. Then there are the “Liberals” these are the ones who have no yet come to the realization that they are no using the “Word of God” The KJV only group sometimes sends off an air of superiorism when it comes to people who use other versions. This group looks down their noses at people for even considering another version. The problem with the KJV only crowd is that they are making two very serious mistakes. They are comparing the other versions with a version. They usually saying something like, “That version doesn’t read the same as my KJV, and so it is wrong” They are using biased material for their research. They pick up books and read of people who are of the same camp they are.I read the KJV of the Bible, I always have preached out of this version of the Bible. When it comes to my study time alone, I do read other versions. But what you must understand is that I do not read all the other versions. My study and research has led me to trust other texts and not trust other texts. I am very cautious when it comes to versions, because I do believe that there are many which down play the deity of Christ; remove all together the means of salvation as only through Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. But there are some which strive to uphold the name of Christ and would never think of restating or changing the means of salvation laid out in God’s word. I truly believe that there is too much wasted energy on trying to defend the versions that are circulating throughout our times. If all that effort what put into proclaiming the contents of the book, rather than defending it, we would see a lot more people come to Christ. I truly believe that we have lost sight of the fact that there is an enemy out there which all his strength would love to sidetrack believers from the true purpose of why they are here. He loves to see it when we argue and debate over issues and topics that cause division amongst the people of God. One of those areas is what Bible do I use? Have God’s people become so weak in their faith that they are swept off their feet by every minute issue that seems to blow through the air? Now I will say there are some very dangerous versions that are in circulation. They remove, erase from their pages, and weaken the text. Their motive is very evil; “we dare not offend anyone” is what they say. They are, in my opinion, servants of Satan. Is Satan not the one we see in the Word of God tampering with the Words of God? Is he not the one who twists, removes, and changes the original words of God? Then what makes us think he is not doing it today? He is. I find myself a lot of times asking the question, “If these other versions are so bad and wrong, why is God blessing true men of God and authentic works of God? Surely God, would strike them down as He did Sodom and Gomorra? But that is not the case. I know there are those who would say, “Well God always blesses His work and Word.” If that is the case then are we saying that if someone is preaching from another version, and hundreds of people come to Christ, then that minister is using the word of God? My question is this, why do you use the version that you use? Is it easier for you to understand? Wrong AnswerIs it what you have always used? Wrong AnswerIs it what your pastor told you was the right one to use? Wrong AnswerHave you studied and investigated the facts concerning that version, and have you prayed about it? Bingo!!!I think it is important to clarify terms. Defining words that we use is very important. A lot of what we say is nothing more than Christian jargon. It is what we have heard everyone else say or some prestigious minister, and if they say it then it must be right. Well that is like saying, “Everything you read on the internet is truth.” I can almost hear laughter while I sit here and type. Think about what the binding of you Bible says; King James VERSION. Version, what does that mean? Version: a?particular?form?or?variant?of?something:?a?modern?version?of?an?antique; a?translation; (often?initial?capital?letter)?a?translation?of?the?Bible?or?a?part?of?it.So if it is a King James Version, then what version is it from? Does this mean that it is a translation from something? Yes it is. N Y Times Article The King James Bible, which was first published 400 years ago next month, may be the single best thing ever accomplished by a committee. The Bible was the work of 54 scholars and clergymen who met over seven years in six nine-man subcommittees, called “companies.” In a preface to the new Bible, Miles Smith, one of the translators and a man so impatient that he once walked out of a boring sermon and went to the pub, wrote that anything new inevitably “endured many a storm of gainsaying, or opposition.” So there must have been disputes — shouting; table pounding; high-ruffed, black-gowned clergymen folding their arms and stomping out of the room — but there is no record of them. And the finished text shows none of the PowerPoint insipidness we associate with committee-speak or with later group translations like the 1961 New English Bible, which T.S. Eliot said did not even rise to “dignified mediocrity.” Far from bland, the King James Bible is one of the great masterpieces of English prose.For New Mass, Closer to Latin, Critics Voice a Plain Objection(April 12, 2011)The issue of how, or even whether, to translate sacred texts was a fraught one in those days, often with political as well as religious overtones, and it still is. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, recently decided to retranslate the missal used at Mass to make it more formal and less conversational.Critics have complained?that the new text is awkward and archaic, while its defenders (some of whom probably still prefer the Mass in Latin) insist that’s just the point — that language a little out of the ordinary is more devotional and inspiring. No one would ever say that the King James Bible is an easy read. And yet its very oddness is part of its power.From the start, the King James Bible was intended to be not a literary creation but rather a political and theological compromise between the established church and the growing Puritan movement. What the king cared about was clarity, simplicity, doctrinal orthodoxy. The translators worked hard on that, going back to the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and yet they also spent a lot of time tweaking the English text in the interest of euphony and musicality. Time and again the language seems to slip almost unconsciously into iambic pentameter — this was the age of Shakespeare, commentators are always reminding us — and right from the beginning the translators embraced the principles of repetition and the dramatic pause: “In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.”The influence of the King James Bible is so great that the list of idioms from it that have slipped into everyday speech, taking such deep root that we use them all the time without any awareness of their biblical origin, is practically endless: sour grapes; fatted calf; salt of the earth; drop in a bucket; skin of one’s teeth; apple of one’s eye; girded loins; feet of clay; whited sepulchers; filthy lucre; pearls before swine; fly in the ointment; fight the good fight; eat, drink and be merry.But what we also love about this Bible is its strangeness — its weird punctuation, odd pronouns (as in “Our Father, which art in heaven”), all those verbs that end in “eth”: “In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth vp; in the euening it is cut downe, and withereth.” As Robert Alter has demonstrated in his startling and revealing translations of the Psalms and the?Pentateuch, the Hebrew Bible is even stranger, and in ways that the King James translators may not have entirely comprehended, and yet their text performs the great trick of being at once recognizably English and also a little bit foreign. You can hear its distinctive cadences in the speeches of Lincoln, the poetry of Whitman, the novels of Cormac McCarthy.Even in its time, the King James Bible was deliberately archaic in grammar and phraseology: an expression like “yea, verily,” for example, had gone out of fashion some 50 years before. The translators didn’t want their Bible to sound contemporary, because they knew that contemporaneity quickly goes out of fashion. In his very useful guide,?“God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible,”?Adam Nicolson points out that when the Victorians came to revise the King James Bible in 1885, they embraced this principle wholeheartedly, and like those people who whack and scratch old furniture to make it look even more ancient, they threw in a lot of extra Jacobeanisms, like “howbeit,” “peradventure, “holden” and “behooved.”This is the opposite, of course, of the procedure followed by most new translations, starting with Good News for Modern Man, a paperback Bible published by the American Bible Society in 1966, whose goal was to reflect not the language of the Bible but its ideas, rendering them into current terms, so that Ezekiel 23:20, for example (“For she doted vpon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses”) becomes “She was filled with lust for oversexed men who had all the lustfulness of donkeys or stallions.”There are countless new Bibles available now, many of them specialized: a Bible for couples, for gays and lesbians, for recovering addicts, for surfers, for skaters and skateboarders, not to mention a superheroes Bible for children. They are all “accessible,” but most are a little tone-deaf, lacking in grandeur and majesty, replacing “through a glasse, darkly,” for instance, with something along the lines of “like a dim image in a mirror.” But what this modernizing ignores is that the most powerful religious language is often a little elevated and incantatory, even ambiguous or just plain hard to understand. The new Catholic missal, for instance, does not seem to fear the forbidding phrase, replacing the statement that Jesus is “one in being with the Father” with the more complicated idea that he is “consubstantial with the Father.”Not everyone prefers a God who talks like a pal or a guidance counselor. Even some of us who are nonbelievers want a God who speaketh like — well, God. The great achievement of the King James translators is to have arrived at a language that is both ordinary and heightened, that rings in the ear and lingers in the mind. And that all 54 of them were able to agree on every phrase, every comma, without sounding as gassy and evasive as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, is little short of amazing, in itself proof of something like divine inspiration.What does Authorized mean? What does it mean that it is authorized? ?Who authorized it and why?In the year 1604, the Hampton Court Conference was called to resolve issues between the Puritans and the Anglicans. ?Among the list of tensions was that the Puritans favored the Geneva Bible while the Anglicans favored the Bishop’s Bible. ?The leader of these groups which made up the Church of England, King James I, was faced with finding a solution.As the court convened Puritan John Rainholds spoke,May Your Majesty be pleased. ?May a new translation be made that will answer to the intent of the original rather than allowing for the corrupt interpretations of Henry VIII and Edward VI.King James responded to the?challenge,I would that England had one uniform translation, but I have never yet seen a Bible well translated in English, and I think the Geneva is the worst of all…This new translation must not be burdened with marginal notes that are partial, untrue, seditious, and treaterous toward kingship but rather must spread the idea of divine rule by monarchs.”While this new translation has no documentary evidence of an official authorization by King James I, he certainly ordered it and determined the process for translation.? Fifty-four translators were chosen and divided into six companies that would responsible for assigned sections of the Bible. ?This would be a version of the Bible translated for the same reason new translations appear today: there are groups that seek to improve previous translations.These translators were given strict instructions to use the 1602 edition of the Bishop’s Bible (which was a revision of the 1539 Great Bible) as the starting point for translation. ?King James I stated that there must be, “as little altered as the truth of the original will permit”concerning the Bishop’s Bible. ?It would compare the Hebrew and Greek to the English of the Bishop’s Bible and change as little as possible. ?Thus, the Authorized King James Version is a revision of the Bishop’s Bible in hopes of settling translation issues within the Church of England. ?To ensure that the influence of the Geneva Bible would diminish, it was banned in 1616.So to say you prefer the 1611 King James Version because it is “authorized” is a significant statement if you are a member of the Church of England. ?But this authorization has little bearing on all other Christians. ?It has not been authorized by the church as a whole, Jesus, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodists or Billy Graham. ?It was authorized by the head of the Church of England?for?the Church of England.To be clear, it was a very good translation of the Bible. ?It has been the most significant influence on the English language ever. ?But I know of no churches that actually use the 1611 version. ?Most use the 1769 Oxford Standard Edition and think that its an “authorized” version. ?Notice the following timeline of King James Version revisions:1611 – The original King James Bible, including the Aprocrypha.1629 – King James is revised1631 – “Wicked Bible”. ?Printer’s error that read “Thou shalt commit adultery”.1638 – King James is revised1762 – King James is revised1769 – King James is revised. ?This is the standard revision used today called the “Oxford Standard Edition”.1826 – Aprocypha finally removed from the King James translations.1982 – Language is modernized in a revision called the New King James Version1994 – King James Version 21 edition.The Translators INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORSThe ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word?church,?not to be translated?congregation.When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."Only forty-seven of the men appointed for this work are known to have engaged in it. These were divided into six companies, two of which met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. They were presided over severally by the Dean of Westminster and by the two Hebrew Professors of the Universities.To the first company, at Westminster (ten in number), was assigned the Old Testament as far as 2 Kings; the second company (seven in number) had the Epistles. The first company at Cambridge (numbering eight) had 2 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes; the second company (numbering seven) had the Apocryphal books. To the first Oxford company (seven in number) were assigned the prophetical books, from Isaiah to Malachi; to the second (eight in number) were given the four Gospels, the Acts and the Apocalypse, or Revelation.A few of the principal men among those learned translators were these:Dr. Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: "The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues." He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul's, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607.Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a "walking library." Born about 1568, died 1624.John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John's College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.The KJV Movement It is interesting to note that those who hold to the opinion that KJV is the ONLY Bible for the English speaking people, are now considered to be a part of a movement. The "King James Only movement" advocates the superiority of the Authorized?King James Version?(KJV) of the?Protestant Bible. This phrase is disputed and has been described as a term meant to discredit the group of supporters that use this translation to the exclusion of all others. For instance, KJV proponent?D. A. Waitestates the term is a "smear word."