Chapter 9: The Authorized Version
In this chapter we will be looking at some of the common misrepresentations of the Authorized Version. Many of these misrepresentations are unintentional. Most of the comments against the Authorized Version are, in fact, simply repetitions of what the commentator heard from a pulpit, read in a book, or learned in a classroom.
Most of the fervency against the Authorized Version is not so much due to a conscious hatred against the Book, as much as it is a show of one's education. This fact, which is a conscious malice, is then coupled with the "flesh" or "natural man," which may be an unconscious malice, to form a constant antagonism toward the true Word of God. This "old nature" exists in every person, even Christians. It will not change until the rapture. This nature manifests itself in an innate desire not to submit to the authority of God.
Satan realizes this and uses it to his own advantage by giving the flesh ammunition to fight a battle which it naturally wants to fight. The sad result of this spirit of judgment is that the Word of God never really gets a fair trial.
Inspiration vs. Preservation
Today it is widely taught and accepted that God wrote the originals perfectly, but that there is no perfect translation. Yet, there is no scripture that teaches any such thing! This teaching is based on logic, man's logic. Christian educators of today say that it is absurd to believe that God could use sinful men to translate His Word perfectly. Such a supposition of a perfect translation is no more absurd than the teaching that God used sinful men to write the Bible perfectly in the originals! Every argument for innerrant, infallible inspiration applies also for innerrant, infallible preservation. It is the same God!
If a believer in perfect inspiration says that God overpowered the writers' ability to make a mistake, the believer in perfect preservation can also state that God overpowered the translators' ability to make a mistake. It can also very happily be pointed out that a man who claims that God preserved His Words can at least PRODUCE what he claims to believe in!
Put Up or Shut Up
I personally believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the King James or Authorized Version. I can at least produce a King James Bible to show what I believe in. Any person who claims that God inspired the original autographs perfectly, cannot produce those original manuscripts to prove it! I do not believe that the King James Bible is a new inspiration. "Inspiration" starts with a blank sheet of paper, a man of God, and God. I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of God that was in the original autographs, preserved to this day. "Preservation" starts with God's manuscripts, a man of God, and God. The end result of both is the same: the perfect Word and words of God. It only makes sense.
Many of today's preachers and self-proclaimed scholars slam their fists down on their pulpits in simulated "righteous indignation" while holding a Bible over their heads and loudly proclaim, "This Book doesn't 'CONTAIN' the word of God, it IS the Word of God! Perfect! Infallible! Without admixture of error!" to the delight of the audience. But ask them, while out of their pulpit, if they believe that THE BOOK IN THEIR HAND is truly without error, and they immediately go into a song and dance routine about "just a translation OF the Bible" and say something about "Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Try pressing the issue, and they will question your authority to do so (Matthew 21:23), and if you persist you will be labeled a "Ruckmanite."
All for simply believing that this "godly man" really believed what he had said when he was performing behind his pulpit!
We have studied the history of the MSS, of the New Testament, and the historical plans and attempts to overthrow God's preservation of His Word. We have seen that the vast majority of MSS and of historical evidence points to the Authorized Version as God's preserved Word. Still, there is an air of antagonism against the Authorized Version. Strange as it may seem, the only things which Roman Catholics, apostates, Protestants, and fundamentalists can agree on is that the King James Bible should be eliminated! This striking truth in itself should be enough to shock born-again Christians into scrutinizing their position to make sure of which side of the fence they are on. When we find ourselves aligned with Satan's church against Scripture, we find ourselves in a very dangerous position. This is especially true when we consider what the result would be if these groups were successful in abolishing the King James Version. The elimination of the Authorized Version finds us without a Bible, at which time we find Rome rushing to the rescue with her 1582 Jesuit translation, and the anti-God Local Text of Alexandria. Knowing that no fundamentalist would consciously use a Roman Catholic Bible, the Roman Church has obliged us by changing the cover to Revised Version, American Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, the Living Bible, the Amplified Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the Common Bible, the New International Version, the New Scofield Reference Bible, and many more. The story is true; the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
Sowers of Discord
Rome realized that there is not one of these new Roman Catholic translations which will ever replace God's Authorized Version. Her plan is to get any one of these translations to replace the Authorized Version in any group of Christians. Let the fundamentalists use one of the Revised Standard Version's "twin sons," the New American Standard Version or the New International Version. Convince the young people that they cannot understand the "thees" and "thous" in God's Authorized Version and hand them a "Good News for Modern Man" or a "Living Bible." Promote each new translation of the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt, as "thoroughly reliable" or "more accurate," until the Authorized Version is removed from the hearts of Christians little by little.
How many young "preacher boys" have had their faith in God's PERFECT Word trampled and destroyed while they sat in independent, fundamental Bible colleges where they thought that they were safe?!
How many found themselves, upon graduation three or four years later indebted to their "alma mater" for teaching them what the "originals really said" and in so doing saved them from being drawn into that group of "King James fanatics," that "lunatic fringe," that "cult"?
They found themselves leaving college with the confidence (?) that the Book under their arm was NOT perfect, and thanking God for the school that had shown them that!
The only person happier than they were was the Pope. After all, who wants someone who speaks with authority? (Mark 1:22)
Many Shall Come
It must be remembered at this time that every new Bible is introduced as being "better than the Authorized Version." It may also be noted that every false prophet is introduced as "better" than Jesus Christ. Mohammed had supposedly come to finish the work which Christ began. Charles Manson claimed that he was Jesus Christ. Sun Nyung Moon claims to have to finished the job which Jesus Christ failed to finish. Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus Christ. The Beatles claimed to be more popular than Jesus Christ.
Notice that Jim Jones did not claim to be Mohammed. Notice that Moon did not claim to be the replacement for Buddha. All of the false prophets attack Jesus Christ. Notice that the Good News for Modern Man does not claim to be better than the American Standard Version, but it does claim to be better than the Authorized Version. Notice also that the New International Version does not claim to be better than the American Standard Version; it claims to be better than the Authorized Version. A false prophet can always be recognized, because he attacks the true prophet. A false Bible can be recognized, because it attacks the true Bible.
The Super Sack Philosophy
LET ME ALLEGORIZE FOR A MOMENT. The claims of the new Bibles are strikingly similar to the claims of the famous "Super Sack" grocery bag which has swept the country. The bag producers wanted to cut production costs. The "old reliable" double bag was just about indestructible when it came to doing its job, but it was too costly to produce. The manufacturers came up with the idea of producing an inferior product but calling it "superior."
It has happened to us all. One day, on a trip with our wives to the grocery store, we picked up our groceries and noticed the bag. It wasn't a double bag! "They've made them cheaper," we thought. Then we noticed an official looking statement on the side: "This new Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no double bagging needed."
"Well," we realized, "then it isn't an inferior product after all. It's new and better. That's good to know."
We "bought the pitch." In our trusting, childlike manner, we believed that the "Super Sack" was better than the "old reliable" double bag, just because someone told us that it was.
"This new Super Sack ... no double bagging needed."
How many times have these words echoed through my head as I heard a horrifying, tearing sound. I watched as the cans rolled across the grocery store parking lot. I watched the flour break open in the back seat of the car. After getting the survivors into the car, we headed for home.
"This new Super Sack ... no double bagging needed."
We hear that sound! We watch broken eggs as they pour their contents out into the driveway. The cereal has broken open, and now the neighbors dog picks up our last package of hamburger. We make a wild dash for the house, leaving a trail of canned goods, broken jelly jars, and spilled milk in our wake. We arrive at the back door holding nothing more than a large piece of brown paper with words on the side reading: "This Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no double bagging needed."
At times like that, standing there, surveying the damage, I can hardly frame the proper words with which to thank the manufacturers for blessing me with this wonderful, new, improved "Super Sack."
This "Super Sack" philosophy has existed in the field of Bible translations for years.
Every new translation published appears first with a giant "media campaign" directed at the Christian community. This campaign is designed to tell the Christians that they "need" this new translation, because the Christians do not know it. This is not an overstatement but is proven true by the Preface to the New American Standard Version of 1963. The last paragraph in the Preface begins with this statement:
"It is enthusiastically anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the availability, value and need of the New American Standard Version." (Emphasis mine.)
The Lockman Foundation has admitted translating a Bible that the general public doesn't know that it needs! It is intended for the general public to realize that they "need" this Bible when they read the advertisement. This is just like a laundry detergent.
The Sales Pitch
Let us look into the way in which this "Bible advertising" works.
We read a few Christian periodicals and observe that a new translation has been published. It is, of course, compared to the Authorized Version. The "mistakes" of the Authorized Version are revealed to show us the "need" for a new translation. Next, this new translation is unveiled with exclamation of "thoroughly reliable," "true to the Original Greek," and "starting a new tradition." We read but are skeptical.
We proceed to the "Bible" book store to look over this new translation. After having the "sales pitch" from the man behind the counter, we leave carrying a grocery bag (Super Sack) full of "new," "modern," "easy to read" translations in which we are assured that "all of the fundamentals can be found." On the way home, we decide to try out these "more accurate," "Christ exalting" versions.