[1][2]Adherents of the movement hold that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to all other English translations, with some teaching that it is the greatest English translation ever penned, needing no further enhancements.[3][page?needed]?Previous to the completion of the King James version, a series of other English Bible translations were created in succession gradually improving the quality of each new release. It is believed by many that this version of the Bible has more greatly influenced the positive direction of Christianity than any other English Bible ever created. Even today, the Authorized Version is still considered an outstanding translation of the Greek and Hebrew Bible texts into English.The history of the King James Version Only (hereafter KJVO) movement can best be described by a genealogical outline of writers whose books have not only given birth to the movement but also have influenced their doctrines. Dr. James D. Price's book, published in 2006, gives the same information in a summary.[4]Benjamin G. Wilkinson?(1872–1968), a staunch?Seventh-day Adventist?missionary, theology professor and college president, wrote?Our Authorized Bible Vindicated?(1930) in which he attacked the?Westcott-Hort?Greek text and expressed strong opposition to the?English Revised Version?New Testament (ERV, 1881).[5]?He was the first to apply?Psalm 12:6–7?to the King James Bible, claiming that the reference is a?prooftext?for divine preservation of the Scriptures.[6]Jasper James Ray (1894–1985), a business manager, missionary and Bible teacher, wrote a booklet entitled?God Wrote Only One Bible?(1955). It was nearly identical to Wilkinson's?Our Authorized Bible Vindicated?book without note or acknowledgement to Wilkinson's authorship.[7]?The result was a continued propagation of Wilkinson's statements but with the misconception of a separate, corroborating affirmation of Wilkinson's ideas.[a]Regular Baptist?pastor?David Otis Fuller?(1903–88) edited a book entitled?Which Bible??Published in 1970. It is an anthology by authors such as?Robert Dick Wilson?(1856–1930),?Zane Clark Hodges?(1932–2008) and others, who distinctly reject the "Textus Receptus only"/"KJV-Only" viewpoint and whose writings actually give some information refuting some of the extremes of the KJVO movement.[8]?This book, however, is singularly responsible for [the birth of] the "King James only" / "Textus Receptus only" controversial viewpoint that gained wide acceptance among KJV-Only believers.[9]?Almost half of the book is dedicated to the ten out of sixteen chapters from Wilkinson's?Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.[10]Peter Sturges Ruckman?(1921–), a Baptist preacher, wrote a series of uniformly bound commentaries on various Bible books, topical books on Bible-related subjects and books related to Bible text and translation issues. At least some of his books are characterized by harsh criticism of almost everyone involved in textual criticism, such as?Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield?(1851–1921),?Archibald Thomas Robertson?(1863–1934),?Charles Haddon Spurgeon?(1834–92) with the likes of?Julius Wellhausen?(1844–1918) and?Harry Emerson Fosdick?(1878–1969).?The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence(1970) is among them. Ruckman was influenced by JJ Ray's?God Wrote Only One Bible, and Ruckman's?The Bible Babel?(1964) is nearly identical to Ray's 1955 book.[11]?Some supporters of the KJVO movement reject Ruckman's position that the King James Version Bible is superior to existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts,[12]?and criticize Ruckman because "his writings are so acerbic, offensive and mean-spirited that the entire movement has become identified with his kind of confrontational attitude."[13][14]Edward F. Hills?(1912–81), who wrote?Believing Bible Study?(1967) and?King James Version Defended?(1956, 1973) and wrote a chapter on Dean?John William Burgon?in Fuller's?Which Bible?, did not advocate the inerrancy of the King James Version nor the Origenian origin of the Septuagint. However, Hills’ works are commonly cited to give support to the KJVO's position even though Hills never supported such KJVO positions.[15]Gail Riplinger?(1947–), known for her book?New Age Bible Versions?and a number of other works, has also addressed in some detail the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible.[16]The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.I find it interesting that when you Google, “Why I use a KJV” there are 8,980,000 results on the topic. Would it be safe to say that this is a big deal or what? As I speedily read through some of the sites, I found a lot of good information, but also found that a lot of people are saying the same thing and repeating themselves or someone else they have heard on the topic. One writer stated, “The Greek and Hebrew are not the issue” Well if that is the case, and then what is the big deal? Is not this where we received the Bible from? Is not this what the translators used to give us our English Bible? I find myself laughing as I read these men and their take on why we should use only the KJV. They have yet to give a clear reason why. They speak all this theological jargon that the common old Joe cannot understand, and then feel proud that they have given such an educated answer, leaving the person as confused as they were standing in the Christian Book Store. Why don’t the experts gives us something that we can sink our teeth in, facts that we can trust in, evidence that proves there theory. Instead we get big words, decorated all nice, that makes them look very smart. Why not prove your theory? Another site stated, “That you can prove nothing from history” he went on to say, “I cannot even prove that Jesus was real from history” but “I know that the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking people” What? Does this mean that Pearl Harbor is just a tourist attraction? Does it mean that the Vietnam memorial in Washing DC is just a compiling of random names that has been engraved in marble? Try telling that to the gentlemen that is crying as he visits his friend’s name. Try telling that to the old solider that visits Pearl Harbor trembling from the flash backs of being bombed unaware. And these are the men who are trying to teach us what the one and only Bible there is to use is the KJV. I mean really, they cannot even prove that Jesus was a real historical person, but they are going to prove that the KJV is the only Bible for English speaking people. Man, if you can prove that Jesus is a real historical figure then you sure can’t prove what Bible I should be using. It is interesting to note how many of the KJVO movement misquote the Bible to prove their theory. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."?(Deuteronomy 4:2) They assume that you understand that God is here commanding not to add or take away from the KJV, right? Or the most quoted one, 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 book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Is Jesus here talking about the KJV? Or is He speaking of the Revelation? It is obvious that Jesus is here talking about the Revelation. Note that he states, “Book of this prophecy” and “written in this book” Notice that the word “book” is in the singular. This is exactly what I am trying to allow people to understand, if you are going to tell me why I should use the KJV, then why not give me the facts, substantial facts that leads me to know that there is a difference. The English New Testament is translated from the Greek Text. There are several Greek text, and each on differs from the other. So the question arises, which one is the correct one? The many Greek texts are represented by even more English translations. There are over two hundred different translations of the New Testament in the English language. Which one is a translator to use as the basis for his translation into another language? “A man who owns one watch knows what time it is, but a man who owns two watches is never quit sure.” This certainly is the case as far as the translations of the Bible are concerned. Because there are so many translations of the Scriptures, all claiming to be God's Word, many people are not sure "what time it is." That is to say, they are not sure which translation is truly God's Word.?When there are many biblical authorities the result is that there is no authority at all. When we select which version of the Bible is authoritative for us, the Bible loses its independent authority. The only authority remaining resides in the selector and his personal basis for selecting this version or that version. By so doing we undermine all biblical authority and we ourselves become the authority instead.WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY?Out of all the translations of the English Bible, who has the authority to choose which one is the Word of God? You do. We become the authority in choosing which one suits our needs. You choose which one you believe to be the Word of God. However, there is a problem with this. Who put you in charge of deciding which translation is the Word of God? If one translation does not suit your prejudice, you can usually find one that will. God's Word no longer has authority over you. You have, due to your picking and choosing of translations, become the authority over God's Word! When there are two or more authorities, the result is there is no authority at all.?We are left to our feeble judgments as to which one is the Word of God. The many translations have robbed the Word of God of its authority and left man's intellect in charge of deciding whether he would have this version or that version to rule over him.There can only be one authorityWe cannot accept the KJV based upon sentimental connection or because of its old fashioned Elizabethan English. The only basis for accepting the KJV is that it is the most reliable and accurate translation of our day. ?The King James Version, New Testament, is a translation of the Textus Receptus Greek text. This leaves the King James Version as the only translation of the New Testament that is based entirely on the Textus ReceptusAll other English language translations since 1881 have followed modern "scholarship" and based their translations on texts other than the Textus Receptus Greek text.The Textus Receptus, hereafter referred to as the T.R., is the only Greek text of the New Testament that has not been badly mangled by subjection to the presuppositions of modern intellectualism.?This is why is referred to as the preserved text. All the writings of the Apostles in the New Testament became the precious possession of the local churches. The churches knew that these writings were different from commonly written communications. They recognized these writings as the inspired Word of God. These letters and books began to be copied and passed around during the first, second, and third centuries. Of course like anything that is copied, there does appear to be errors show up. They were much like the typographical errors we make while typing. The copies also became worn out from being passed around, which would leave worn places on the parchment. This is where false teachers would come in and deliberately change the text. It was always a simple matter to correct an errant text by comparing it with the faithful inerrant copies held in trust by many faithful churches. This brought the errant copies back to the standard set by the original text. The only thing the churches had to do was check with several other churches and find out what the reading was in the other church copies. By doing this, the churches insured a valid text, and by this means, the text was preserved in its original form.2 Peter 3:15-16Colossians 4:16The Language of the KJVThe KJV is not written in modern colloquialism. However, it is wrong to dismiss the peculiar language of the KJV as mere outdated language. Much of the KJV’s peculiar style is due to the KJV’s faithful translation of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. In the national bestseller,?God's Secretaries, Adam Nicolson observes, "These scholars [working on the KJV] were not pulling the language of the scriptures into the English they knew and used at home. The words of the King James Version are just as much English pushed towards the conditions of a foreign language as a foreign language translated into English" (211). Pushing English towards Hebrew and Greek serves to convey the meaning and style of the original scriptures more accurately. Second-person pronoun distinction:Perhaps the first thing that many people identify as an archaism in the KJV is the use of “thee’s” and “thou’s.” ?The KJV uses these pronouns in order to distinguish between the second-person singular (thou, thee, thy, thine) and the second-person plural (ye, you, your, yours). ?The Greek and Hebrew make this distinction.This distinction is crucial for a close reading of the Bible. ?See Galatians 6:1 for example: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault,?ye?which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” ?By paying close attention to the pronouns, we see that the restoration of a faulted individual is the responsibility of not just one person but of many ("ye" which are spiritual) but each individual must examine his own integrity (considering "thyself"). ?We cannot extract these helpful teachings on communal responsibility and individual responsibility from this passage unless the distinctions in pronouns are translated.? Other passages where the distinction in a pronoun's person is important are Exodus 4:15, Exodus 29:42, 2 Samuel 7:23, Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:31-32, John 3:7, 1 Corinthians 8:9-12, 2 Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, Philemon 21-25, to name a few.Many modern languages such as French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese retain this distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns. ?Moreover, although “thou” and “ye” may be archaic, they are not unfamiliar. ?We do not use these pronouns in colloquial speech, but we still use them when we sing hymns (even contemporary praise songs) to God and to the congregation. ?We sing “Be thou my vision” in the song titled thus, and “Prepare ye the way of the Lord” in the song, “Days of Elijah.” ?At every hockey game Canadians sing their national anthem, "O Canada," which mentions "thy" once and "thee" four times in one stanza. ?The song became the official Canadian national anthem as recently as in July 1, 1980 and remains a national favorite. ?Canadian children do not have any problem understanding the meaning of "thy" and "thee." ?Although “thou” and “ye” may not be parts of colloquial speech, they are certainly not obsolete if we still use them in songs, prose, or the Bible when there are good grammatical, metrical, or stylistic reasons to use them.Lack of quotation marks:The KJV does not have?quotation marks (" "). ?This is often?considered another archaic feature of the KJV. ?There are, however, good reasons not to have quotation marks. ?The original Hebrew and Greek texts do not have them.??The following page explains why it is helpful not to have quotation marks in the Bible:?Quotation Marks.Imperatives with subjects:Imperative statements are commands. ?For example, “Praise the LORD” is an imperative statement. ?In modern imperative statements the subject is often not stated. ?One could say, “You, praise the LORD,” but it is customary to omit the subject. ?If the KJV were to state the above, it might say, "Praise thou the LORD" or "Praise ye the LORD." ?Such constructions may seem peculiar to the modern reader. ?Most modern grammar books might say that it is unnecessary to indicate the subject in imperative statements because the subject is always “you.” ?However, this rule is not wholly accurate. ?There are two kinds of “you” – the singular “you,” which is “thou,” and the plural “you,” which is “ye.” ?This distinction can be important. ?For example, Psalm 104:35 says, “Bless?thou?the LORD, O my soul. Praise?ye?the LORD.” ?In this statement, the speaker says to his own self (his soul), “Bless?thou?the LORD.” ?Using “thou,” his imperative statement to “bless” is addressed only to his own soul. ?However, the speaker follows up with “Praise?ye?the LORD,” which is an imperative statement addressed to others. ?In this passage, the speaker begins commanding himself first, but he concludes by commanding others. ?We do not get this fact when the imperative statements do not indicate the person. ?For example, “Bless the LORD, O my soul! Praise the LORD!” in the ESV reads as if the speaker is telling his soul once again to praise the LORD. ?In the ESV the speaker seems to conclude the psalm with the focus on himself whereas in the KJV the speaker clearly concludes the psalm with the focus on others. ?Thus the use of personal pronouns in imperative statements serves a grammatical and semantic purpose.Vocative case:The vocative case is used when directly addressing a person with a noun identifying the person instead of with the second person pronoun “you.” ?An example is in Matthew 6:9 which says, “Our Father, which art in heaven.” ?Today we are less inclined to say “Our Father, who ARE in heaven.” ?It seems more natural to say “Our Father, who IS in heaven.” ?The peculiarity of the KJV is based on the faithful translation of the vocative case. ?This is not an archaism but a faithful translation of the Greek which has the vocative case.Hebraism:The KJV preserves lexicographical and syntactical Hebraisms (William Rosenau,?Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible,?Lord Baltimore Press (1902)). Many readers mistake these Hebraisms for archaisms. ?Most contemporary translations, in an attempt to make the Bible sound more familiar to readers, dilute the Hebrew style of the Bible. Much of the peculiar language of the KJV is due to its faithful mimicry of the Hebrew language. Expressions such as the Hebraic anticipatorial accusative (“God saw the light, that it was good” Genesis 1:4) and Hebraic double prepositions (“Abram went up out of Egypt” Genesis 13:1) are examples of Hebraisms. Acclaimed Greek teacher John H. Dobson, author of?Learn New Testament Greek, 3rd?ed, Baker Academic (2005), invites his students to pay close attention to the Hebraic influence in the Greek New Testament. Due to his apparent preference for dynamic translations, he does not seem to prefer the KJV. However, he acknowledges that the KJV “follows Hebrew style more closely than a modern translator would normally do” (305).Greek syntax:In the New Testament, the KJV often follows the Greek word order more closely than most translations. These can also be confused with archaisms. ?For example, Matthew 17:19 says, “Then came the disciples to Jesus.” This syntax, which has the verb preceding the subject, may seem peculiar to contemporary English-speaking audiences; but the word order in the KJV follows the Greek word order (“τοτε προσελθοντε? οι μαθηται τω ιησου”). Mimicking the exact style and structure of the Greek can sometimes preserve what is emphasized in the Greek. Another feature common in the KJV is the historical present tense. The KJV often uses the present tense to describe past action: e.g. “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John” (Matthew 3:13). This is because the KJV faithfully translates the Greek which is also in the present tense. Greek writers used the historical present tense to add emphasis to important past actions. The historical present tense has the effect of making past narratives more vivid. Modern translations unfortunately blur this effect by translating the historical present tense in the simple past tense.More accurate equivalents:Sometimes an archaic word in the KJV is more accurate in translating the Hebrew or Greek than a modern equivalent found in modern translations.? For example, "betray" at Matthew 26:73 seems archaic.? The verse reads, "And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech?betrayeth?thee."? The modern ESV says, "After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent?betrays?you."".? "Betray" is not merely the modern equivalent of "betray".? "Betray" is a more nuanced word which has the connotation of "divulge" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).? So "betray" in its full implication means "to betray by revealing".? What happened in Matthew 26:73 was that Peter's Galilean speech "revealed" his association with Jesus which in effect "betrayed" (implicated) him.? The Greek word at Matthew 26:73 is δηλον which is translated as "evident" in Galatians 3:11 in both the KJV and ESV.? Clearly the word has the connotation of revealing something, not just betraying.? When faced with an "old" word in the KJV, it is fruitful to confirm whether the old word is more accurate before brushing it off as a mere archaism.Legal writing:The Bible is God's "testament" or "covenant" to humanity.? As such, the Bible is a legal document.? Not to mention that some books of the Bible are literally legal documents.? The phrase "legal document" might not connote the same warm and fuzzy feeling as would the phrase "love letter"?(as some might describe the Bible)?but the truth is that the more intimate we are with someone, the more we enter into meaningful legal agreements with that person.? A marriage is a legal covenant.? Family inheritances are conferred through wills and trusts.? Any flirt can write a "love letter," but only a true lover will issue a legally binding marriage certificate or a will to bestow one's assets.? The Bible is not just a "love letter" - it is God's covenant signed by the blood of his Son.? Thus the Bible employs many legal words that we may not use on a daily basis: thereof, thereby, therein, hereby, herein, whereof, whereby, wherein, wherefore.? These words are accurate legal terms which incidentally remind us that the Bible is indeed a collection of two "Testaments."? These words are not archaisms because they are still used in legal writing.British words and idioms:Some words and idioms may seem archaic to a North American, but they may be very familiar to the British or citizens of other commonwealth nations. ?There are millions of readers outside of North America who understand these British words and idioms. ?For example, the words “plaiting” (1 Peter 3:3) may be unfamiliar to North Americans, but is familiar to the British. ?Moreover, some British words may become familiar to North Americans through popular novels or movies from Britain. ?For example, “schoolmaster” (Galatians 3:24-25) is more commonly used in Britain than in North America. ?However, with the success of the Harry Potter novels (albeit their controversy among Christians), the word “schoolmaster” has become familiar to North American children. ?As advocates of modern translations say, language is always in flux. ?If that were true, however, a word that becomes “obsolete” might become standard again with its use in just one popular novel or movie. ?We must be careful so that we do not deem a word as being obsolete too readily.Preservation of ambiguity in the original languages:The KJV uses “which” to refer to people. ?This is considered problematic by some critics. ?However, there is good reason to use "which" instead of "who" where the context is unclear as to whether a thing or a person is being referred to. ?For example, 1 Peter 1:23 says,?“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” ?The clause, "which liveth and abideth forever" could refer either to "the word" or to "God." ?The clause could be saying either that the word of God lives and abides forever or that God lives and abides forever. ?The ambiguity is present in the Greek and so the KJV makes that apparent.Supposedly archaic words that are preserved in jargons:Some words that are deemed archaic are actually still used frequently by some segment of the population as terms of art. ?For example, “let” (Romans 1:13) is considered to be a prime example of an archaic word in the KJV (“let” in this usage means “hindered”). ?However, the term “without let or hindrance” is used in the passport notes of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Israel. ?Thus people who work with immigration, such as border guards, lawyers, policy makers, and many educated people are familiar with the term “without let or hindrance.” ?This makes "let" a jargon rather than an archaism. ?Also, anybody who plays or watches tennis will know that a “let” is called when a stroke does not count and hinders the gameplay. ?Thus a word such as “let” may be infrequently used today, but it is not entirely obsolete.Poetry:Some constructions that may seem archaic are actually constructed as such for poetic effect.? The phrase "...all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt" (1 Samuel 30:31) is not common speech, but the rhyming phrase "wont to haunt" is more poetic than "accustomed to go" (NASB).? Also the phrase "despise dominion" in Jude 1:8 does not consist of the most "up-to-date" vocabulary.? The ESV says "reject authority".? However, "despite dominion" is an alliteration.? In fact, the entire line "...these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities" is a five-fold alliteration of the letter D.? This is KJV poetry at its finest.? The letter D is a plosive, a consonant produced in the mouth by a strong sudden stoppage of airflow.? It is the most fitting consonant in a verse such as Jude 1:8 where the speaker is shooting out words of condemnation like bullets from a machine gun.? While a Bible does not have to have rhymes and alliterations to convey the message of God, poetry helps memorization.Translation PhilosophyYou can separate modern Bible translations into two basic groups—formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency. Formal equivalency attempts a word for word rendition, providing as literal a translation as possible. Dynamic equivalency is more like a paraphrase, trying to convey ideas thought by thought.Since no one language corresponds perfectly to any other language, every translation involves some degree of interpretation. A translation based on formal equivalency has a low degree of interpretation; translators are trying to convey the meaning of each particular word. When faced with a choice between readability and accuracy, formal equivalency translators are willing to sacrifice readability for the sake of accuracy.By its very nature, a translation based on dynamic equivalency requires a high degree of interpretation. The goal of dynamic equivalency is to make the Bible readable, conveying an idea-for-idea rendering of the original. That means someone must first decide what idea is being communicated, which is the very act of interpretation. How the translators view Scripture becomes extremely important in the final product.Sadly, there are many in the Bible-translation industry who have a low view of the Scripture. They think the Bible is merely a product of man, replete with mistakes, contradictions, and personal biases. Many translators today have also adopted the postmodern idea of elevating the experience of the reader over the intention of the author. They make the contemporary reader sovereign over the text and demote the intended meaning of the historic human writers who were carried along by one divine author (2 Peter 1:19-21).Therefore, it’s vital that you find a translation that represents what the Holy Spirit actually said as faithfully as possible. Who’s interested in some contemporary translation committee’s spin on what they think contemporary readers want to read? We want to read what the author intended us to read, which is what the Holy Spirit originally inspired.Translation SurveyThe most popular dynamic-equivalency translations, which dominate the evangelical world, are the New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), The Message (MSG), The Living Bible (TLB), the Good News Bible (GNB), and the New Living Translation (NLT). Of those, the NIV is the most reliable.The NIV was completed in 1978. Its translators did not attempt to translate strictly word for word, but aimed more for equivalent ideas. As a result, the NIV doesn’t follow the exact wording of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as closely as the King James Version and New American Standard Bible versions do. Nevertheless, it can be considered a faithful translation of the original texts, and its lucid readability makes it quite popular, especially for devotional reading.The four most popular formal equivalency translations in English are the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV).The KJV is the oldest of the four and continues to be the favorite of many. It is known as the Authorized Version of 1611 because King James I approved the project to create an authoritative English Bible. Although it contains many obsolete words (some of which have changed in meaning), many people appreciate its dignity and majesty. The NKJV is a similar translation, taken from the same group of ancient manuscripts that simply updates the archaic language of the KJV.The NASB, completed in 1971 and updated in 1995, is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It is a literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek languages that incorporates the scholarship of several centuries of textual criticism conducted since the original KJV. It quickly became a favorite translation for serious Bible study.The ESV is the most recent translation, which stands firmly in the formal equivalency tradition. It is a very solid translation in updated language that aims to reproduce the beauty of the KJV. The result is one of the most poetic and beautifully structured versions that maintain a high degree of accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages.Why I use a KJVLet me give several reasons as to why I personally use a KJV. It is very important to me that I know why I do something; I do not do something or believe in something just because someone else has told me that it is true. The Bible is very blunt when it says, “Let God be true and every man a liar…” I fully understand who is behind the modern version movement, we can trace such attempts to change and manipulate the word of God in the Word of God. So let me say that I do not use the KJV because someone has told me that it is the right Bible to use. Nor do I use it because it is what my grandparents used. I also do not believe that Paul, Peter, or any of the Apostles for that matter used the KJV. I refuse to be tagged in the “KJV Movement” as well, the only movement that I am a part of is the movement of Jesus Christ. I also disagree that we hold the “Authorized Version” of the KJV, I am not a part of the Church of England and neither are those who are reading or listening to this. So what I want to do is share from my heart with simple reasons why I use the KJV. The purity of the text for which it was translated from. The strict guidelines that were placed on the translators to preserve the text in it’s purity. When I read it or preach from it, I do not have to second guess if the translators were giving me what they thought a word meant, but rather it is in the truest sense, the words that were intended to be placed in the cannon of scripture. Because the translators used formal equivalency and were willing to sacrifice readability for the sake of accuracy.I have no right to exert any amount of Authority over the Word of God in choosing what is right or not right. More than one translation breeds confusion and I know that that is of Satan. Any twisting or rewording is nothing more than a tool of Satan. I have the assurance that when I read it, that I am reading the very word of God. Because of the convictions of our forefathers, the puritans, wanting a more accurate text. Matthew1:25And knew her not till she had brought forth her?firstborn?son: and he called his name JESUS.5:44But I say unto you, Love your enemies,?bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;6:13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:?For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.?Amen.6:33But seek ye first the kingdom?of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.8:29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee,Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?9:13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners?to repentance.12:35A good man out of the good treasure?of the heart?bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.13:51Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea,?Lord.15:8This people?draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.16:3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring.?O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?16:20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was?Jesus?the Christ.17:21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.19:9And 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.19:17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,?that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.20:7They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard;?and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.20:16So the last shall be first, and the first last:?for many be called, but few chosen.20:22But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of,?and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.23:14Woe 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.25:13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hourwherein the Son of man cometh.27:35And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots:?that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.28:9And?as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.Mark1:14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel?of the kingdom?of God,1:31And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; andimmediately?the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.2:17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners?to repentance.6:11And 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 Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.6:16But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen?from the dead.7:8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,?as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.7:16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.9:24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears,?Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.9:42And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe?in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.9:44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.9:46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.9:49For every one shall be salted with fire,?and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.10:21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come,?take up the cross, and follow me.11:10Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh?in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.13:14But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,?spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:13:33Take ye heed, watch?and pray: for ye know not when the time is.14:68But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch;?and the cock crew.15:28And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.16:9-20??????????????Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.(typically marginalized or set in brackets. Footnotes in NIV are patently false.)Luke1:28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee:?blessed art thou among women.4:4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone,?but by every word of God.4:8And Jesus answered and said unto him,?Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.4:41And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou artChrist?the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.7:31And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?9:54-56And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them,?even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said,?Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.11:2-4And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father?which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.?Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation;?but deliver us from evil.11:29And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas?the prophet.17:36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.21:4For all these have of their abundance?cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.22:31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:22:64And when they had blindfolded him,?they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?23:17(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)23:38And a superscription also was written over him in?letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.23:42And he said unto Jesus,?Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.24:6He is not here, but is risen:?remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,24:40And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.24:49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city?of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.24:51And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them,?and carried up into heaven.John1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only?begotten?of the Father,) full of grace and truth.1:27He it is, who coming after me is?preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man?which is in heaven.3:15That whosoever believeth in him?should not perish, but have eternal life.4:42And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed?the Christ,?the Saviour of the world.5:3-4In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered,?waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.6:47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth?on me?hath everlasting life.6:69And we believe and are sure that thou art?that Christ, the Son?of the living God.11:41Then they took away the stone from the place?where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.16:16A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me,?because I go to the Father.17:12While I was with them?in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.Acts2:30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,?according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ?to sit on his throne;7:30And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel?of the Lord?in a flame of fire in a bush.7:37This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;?him shall ye hear.8:37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.9:5-6And he said, Who art thou, Lord??And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:?it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,?Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.10:6He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side:he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.16:31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus?Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.17:26And hath made of one?blood?all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;20:25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom?of God, shall see my face no more.20:32And now,?brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.23:9And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him,?let us not fight against God.24:6-8Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took,and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.24:15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection?of the dead, both of the just and unjust.28:16And when we came to Rome,?the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but?Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.28:29And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.Romans1:16For 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.1:29Being filled with all unrighteousness,?fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,?who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.9:28For he will finish the work, and cut it short?in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.10:15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel?of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!11:6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.?But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.13:9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal,?Thou shalt not bear false witness,?Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.14:21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth,?or is offended, or is made weak.15:29And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing?of the gospel?of Christ.16:24The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.1 Corinthians1:14I thank God?that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;5:7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed?for us:6:20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body,and in your spirit, which are God's.7:5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to?fasting and?prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.10:28But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake:?for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:11:24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,?Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the?Lord's?body.15:47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is?the Lordfrom heaven.16:22-23If any man love not the Lord?Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. The grace of our Lord Jesus?Christ?be with you.2 Corinthians4:6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of?Jesus?Christ.5:18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by?JesusChrist, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;11:31The God and Father of our Lord Jesus?Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.Galations1:15But when it pleased?God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,3:1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,?that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?3:17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of Godin Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.4:7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God?through Christ.6:15For?in Christ Jesus?neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.6:17From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the?Lord?Jesus.Ephesians3:9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things?by Jesus Christ:3:14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father?of our Lord Jesus Christ,5:30For we are members of his body,?of his flesh, and of his bones.6:1Children, obey your parents?in the Lord: for this is right.6:10Finally,?my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.Philippians3:16Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule,?let us mind the same thing.Colossians1:2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and?the Lord Jesus Christ.1:14In whom we have redemption?through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:1:28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ?Jesus:2:11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of?the sins of?the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:3:6For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh?on the children of disobedience:1 Thessalonians1:1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace,?from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.2:19For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus?Christ?at his coming?3:11Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus?Christ, direct our way unto you.3:13To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus?Christwith all his saints.2 Thessalonians1:8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus?Christ:1 Timothy1:17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only?wise?God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.2:7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth?in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.3:16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:?God?was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.4:12Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity,?in spirit, in faith, in purity.6:5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness:?from such withdraw thyself.2 Timothy1:11Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacherof the Gentiles.4:1I charge thee therefore before God, and the?Lord?Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;4:22The Lord?Jesus Christ?be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.Titus1:4To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and?the Lord?Jesus Christ our Saviour.Philemon1:6That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ?Jesus.1:12Whom I have sent again: thou therefore?receive him, that is, mine own bowels:Hebrews1:3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had?by himself?purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;2:7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst?set him over the works of thy hands:3:1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,?Christ?Jesus;7:21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever?after the order of Melchisedec:)10:30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense,?saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.10:34For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have?in heaven?a better and an enduring substance.11:11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed,and was delivered of a child?when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.1 Peter1:22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth?through the Spirit?unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:4:1Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered?for us?in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;4:14If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you:?on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.5:10-11But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ?Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To him be?glory and?dominion for ever and ever. Amen.2 Peter2:17These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved?for ever.1 John1:7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.2:7Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had?from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.4:3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus?Christ is come in the flesh?is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.4:9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only?begotten?Son into the world, that we might live through him.4:19We love?him, because he first loved us.5:7-8For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.5:13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life,?and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.Jude1:25To the only?wise?God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.Revelation1:8I am Alpha and Omega,?the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.1:11Saying,?I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churcheswhich are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.2:13I know?thy works, and?where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.5:14And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped?him that liveth for ever and ever.6:1And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come?and see.11:17Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast,?and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.12:12Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to theinhabiters of?the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus?Christ.14:5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without faultbefore the throne of God.16:17And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple?of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.20:9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from?God out of?heaven, and devoured them.21:24And the nations?of them which are saved?shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.Contradictions and Omissions ?AV (King James)New InternationalNew American StandardNew World TranslationMt 9:13for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinnersto repentance.For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.Mt 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.OMITTEDfootnote casts doubtOMITTEDMt 19:17Why callest thou me good?"Why do you ask me about what is good?""Why are you asking me about what is good?""Wny do you ask me about what is good?"Mt 25:13Ye know neither the day nor the hour?wherein the Son of man cometh.You do not know the day or the hour.You do not know the day nor the hour.You know neither the day nor the hour,Mk 10:24.how hard it is?for them that trust in riches?to enter into the kingdom of God!.how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!.how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!.how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!Lk 2:33And?Joseph?and his mother,,,The child's father and mother.His father and mother.its father and mother.Lk 4:4Man shall not live by bread alone,?but by every word of God.Man does not live on bread alone.Man shall not live on bread alone.Man must not live by bread alone.Lh 4:8Get thee behind me, Satan.OMITTEDOMITTEDOMITTEDJn 6:47He that believeth?on mehath everlasting life.He who believes has everlasting life.He who believes has eternal life.He that believes has everlasting life.Jn 8:9And when they heard it,being convicted by their own conscience, went out..those who heard began to go away..when they heard it, they began to go out one by one.OMITTEDJn 9:4I?must work the works of him that sent me.We must do the work of him who sent me.We must work the works of Him who sent Me.We must work the works of him that sent me.Jn 10:30I and?my?Father are oneI and the Father are one.I and the Father are one.I and the Father are one.Ac 2:30that of the fruit of his loins,?according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ?to sit on his throne;.he would place one of his descendants on his throne..to seat one of his descendants upon his throne..he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne.Ac 8:37If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.OMITTEDfootnote casts doubt (some editions just omit it)OMITTEDAc 23:9Let us not fight against God.OMITTEDOMITTEDOMITTEDRom 13:9Thou shalt not bear false witness.OMITTEDOMITTEDOMITTEDCo 1:14In whom we have redemption?through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.By means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.1Ti 3:16God was?manifest in the flesh.He appeared in a body.He who was revealed in the flesh.He was made manifest in the flesh.1Ti 6:5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness:?from such withdraw thyself."from such withdraw thyself" is omitted"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted1Pe 1:22Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truththrough the Spirit.you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls.Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth.1Jo 4:3And every spirit that confesseth not that JesusChrist is come in the flesh?is not of God.But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.But every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.Re 5:14Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped?him that liveth for ever and ever..the elders fell down and worshipped..the elders fell down and worshipped..the elders fell down and worshipped.Re 20:9Fire came down?from God?out of heaven.Fire came down from heaven.Fire came down from heaven.Fire came down out of heaven.Re 21:24And the nations?of them which are saved?shall walk in the light of it.The nations will walk by its light.And the nations shall walk by its light.And the nations will walk by means of its light.The Preeminence of Christ ?AV (King James)New InternationalNew American StandardNew World TranslationMt 1:25firstborn?sona sona Sona sonMt 8:29Jesus, thou Son of GodSon of GodSon of GodSon of GodMt 13:51Yea,?LordYesYesYesMt 16:20Jesus?the Christthe Christthe Christthe ChristMk 9:24Lord, I believeI do believeI do believeI have faithMk 11:10that cometh?in the name of the LordcomingcomingcomingLk 4:41Thou art?Christ?the Son of GodYou are the Son of GodYou are the Son of GodYou are the Son of GodLk 7:31the?Lord?saidOMITTEDOMITTEDOMITTEDLk 22:31the?Lord?saidOMITTEDOMITTEDOMITTEDLk 23:42he said unto Jesus,Lord, remember meJesus, remember meJesus, remember meJesus, remember meJn 4:42the?Christ, the Saviourthe Saviorthe Saviorthe SaviorJn 6:69Christ, the Son?of the Living GodHoly One of GodHoly One of GodHoly One of GodJn 9:35Son of GodSon of ManSon of ManSon of manAc 16:31Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusLord JesusLord JesusRo 1:16gospel?of Christgospelgospelgood news1Co 15:47the second man?is the Lord?from heaventhe second man from heaventhe second man is from heaventhe second man is out of heaven1Co 16:22Lord?Jesus ChristLordLordLord1Co 16:23Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusLord JesusLord Jesus2Co 4:6Jesus?ChristChristChristChrist2Co 5:18Jesus?ChristChristChristChrist2Co 11:31Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusLord JesusLord JesusEph 3:9created all things?by Jesus Christcreated all thingscreated all thingscreated all thingsEph 3:14Father?of our Lord Jesus ChristFatherFatherFatherCo 1:2Lord Jesus ChristOMITTEDOMITTEDOMITTEDCo 1:28Christ?JesusChristChristChrist1Th 2:19Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusLord JesusLord Jesus1Th 3:11Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusJesus our LordLord Jesus1Th 3:13Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusLord JesusLord Jesus2Th 1:8Lord Jesus?ChristLord JesusLord JesusLord Jesus1Ti 2:7truth?in Christtruthtruthtruth2Ti 4:1Lord?Jesus ChristChrist JesusChrist JesusChrist JesusHe 3:1Christ?JesusJesusJesusJesus1Pe 5:10Christ?JesusChristChristChrist1Jo 1:7Jesus?ChristJesusJesusJesusReasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?2. It has no copyright. The?text?of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to?producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles:?the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch.?We'll deal with this later.)9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will?TESTIFY?of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!Questions for the KJV Critics1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?2. Do you have a perfect Bible?3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and?practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever?practiced?your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since?lost?them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan??Seventy-five Common SayingsThe King James Bible is supposedly written in an "old and archaic language" that people today have trouble understanding, but please notice how so many of our modern sayings come from between it's covers. Hundreds could be presented, but we'll limit ourselves to seventy-five:1. Genesis 4:2-5:?can't get blood from a turnip2. Genesis 7:?don't miss the boat3. Genesis 11:7-9:?babbling4. Genesis 15:5:?teller5. Genesis 43:34:?mess (of food)6. Exodus 19:16-18:?holy smoke7. Exodus 28:42:?britches8. Exodus 32:8:?holy cow9. Leviticus 2:14:?roast ears10. Leviticus 13:10:?the quick (raw flesh)11. Leviticus 14:5-6:?running water12. Leviticus 16:8:?scapegoat13. Leviticus 25:10:?Liberty Bell14. Numbers 21:5:?light bread15. Numbers 35:2-5:?suburb16. Deuteronomy 2:14:?wasted him17. Deuteronomy 24:5:?cheer up18. Deuteronomy 32:10:?apple of his eye19. Judges 5:20:?star wars20. Judges 7:5-12:?under dog21. Judges 8:16:?teach a lesson22. Judges 17:10: calling a priest?father23. I Samuel 14:12:?I'll show you a thing or two24. I Samuel 20:40:?artillery25. I Samuel 25:37:?petrified26. II Samuel 19:18:?ferry boat27. I Kings 3:7:?don't know if he's coming or going28. I Kings 14:3:?cracklins29. I Kings 14:6:?that's heavy30. I Kings 21:19-23:?she's gone to the dogs31. II Chronicles 9:6:?you haven't heard half of it32. II Chronicles 30:6:?postman33. Nehemiah 13:11:?set them in their place34. Esther 7:9:?he hung himself35. Job 11:16:?It's water under the bridge36. Job 20:6:?he has his head in the clouds37. Psalm 4:8:?lay me down to sleep38. Psalm 19:3-4:?he gave me a line39. Psalm 37:13:?his day is coming40. Psalm 58:8:?pass away?(dying)41. Psalm 64:3-4:?shoot off your mouth42. Psalm 78:25:?angel's food cake43. Psalm 141:10:?give him enough rope and he'll hang himself44. Proverbs 7:22:?dumb as an ox45. Proverbs 13:24:?spare the rod, spoil the child46. Proverbs 18:6:?he is asking for it47. Proverbs 24:16:?can't keep a good man down48. Proverbs 25:14:?full of hot air49. Proverbs 30:30:?king of beasts50. Ecclesiastes 10:19:?money talks51. Ecclesiastes 10:20:?a little bird told me52. Song Solomon 2:5:?lovesick53. Isaiah 52:8:?see eye to eye54. Jeremiah 23:25:?I have a dream?(MLK, Jr)55. Ezekiel 26:9:?engines56. Ezekiel 38:9:?desert storm or storm troopers57. Daniel 3:21:?hose?(leg wear)58. Daniel 8:25:?foreign policy59. Daniel 11:38:?the force be with you (star wars)60. Hosea 7:8:?half-baked61. Jonah 4:10-11:?can't tell left from right62. Zephaniah 3:8-9:?United Nations Assembly63. Matthew 25:1-10:?burning the midnight oil64. Matthew 25:33:?right or left side of an issue65. Matthew 27:46: for crying out loud66. Mark 5:13:?hog wild67. Luke 11:46:?won't lift a finger to help68. Luke 15:17:?he came to himself69. Romans 2:23:?breaking the law70. Philippians 3:2:?beware of dog71. Colossians 2:14:?they nailed him72. I John 5:11-13:?get a life73. Revelation 6:8:?hell on earth74. Revelation 16:13:?a frog in my throat75. Revelation 20:15:?go jump in the lake?If you've checked these references, then you can easily see how our all-wise God has played a beautiful joke on the modern revisionists.?People who do not even believe the KJV quote it every day!?Furthermore, if you'll grab yourself a NIV, a NCV, a TEV, or anything else, you'll find that many of these modern sayings have been destroyed by the "better language" of the Laodiceans.For example, I always thought that when I was a young boy my father and I crossed the Mississippi on a?ferry boat?(II Sam. 19:18), but I guess we?must have?crossed at the ford?instead (NIV). Then there were times when I got out of line and dad would really?set me in my place?(Neh. 13:11). Too bad he didn't have a NIV, for he could have?stationed me at my post.?I guess there was nothing dad loved more than going out early on Saturday mornings and catching a?mess?of fish (Gen. 43:34). It's a good thing we didn't have a NKJV in those days, for he would have only caught a?serving.?We usually had hushpuppies with that fish dinner, but sometimes we just had?light bread?(Num. 21:5). That is, until the neighbors came over with their New American Bible. Then we had?wretched food. Then dad would always say, "Cheer up, son, it'll be better next time!" (Deu. 24:5) Too bad he didn't have a NKJV, for I'm sure he would have said, "Come on, boy,?bring happiness?to yourself!"So you get the point:?the new versions don't stand a chance when competing with the KJV to use the most "modern" speech!?Go ahead, have yourself some fun. Learn to appreciate God's sense of humor! Grab a new translation and see firsthand how the modern versions are still stuck in the Dark Ages when it comes to keeping up with modern speech.?The Italicized WordsIf we are to believe what we hear from the critics, then we must accept the notion that the italicized words in the King James Bible do not belong. We are told that the words were added by the translators and are not the words of God. If this is true, then please explain why Luke, Paul, John, Peter, and even the Lord Jesus QUOTE them! The column on the right shows how New Testament writers and speakers QUOTE the King James italics of the Old Testament:OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURENEW TESTAMENT QUOTEI have set the LORD always before me: because?he is?at my right hand, I shall not be moved. (Psa. 16:8)For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: (Acts 2:25)Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out?the corn.?(Deu. 25:4)For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? (I Cor. 9:9. Also see I Tim. 5:18)And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every?word?that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (Deu. 8:3)But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Mat. 4:4)I have said, Ye?are?gods; and all of you?are?children of the most High. (Psa. 82:6)Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner?stone,?a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (Isa. 28:16)Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (I Pet. 2:6)Did you notice that the New Testament writers QUOTE the words in italics? This means they WERE actually in the originals! When Jesus said, "It is written..." (Mat. 4:4), he was saying that the word "word" was also written--even if the King James translators didn't have it in the Hebrew Old Testament!?Like it or not, the Holy Spirit led them to use the word anyhow!?If He didn't, then why did Jesus quote it?Also, we have the case of?WHO killed Goliath??II Samuel 21:19 in the KJV says: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew?the brother of?Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear?was?like a weaver's beam." The words?"the brother of"?are in italics. If these words were omitted, then the Bible would say that Elhanan slew Goliath, instead of his brother, which would contradict the fact that David killed Goliath. (In fact, this is exactly how the New World Translation reads!) If you'll check I Chronicles 20:5, you'll see that the italics of II Samuel 21:19 are well justified. Moral:?The English sheds light on the English--WITHOUT "the Greek."Antioch vs. AlexandriaWe hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't hearing much about the?origin?of these manuscripts. It is a well-established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. (Never mind Rome and her?Western?text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2:8), and allegorical foolishness (not believing God's word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places!?Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:Egypt and Alexandria1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife (Gen. 12:10-13).2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).>3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).5. God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" (Exo. 20:4).6. God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" (Deu. 4:20).7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16), so why should we look there for a Bible?8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).9. God plans to punish Egypt (Jer. 46:25).10. God calls His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15).11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11:8).12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria.Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8). Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once head mastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts??Antioch1. Upon its first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5).?Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts 11:20-21).4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).5. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26).6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30), because Antioch was the home base.10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had its on sea port and more than its share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base". Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews (Jerusalem and Judaea) and the Gentiles (Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc) that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, its geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.?Sinaiticus and VaticanusWhen someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14.?If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.5. While adding?The Epistle of Barnabas?and?The Shepherd of Hermas?to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.?Facts about Westcott and HortBrooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in?Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's?New Age Bible Versions:1. Together, the?Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott?and the?Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort?run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, or the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic Church.5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.10. Hort refused to believe in angels.11. Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.12. Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all its forms.13. Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.14. While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with?"seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs.?They started the?Hermes?Club in 1845, the?Ghostly Guild?in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called?The Apostles?in the same year. They also started the?Eranus Club?in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as?communicating with the dead?(necromancy).15. The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.16. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the New Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.17. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?Translating the King James BibleUnlike Westcott, Hort, and the R.V. Committee, King James went through great efforts to guard the 1611 translation from errors. Please note the following:1. In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by the time the work formally began in 1607.2. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge.3. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.4. Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each member of his group.5. The whole group then went over the book together.6. Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five groups.7. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original group for consideration.8. A special committee was formed by selecting one leader from each group. This committee worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611.9. This means that the King James Bible had to pass at least?FOURTEEN?examinations before going to press.10. Throughout this entire process, any learned individuals of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.QUESTION: Does THIS sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?Let's Compare BiblesIn this section, we have reprinted our?Let's Compare Bibles?tract. Here you will see several good examples of how modern Bible versions are attacking God's word. We have selected eight modern translations for evaluation. The translations evaluated are as follows:NIV....... New International VersionNASB... New American Standard BibleNRSV... New Revised Standard VersionREB...... Revised English BibleLB......... Living BibleNWT..... New World TranslationNAB ..... New American BibleNKJV.... New King James Version?Although we have limited this study to eight new translations, you will find many of these attacks manifested in ANY new translation. You will find that some of the most important doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a New Century Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of Scripture, you are going to see the Devil hard at work on the revision committees of the new translations. The King James reading will appear first, followed by a brief comment, and then the perverted readings of the modern perversions.Psalm 12:6-7The 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 forever.The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God intends to preserve His?WORDS?forever. Notice how the new versions destroy this promise by making you think the context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:?NIV....... you will keep us safeNASB... Thou wilt preserve himNRSV... You, O Lord, will protect usREB...... you are our protectorLB.........?you will forever preserve your ownNAB...... You, O Lord, will keep usIsaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,?a virgin?shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.Notice how some new versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity. As anyone well knows, a?young woman?or a?maiden?is NOT necessarily a virgin:NRSV... young womanREB...... young womanNWT..... MaidenLuke 2:33And?Joseph?and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.Here the new versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling us that Joseph was Christ's father:NIV....... The child's fatherNASB... His fatherNRSV... the child's fatherREB...... The child's fatherNWT..... its fatherNAB...... the child's fatherI Timothy 3:16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:?God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.Notice how the King James is very clear in telling us WHO was manifest in the flesh:?GOD was manifest in the flesh. Now watch the new perversions throw God clear out of the verse:NIV....... He appeared in a bodyNASB... He who was revealed in the fleshNRSV... He was revealed in fleshREB...... He was manifested in the fleshLB......... Who came to earth as a manNWT..... He was made manifest in the fleshNAB...... He was manifested in the fleshMicah 5:2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,?from everlasting.This is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the verse tells us that He had no beginning. As the Second Member of the Trinity, He is ETERNAL, or from everlasting, but not in most modern translations:?NIV....... from ancient timesNRSV... from ancient daysREB..... In ancient timesNWT.... from the days of time indefiniteNAB..... From ancient times (vs. 1)Isaiah 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O?Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the?"Morning Star".?The King James Bible never gives this title to anyone else. However, in some new versions, Jesus Christ and Satan are the same, because some versions have taken the liberty to call Satan the?"morning star"?in Isaiah 14:12. Although some versions do not go so far as to call Satan the "morning star," they still throw out the name "Lucifer".?NIV....... morning starNASB... star of the morningNRSV... Day StarREB...... Bright morning starNWT..... You shining oneNAB...... morning starDaniel 3:25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like?the Son of God.This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that Jesus Christ existed long before He was born in Bethlehem. Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan foolishness:?NIV....... a son of the godsNASB... a son of the godsNRSV... a godREB..... a godLB........ a godNWT.... a son of the godsNAB..... a son of God (vs. 92)Colossians 1:14In whom we have?redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sinsNASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sinsNRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sinsREB..... Our release is secured and our sins are forgivenNWT.... we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sinsNAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sinsRomans 14:10-12But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the?judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.If you'll read the above verses carefully, you will notice how it magnifies Jesus Christ. According to verse 10, we will stand before the Judgment Seat of?CHRIST, and verse 12 says that when we do we will give account to GOD. When we stand before Jesus Christ we will be standing before God--an excellent text on the Deity of Christ. Now watch as the new versions throw Jesus Christ clear out of the passage by replacing the word "Christ" in verse 10 with "God:"NIV....... God's judgment seatNASB... Judgment seat of GodNRSV... judgment seat of GodREB...... God's tribunalLB......... Judgment Seat of GodNWT..... Judgment seat of GodNAB...... judgment seat of GodActs 8:37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism:?one must first BELIEVE ON CHRIST.?Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible:NIV....... entire verse missingNRSV... entire verse missingREB...... entire verse missingNWT..... Entire verse missingNAB...... omits entire verse, but re-numbers the verses so you won't miss itII Corinthians 2:17For we are not as many, which?corrupt?the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.You can imagine how this verse must be a thorn in the flesh to the modern translators who are busy CORRUPTING the word of God day and night. So, do they repent of their sins and get right with God? Of course not:?NIV....... peddleNASB... peddlingNRSV... peddlersREB...... adulterating the word of God for profitLB......... HuckstersNWT..... PeddlersNAB...... trade on the word of GodNKJV.... peddlingII Timothy 2:15Studyto shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,?rightly dividing?the word of truth.This is the one command in the New Testament to?"study"?and?"rightly divide"?God's word, and the Devil does NOT appreciate it:NIV....... Do your best...correctly handlesNASB... Be diligent...handling accuratelyNRSV... Do you’re best...rightly explainingREB...... Try hard...keep strictly to the true gospelLB......... Work hard...Know what his word says and meansNWT..... Do your utmost...handling the word of truth arightNAB...... Try hard...following a straight course in preaching the truthNKJV.... Be diligent...rightly dividingI Timothy 6:20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of?science?falsely so called:Many lies are being propagated today in the name of "science" (evolution for example), but I Timothy 6:20 has been warning us about it all along -?except in the new perversions:NIV....... knowledgeNASB... knowledgeNRSV... knowledgeREB...... knowledgeLB......... KnowledgeNWT..... KnowledgeNAB...... knowledgeNKJV.... knowledgeThe New King James VersionWe will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market--the?New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points: (1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and (2) that it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth). The following information should be helpful when dealing with Christians who have been swindled by the Laodicean lovers of filthy lucre:1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the?pagan?trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as?The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to?over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man".?How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so?how say ye it's a King James Bible?12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611!?How say ye it's a King James Bible?14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign.?They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage.15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS! Please note a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":SCRIPTUREKJVNKJVEzra 31:4little riversrivuletsPsalms 43:1JudgeVindicatePsalms 139:43thoughtsanxietiesIsaiah 28:1fatverdantAmos 5:21smellsavorMatthew 26:7boxflaskLuke 8:31the deepthe abyssJohn 10:41didperformedLuke 19:11-27poundsminasJohn 19:9judgement hallPraetoriumActs 1:8bowelsentrailsActs 18:12deputyproconsulActs 21:38uproarinsurrectionActs 27:30boatskiffHebrews 12:8bastardillegitimateThe New Scofield Reference BibleAnother counterfeit "KJV" is the New Scofield Reference Bible (NSRB). "King James Version" is clearly printed on the cover, but since when has it been safe to judge a book by it's cover? Please note the following:1. Dr. C.I. Scofield had been dead many years when the NSRB was published in 1967. He would have never approved of having his name on a "bible" that alters the text of the KJV. The 1909 and 1917 editions of the Scofield Reference Bible do NOT change the text. Therefore the NSRB of 1967 is NOT a Scofield Bible and it is NOT a KJV.2. Dr. Scofield would have never referred to baptism as a "sacrament," but the NSRB takes the liberty to do so in an Acts 8 footnote.3. The NSRB changes the KJV with "better readings" in over 6,500 places.4. In the introduction to the NSRB, 1967 edition, E. Schuyler English tries to justify changing the KJV?text?on the basis that Dr. Scofield saw the need to update his reference Bible after only eight years. Yes, Dr. Scofield did update his Bible after only eight years, but?HE NEVER CHANGED THE TEXT!, and he never granted anyone else permission to do so.?Only the NOTES were revised! (The Judgment Seat of Christ is going to be?very interesting?to say the least!)5. In many places the NSRB agrees with the readings of the new translations, rather than the KJV, so it cannot possibly be a KJV. For example, "a son of the gods" appears in Daniel 3:25, rather than "the Son of God" (KJV). In Genesis 1:28, Adam is told to "fill" the earth, instead of "replenish" it, which isn't the same at all. A great reference to television and magazines is destroyed when the NSRB replaces "pictures" with "stone idols" in Numbers 33:52. Then, of course, the NSRB lines up right behind the ASV in places like I Timothy 6:20, Acts 4:27, and Romans 1:25.6. Dr. William Grady addresses the NSRB in his book,?Final Authority. His research includes the following on page 316:?"A random survey of the NSRB margins in Philippians alone revealed a total of 29 changes from the King James Bible. Of these, twenty-one (72%) were traced to either the RSV or the NASV. The skeptic can check it out for himself: Philippians 1:7, 8, 23, 27; 2:1, 15, 25, 27, 28; 3:1, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21; 4:3, 6, 14, 15, 21, and 22."?The?"New Scofield Reference Bible"?in the?"King James Version"?is NOT?new, is NOT a?Scofield?Bible, and it is certainly NOT a?King James Version.?The Various Editions of the 1611 A.V.If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that?the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again.?While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisers are just trying to justify their sins!There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611:?1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct?printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved?spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.There were no new?translations, and there were really no new?revisions?published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid--or both.?The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). So if some punk walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks you, "So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?", you can simply state that you have a?1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.Why the KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as ScriptureAnother favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic Church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a historical document, not as Scripture. Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book?Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation."Errors" in the King James BibleCritics of the KJV have a nasty habit of pointing out what they believe to be errors, contradictions, and mistranslations in the Authorized Version. The sad fact is that they usually point these things out to young men and women in Christian colleges who do not know any better. Many young Christians, including young preachers, are having their faith in God's word destroyed by the very people they look to for spiritual guidance!These so-called "errors" that are presented by such infidels have been explained and written about so many times that it's a shame to even have to mention it again. There isn't enough space in a booklet of this size to embark upon a lengthy rebuttal of such claims. Besides, it has already been done quite well by others. Nevertheless, for the sake of showing the reader the nature of the so-called "errors" in the AV, we will take the time to briefly deal with just a few:1. According to the critics, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, because the Greek word is"pascha," and it is translated "Passover" twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and it should be translated likewise in Acts 12:4.This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English. It should NOT be translated "Passover" because the Passover had already passed. The?"days of unleavened bread"?had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.2. I John 5:7 is also the subject of much debate. It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it.The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible. It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of 1522.I John 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in Old Latin manuscripts?r?and?Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century (Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus). Several African writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy.The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing?to a true Bible believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!3. Many argue that the KJV is in error with it's use of the word "devils" instead of "demons". Again, this is due to an over emphasis on "the Greek" as well as a lack of faith in God's ability to preserve His words in English. While protesting that "daimon" should be translated "demon", many have overlooked a great truth which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the King's English. There is one true "Son of God", but many "sons of God". There is one true "Church", the Bride of Christ, but many local "churches". Likewise, there is one "Devil", but many "devils" under his control.The word "demon" itself does not necessarily imply an?evil?spirit. Even Webster's 1828 dictionary states that "the ancients believed that there were good and evil demons...", and New Agers of today believe likewise. Therefore, God led the KJV translators to translate "devils" instead of "demons" because every "daimon" in the Bible IS an evil spirit. The word "devil" makes that clear. Every "devil" in the Bible is under the authority of their father "the Devil".4. Then we have "contradictions" like Exodus 24:10 and John 1:18. Exodus says the Israelites SAW God, while Jesus said in John that "no man hath seen God at any time". Contradiction, right? No, it's only a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth (which you may not be practicing if II Tim. 2:15 has been altered in your "bible"). God is a Trinity, just like you and I. We're a body, a soul, and a spirit (I Ths. 5:23). The Israelites saw a physical?manifestation?of God, but not the SOUL of God, just as no one has ever seen your soul.5. Numbers 25:9 says that 24,000 people died in a plague, but I Corinthians 10:8 says that only 23,000 died. Read I Corinthians 10:8 again and notice that 23,000 fell "in one day". The 24,000 died altogether in a few days.You see, these are the kind of "errors" in the King James Bible. These are the reasons given for you to throw away your Bible and buy a new one. Don't fall for it. I have learned to always give God the benefit of a doubt, and to count the critics guilty until proven innocent. So far I've been right. Anytime I see an "error" in the KJV I just assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I just pray about it and trust God. I?NEVER?correct the Book that God has honored for so long.?Thank God, I'm not that stupid.Fifty Stumbling Stones of the Laodicean TranslationsIn this final section, I'd like to point out one of the best things about the new versions. What might that be? It is the fact that we know where they're going to alter God's word before they do it! We know how to "check'em out" without having to waste our God-given time reading the whole translation. The following list includes fifty "check points" which anyone can use to expose a new translation. No translation will be guilty on all fifty counts, but any translation since 1881 will alter God's word enough to prove that the revisionists do not have God's best interest in heart. For emphasis, I'll present these items from Satan's standpoint, briefly illustrating his purpose for many of the changes:1. Genesis 1:29. Omit the word "meat" since there is no real flesh in the verse, only plant life. This will destroy the cross reference to the "meat offering" of Leviticus 2, which is really a GRAIN offering with no flesh. The Bible has its own built in dictionary, but let's not allow people to know it.2. Genesis 3:5. Alter the word "gods" and the cross references to Psalm 82, I Corinthians 8:5, and II Corinthians 4:4 will be destroyed.3. Genesis 22:1. The word "tempt" in the verse should be replaced with "try". Here's another case of the "built-in dictionary". James 1:2-3 explains the kind of tempting that this was, but let's hide it from as many Christians as possible.4. Numbers 33:52. Someone might use the word "pictures" as a reference to television. Throw it out!5. Isaiah 7:14. Attack the virgin birth by omitting the word "virgin". After all, the Hebrew word "almah" can mean a?virgin, a?damsel, or just a?young woman. Laodicean Christians are too lazy to check Matthew 1:23 to see how Matthew translated it.6. Daniel 3:25. There's Jesus Christ in the Old Testament! Can't have that!?Someone might get the idea that He's eternal.?Change "the Son of God" to "a son of the gods."7. Micah 5:2. Another chance to attack the eternal existence of Christ. Throw out "everlasting".8. Zechariah 9:9. We're not interested in anyone being SAVED, so omit the words "having salvation".9. Matthew 1:25. Omit "firstborn" because it shows the reader that Mary had other children after Jesus and did NOT remain a perpetual virgin. They'll never think to check Psalm 69:8, Galatians 1:19, or John 7:5.10. Matthew 5:22. Let's create a contradiction by omitting the words "without a cause". This will make Jesus contradict Paul in Ephesians 4:26.11. Matthew 6:13. Omit the "kingdom", the "power", and the "glory".12. Matthew 27:54. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of God".13. Mark 1:1. This is the only Gospel which refers to Christ as the "Son of God" in the very first verse. Throw it out.14. Mark 16:9-20. Either throw out the last twelve verses of Mark or raise doubt about them in the margins and footnotes. The less we read of a resurrected Christ the better.15. Luke 1:34. Change Mary's words "I know not a man" to "I have no husband". This will allow for possible fornication between Mary and Joseph, which could make Joseph the father of Jesus.16. Luke 2:33. Attack the virgin birth again by replacing "Joseph" with "father".17. Luke 4:4. Omit "by every word of God". No one will think to check Deuteronomy 8:3.18. Luke 23:42. Here's a sinner being saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord", which is in perfect tune with Romans 10:13. Replace the divine title "Lord" with the human name "Jesus".19. Luke 24:51. Raise doubt about the ascension of Christ by omitting the words "carried up into heaven". Hopefully, no one will check Luke's later comments in Acts 1:1-2.20. John 1:14. Omit the word "begotten", just like in John 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18.21. Acts 1:3. Omit the word "infallible". Nothing is infallible.22. Acts 4:27. Jesus wasn't God's "child". He was only His "servant".23. Acts 8:37. Either omit the entire verse or raise doubt about it, because this verse states that scriptural water baptism is conditional upon BELIEF.24. Acts 12:4. Change "Easter" to "Passover". No one will ever read Exodus and Numbers to find the truth.25. Acts 17:22. Change "superstitious" to "religious".26. Romans 1:18. Let's change "hold the truth in unrighteousness" to "suppress the truth", which is a much weaker reading.27. Romans 1:25. Let's say they "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" instead of "changed the truth of God into a lie".28. Romans 1:29. Throw out "fornication".29. Romans 10:17. Replace the word "God" with "Christ". This will teach that faith comes by rallying around the person of Jesus alone and not by feeding on every word of God (Luke 4:4).30. Romans 14:10. Change the word "Christ" to "God". This will prevent anyone from realizing that Jesus Christ is God when they read verse twelve.31. I Corinthians 1:22. Change "require" to "request", and destroy the great truth about signs being for Israel.32. II Corinthians 2:17. Since we are guilty of corrupting the word of God, replace the word "corrupt" with "peddle".33. II Corinthians 5:17. Replace the word "creature" with "creation", although Mark 16:15 says "creature".34. Ephesians 1:7. Throw out the "blood".35. Philippians 3:21. People don't have "vile" bodies. They just have "lowly" bodies.36. Colossians 1:14. Throw out the "blood".37. I Thessalonians 5:22. Omit the word "appearance" so Christians will not be very concerned about their testimony.38. I Timothy 3:16. The verse says that "God was manifest in the flesh". Attack the Deity of Christ and the Incarnation by throwing "God" clear out of the verse.39. I Timothy 6:10. Change "all evil" to "all kinds of evil". 40. I Timothy 6:20. Since many heresies are taught today in the name of "science", and this verse gives a strong warning against "science falsely so-called", change the word "science" to "knowledge".41. II Timothy 2:15. This is the only command in the Bible to "study" the word of God. Omit the word "study".42. James 5:16. Let's justify Roman Catholic confessionals by changing the word "faults" to "sins".43. I Peter 5:11. Omit "glory" and "dominion".44. I John 1:7. Omit the word "Christ".45. I John 4:3. Omit the words "Christ is come in the flesh".46. I John 5:7. There's the Trinity! Throw out the whole verse or insert marginal notes to raise doubt about it.47. Revelation 1:5. Omit the word "blood".48. Revelation 5:9. Omit the word "blood".49. Revelation 11:15. Change the many "kingdoms" that Jesus Christ will receive to one singular "kingdom".50. Revelation 11:17. Attack the Second Coming of Christ by omitting the words "art to come".If you’re not using KJV; why not? Let me conclude with this question to you; if you’re not using the King James Version of the Bible; why not? This is a question that you must ask yourself. The answer does not come easy to some, but to others who have studied and weighed the facts there is no question at all. This is something that you must come to a conclusion on. Am I using the right Bible? When I say, “right bible” I mean, are you using the very Word of God or are you using a version that has been compiled by liberal scholars that strive to create another version to make it more readable or understandable even if it means at the price of authenticity at preservation? I want to know in my heart that what I am reading, what I am staking my life on when I need answers, what I am trusting to lead me into a personal relationship with Christ is the Word of God. A More Sure FoundationGod inspired the original writings of the Bible; they are referred to as the “Autogrpha” Scripture gives proof of this, 2 Peter 1:20-21?"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (that is, they did not originate with man).?21?For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake?as they were?moved by the Holy Ghost."2 Timothy 3:16?"All scripture?is?given by inspiration of God, and?is?profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"What about verbal inspiration of the Autogrpha? God has preserved His Words in the copies of those original writings in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Traditional Text (Textus Receptus) of the New Testament.Nineteenth century believing Bible scholar par excellent, John Burgon wrote:?"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."The?Westminster Confession of Faith?published in the 1600’s says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek,?being immediately inspired by God?and?by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."The Bible teaches?providential preservation! The Lord Jesus Christ taught providential preservation. In?Matthew 4:4?we read, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,?but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Did you know that no original manuscripts existed in Christ’s day? Yet, Christ confidently quoted a portion ofDeuteronomy 8:3?as the authoritative Word of God, and it was copy of the original without a doubt.THE FOUNDATION OF FAITHlet’s begin with?the foundation of faith. The?key issue?is this: I believe that?God inspired the original writings of the Bible, which are called the?autographa. There are many verses that teach this. Here are two key verses that I want you to see…2 Peter 1:20-21?"Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (that is, they did not originate with man).?21?For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake?as they were?moved by the Holy Ghost."2 Timothy 3:16?"All scripture?is?given by inspiration of God, and?is?profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"But, there is also the matter of?verbal preservation of the apographa?(copies of the originals). I believe that?God has preserved His Words in the copies of those original writings in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Traditional Text (Textus Receptus) of the New Testament.I have?FAITH?that the God who inspired the?original autographs?can and did preserve the apographs?so that we can say, “Thus saith the Lord; This IS the Word of God” when we hold up our King James Bibles.Nineteenth century believing Bible scholar par excellent, John Burgon wrote:?"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."The?Westminster Confession of Faith?published in the 1600’s says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek,?being immediately inspired by God?and?by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."My point in quoting this document is simply this;?Bible believing Christians in the past, for the most part, believed in the inspiration and providential preservation of the of the Word of God.It is only in the last quarter of the 19th century and 20th century that born again Christians have believed anything else!In fact, the Bible teaches?providential preservation! The Lord Jesus Christ taught providential preservation. In?Matthew 4:4?we read, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,?but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Did you know that no original manuscripts existed in Christ’s day? Yet, Christ confidently quoted a portion ofDeuteronomy 8:3?as the authoritative Word of God, and it was copy of the original without a doubt.There are many?Scriptures that indicate God has providentially preserved His Word. Here are just a few.Psalms 12:6-7?"The words of the LORD?are?pure words:?as?silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.?7?Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."Psalms 33:11?"The counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."Psalms 100:5?"For the LORD?is?good; his mercy?is?everlasting; and his truth?endureth?to all generations."Matthew 24:35?"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."Luke 16:17?"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."1 Peter 1:23, 25?"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."I believe God. What he promised, He is able to perform (Romans 4:21). He has promised to preserve His Word(s), and I believe Him. I have the faith that He has done it. Therefore, I have chosen to use the King James Bible, because it is built on the Traditional Text, which is laid on the foundation of faith.What about all of the modern versions of the Bible??What foundation are they built upon? Princeton Theological Seminary textual critic Dr. Bruce Metzger, who is behind the Greek text used in translating the modern versions of the Bible, writing to Dr. Kirt D. DiVietro testified that the text they founded their work on was that of Westcott and Hort. He wrote, “We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence.”Modern versions are erected on the?faulty foundation of doubt! Here’s why I say that. Westcott and Hort?speculated,?with no evidence to support their idea, that?the “pure” text of the New Testament had been lost. They said that the Antiochian text (also called the Traditional Text, Textus Receptus, etc.), the text type behind the King James New Testament, was an?artificial and arbitrarily invented text, fabricated between 250 A.D. and 350 A.D.?In fact, Westcott and and Hort asserted that it remained lost until the 19th century when Vaticanus was rediscovered in 1845 in the Vatican library, where it had lain since 1481, and Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844.Figure it out. If you believe their conjured theory, that means people were without the Word of God for 1500 years! Therefore, the question must be,?were Westcott and Hort?correct? Had the Word of God been lost for 1500 years??Dr. F. H. A Scrivener wrote:"Dr. Hort's System is entirely destitute of historical foundation….We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that?the hypothesis?to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years,?is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability…” (Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1883, pp. 537, 542).Further, he stated;"There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure (speaking of Westcott & Hort),?if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture.?And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration?as precarious?and even visionary." (Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1883, p. 531).In summary, I have chosen to use the English Bible that is built on?the solid foundation of faith, believing that?God has preserved His Words?in the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus Greek text, and that the King James Bible “preserves” in the English language,?by accurate translation, that preserved Hebrew Masoretic and Textus Receptus Greek texts.By the same token, I must say that if you hold to a modern version of the Bible, you have chosenthe sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. The?critical scholars behind the modern versions do not believe that God preserved His Words as He said He did. In fact,?they are not sure where His Words are.?They are frantically revising, adding, deleting, modifying, and changing God’s Words as is right in their own eyes.Will you choose the?solid foundation of faith?or the?sandy foundation of doubt?Once the foundation is laid, the building begins! Those who are building on the?foundation of doubt?have a?low regard for the Scriptures?while those who are building on the?foundation of faith?have a?high regard for the Scriptures.A LOW REGARD FOR THE SCRIPTURESWould you trust a preacher or a Bible scholar who said?the Bible was just a book like any other book??I hope that not a single person listening or reading this would trust him. Yet, millions of Christians, who use the modern versions of the Bible, essentially trust the judgment of those who treat the Bible as just another book. Here’s proof…Dr. Edward Hills wrote, “Westcott and Hort followed an essentially naturalistic Method. Indeed?they prided themselves on?treating the text of the New Testament as they would that of any other book, making little or nothing of inspiration and providence.” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 65,66).In other words, they treated the Bible just like they would the works of Plato, Shakespeare, C. S. Lewis, J. K. Rowling or any other fallible book. In fact,?neither believed in the infallibility of the Bible.Brooke Foss Westcott stated emphatically, “"No one?now, I suppose,?holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example,?give a literal history?- I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.”Further he wrote, "I never read of?the account of a miracle?but?I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott; page 216) Again Westcott said, "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, p.207).Concerning Fenton John Anthony Hort, Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes, "Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212).Some might protest that the low regard of the Scriptures held by Westcott and Hort has nothing to do with the modern versions of today. They are wrong.First, the new Bible versions are built on the Greek New Testament compiled by them.Secondly, current day New Version Potentate Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Bruce Metzger has a low regard for the Scriptures as well. He?doubts?Moses alone authored the Pentateuch. As Co-editor of the?New Oxford Annoted Bible RSV?he wrote or approved of notes asserting that the Pentateuch is “a matrix of myth, legend, and history” that “took shape over a long period of time” and is “not to be read as history.” Job is called an “ancient folktale.” And the book of Isaiah was written by as least three men. Jonah is called “popular legend.” Then add to that, Metzger claims that?the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The problem is, he completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Bible itself!Exodus 24:4?"And?Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel."John 7:19?Jesus said, "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?"Matthew 12:40?Jesus said, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."Let me ask you a question.?How can you trust a Bible that has been tampered with by men who neither respect it nor hold it in any higher regard than they would the works of Shakespeare?The answer is clear,?you cannot.A HIGH REGARD FOR THE BIBLEI have a high regard for the Scriptures. I believe it stands forever.?Isaiah 40:8?"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but?the word of our God shall stand for ever."I believe that through the Word of God people are born again.?John 20:31?"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."?Romans 10:17?"So then faith?cometh?by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."?1 Peter 1:23?"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.I will not align myself with those who profane the Scriptures.?The King James Bible is founded upon Traditional Text types collated by men who had a high regard for the Bible.?Consider for instance, the often-maligned?Desidarius Erasmus.?He wrote the following in the Preface to his Greek New Testament, which clearly shows he reverenced and loved the Holy Scriptures…“These holy pages will summon up the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your eyes.” (An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; Robertson; p. 54)Erasmus also wrote this:“Therefore if you will dedicate yourself wholly to the study of the Scriptures, if you will meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, you will not be afraid of the terror of the night or of the day, but you will be fortified and trained against every onslaught of the enemy.” (Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus;?Matthew Spinka; p. 304:?by way of Sorenson; Touch Not The Unclean Thing)Further he proclaimed,?“Christ Jesus…is the true light, alone shattering the night of earthly folly, the Splendor of paternal glory, who as he was made redemption and justification for us reborn in him, so also was made Wisdom (as Paul testifies): ‘We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.’” (Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus; Matthew Spinka; p. 309: by way of Sorenson;?Touch Not The Unclean Thing)There are others to consider, such as Theodore Beza. Does anyone doubt the fact that?Theodore Beza?had a high regard for the Bible? The reason I bring this up is that the?King James translators are said to have worked primarily from his 5th edition of the Received Text by Beza. If you do have any doubts about where Beza stood, I challenge you to read his book,?The Christian Faith. He says this: “On the subject of the Word of God, the canonical books of the Old and New Testament…proceed from the mouth of God Himself.”I use the King James Bible because it is built upon texts that were collated by people who had a high regard for the Word(s) of God. Further, it is the most meticulous English translation ever produced.Next, let’s consider the manuscripts that were used. The modern versions are built on…?A FEW CORRUPT MANUSCRIPTSFor a more complete treatment of this issue, log on to? read my article “The Great? Uncials.”As you will recall, I shared with you a quote by Bruce Metzger. He tells how they developed their Greek text for the modern versions. He said, “We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence.”?So, what manuscripts did Westcott and Hort use to get their Greek New Testament? They used primarily two old 4th century manuscripts for their work. Hort’s partiality for Codex Vaticanus (B) was practically absolute. Intuitively, (without evidence) he believed it to be a near perfect representation of the Greek New Testament. Whenever pages were missing in Vaticanus he would use Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH) to fill in the gap. While most modern version “scholars” claim that “the oldest is the best,” (and they have these two manuscripts in mind), this certainly is NOT true with these two manuscripts.For example, we read this about?Codex Vaticanus (B) -- "The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible." More specifically, the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. Those who study manuscripts say,?all this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible.?Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century?by copying other Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript “the oldest and the best?”On the next page you will see an example of the problems that come into play when there are multiple corrections within a manuscript. The page is from 4th century Codex Vaticanus. Here we see Hebrews 1 of Codex Vaticanus. Though hard to see in this size, notice?the marginal note between the first and second column. A corrector of the text had erased a word in verse 3 and substituted another word in its place. A second corrector came along, erased the correction, reinserted the original word, and wrote a note in the margin to castigate the first corrector. The note reads,?“Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!”What aboutt?Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, which was a Greek Orthodox Monistary, by Constantin Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves?in a rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the manuscript until 1859. Constantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting off?four different scribes in the writing of that text.?But that is not the end of the scribal problems! The?early corrections?of the manuscript are made?from Origen's corrupt source.?As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex.?Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So much for the oldest!!“On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.”?He goes on to say,?“…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.”Here are several examples of?di homoeotéleuton omissions. The word?di homoeotéleuton?is Greek for "because of a similar ending." Here are some examples of the sloppy work of the scribes.Note: In the following passages the italicized, bold words are?omitted?in Sinaiticus…1 Cor. 13:1-2. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity,?I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity,?I am nothing.Here the scribe had copied the verse up to the end of the first "and have not charity," but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.Now a more complicated example:1 Cor. 15:25-27.?For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.?26?The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.?27?For he hath put all things under his feet.Here it is not immediately clear what has happened. But when it is known that in some early manuscripts the order of clauses is as shown below, once again we see that the scribe's eye has jumped from the first occurrence of a phrase to the second occurrence:For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.?For he hath put all things under his feet.?The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.And in the very next verse another such omission:1 Cor. 15:27-28. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is accepted, which did subject unto him all things.?28 And when there shall be subjected unto him all things, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.These?di homoeotéleuton?omissions number about 300 in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus. They are not taken seriously as various readings by the editors of critical editions and in fact are not even mentioned in the notes of the critical editions of currently used translations. (Information -?).While these manuscripts may be (or may not be) old,?it is obvious that they are corrupt.?It is these corrupt manuscripts that form the basis to the modern Bible versions.However, that is NOT the case with our King James Version of the Bible. It is based on…MASSIVE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCEWhile it is true that there are about 45 to 50 Greek manuscripts that support the Westcott/Hort Greek text that underlies the modern versions of the Bible, you must realize that there are more than 5000 that support the Textus Receptus type text that underlies our King James Bible. Figure it out. 99% of all the manuscript evidence supports the text type that the King James Bible is translated from. Further, this text type is overwhelmingly supported by the early church fathers.Christian friends, there is no doubt in my mind that underlying the King James New Testament is a superior Greek text!While there are many more things that could be said, this will be my final point relating to the method of translation.·?FORMAL EQUIVOLENCY – A SUPERIOR METHOD OF TRANSLATIONThe King James Bible translators used a superior method in translating called?formal equivalency. Formal Equivalence, sometimes called Verbal Equivalence is a method of translation, which takes the Greek, and Hebrew words and?renders them as closely as possible into English. This is the method used by the King James translators and is certainly a superior method, seeing that our Lord is concerned about every word, even the jots and tittles (Matthew 5:18; 24:35).·?DYNAMIC EQUIVOLENCY & PARAPHRASING – AN INFERIOR METHOD OF TRANSLATINGThe modern versions of the Bible use?dynamic equivalency, also called?concept inspiration?in their translations. Dynamic Equivalence is not following a word for word translation but changing, adding, or subtracting from the original to make it flow as the translator sees fit. We are warned against this in the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:19). The New International Version is this type of a version.Then, there is one further step that is even worse and that is?paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is simply taking what the text says and rewriting it to what you think it says. It is more like a condensed commentary than a Bible. The most popular paraphrase is the?Living Bible.?It is really not a translation at all!I use the King James Bible because it certainly is superior in its translation.There is much more that could be said, but I will save that for another time. Therefore I will move to?the summary.·?The King James Bible is built on the?foundation of faith?by men who had a high regard for the Bible, using massive manuscript evidence to support their work. They meticulously translated the Greek and Hebrew words, rendering them as closely as possible into English.·?The Modern versions are built on a?foundation of doubt?by men who have a?low regard?for the Bible. A few corrupt manuscripts were used to support their work. For the most part, they loosely translated the concepts of the Greek and Hebrew and some versions are even sloppier, not translating at all but paraphrasing.I have to wonder: If you are not using the King James Bible, why not?(Epistle Dedicatory In The King James 1611)TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCEJAMES,BY THE GRACE OF GODKING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,?DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &C.,/PThe Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace,?through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord.GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of your Majesty, as the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad.But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty's loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort, and they bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate Author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed,) and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of that great GOD, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only SaviourFor more study on Bible translations, the following resources provide reliable overviews and analyses:The Canon of Scripture, F. F. BruceHow to Choose a Bible Translation, Robert L. ThomasThe King James Only Controversy, James WhiteThe King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, D. A. CarsonWords of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, Leland RykenThe Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation, Leland Ryken ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download