The Let Down
We meet a Jehovah's Witness. In the following discussion we try to convince him that Jesus Christ was not a created God. He shows us John 1:18 in his "New World Translation." It reads that Christ was the "only begotten God." We snicker. "That's just your version," we say, reaching for a New International Version. To our amazement it also reads "only begotten God!"
Being fully embarrassed, we change the subject to the trinity. "I John 5:7!" we exclaim. Now we've got him! We turn to I John 5:7 in the "Good News for Modern Man." "There are three witnesses," it says.
Our Jehovahs Witness asks, "So, what does that teach?" We stammer, "Wait a minute," as we reach for a New American Standard Version. "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth."
"So how is the trinity taught from that verse?" he demands.
With our face glowing red and phrases like "thoroughly reliable" and "faithful to the originals" spinning through our head, we desperately grab a New King James Version.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." I John 5:7.
"There it is! There it is!" We exclaim, "See there, the Trinity!"
"Read the footnote on it," he states calmly. "Out loud!"
"The words from 'in heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8) are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. from the 15th Century and later also contain them."
"You see," says our adversary, "it doesn't belong there."
Thankfully he hasn't got any more time to talk, and he leaves.
We tear our "Super Sack" slightly as we pick it back up and head for home, not quite understanding what has taken place. In our mind we hear the Bible store salesman saying, "But I can find the fundamentals in these new versions."
In an attempt to boost our own morale, we try to lead a man to Christ. We tell him the simplicity of conversion. We relate to him how easy it was for the Ethiopian eunuch. We open a Revised Standard Version to show it to him. We read Acts 8:36 and then the next verse, verse 38. "Wait just a second; I seem to have skipped over a verse," we say apologetically.
We read verse 36, then carefully run our finger across the line to the next verse, verse 38! There is no verse 37! This eunuch never believed on the Lord Jesus Christ!
"Excuse me," we apologize. "I seem to have picked up the wrong Bible." We lay down the Revised Standard Version and pick up the New American Standard Version. We read again. This time we arrive at verse 37.
It says, "See footnote."
"No thank you!" we say to ourselves.
Having lost his train of thought, our lost friend walks off shaking his head and wondering why Christians don't know their Bibles better.
Of all things, we run into an infidel before we can reach the safety of our home.
"Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh," he states.
"Oh yes He was!" we retort confidently, happy to have the opportunity to redeem ourselves for the bad showing earlier. "Look at I Timothy 3:16."
We pick the Living Bible.
"But the answer lies in Christ, who came to earth as a man...."
"There's no 'God' in that verse," he declares.
The statement of the salesmen comes to mind again. "But I can find the fundamentals in these."
"Where?" we ask ourselves returning to the Revised Standard Version.
"He was manifested in the flesh...."
"Where is God?" demands our infidel. We wonder the same thing!
"He appeared in human form," says the Good News for Modern Man.
"He who was revealed in the flesh," states the New American Standard Version.
"Where is God?" demands our infidel with finality.
"I don't know. I really don't know," we reply with our heads down in sorrow.
We drag our wounded spirits home. Words cannot describe our "gratitude" to the Lockman Foundation and all the rest of those "godly, conservative scholars" who gave us these "accurate, reliable, true to the original" translations. We hear a horrifying, tearing sound as we reach the back door.
The next morning the garbage man finds a garbage bag full of brand new, unused "Bibles" covered by a large, torn piece of brown paper with the words on the side saying: "This new Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no double bagging needed."
No thank you, we will stick with our "old, reliable" King James, 1611.
The story has been an allegory, but the philosophy it describes is very true.
We shall now look at some of the complaints against the Authorized Version. Remember, being able to "find the fundamentals" in a version is not enough. This was the claim of the corrupt Revised Version! As Wilkenson points out, "There are many who claim that the changes in the Revised Version did not affect any doctrine."
The problem with this statement is that even if the major doctrines can be found in these new Roman Catholic Bibles, these doctrines always appear in a watered down form.
Yes, the blood of atonement can be taught in spite of the removal of the word "blood" from Colossians 1:14. The doctrine of the blood atonement is found in other passages. The danger is this. Where the Authorized Version teaches a given doctrine in maybe thirty different places, the New American Standard Version may teach the same doctrine in only twenty. The New International Version may only teach this doctrine in fifteen passages. The next "new and improved" version may teach it only three or four, until it is reduced to only one passage. How then can we teach a new convert this "major" doctrine from only one passage?
All of the doctrines, which today's fundamentalists claim to be able to "find" in these new translations, have been taught to these same fundamentalists through the use of a King James Bible. How will the next generation of Christians learn pure doctrine from a watered down Bible? How can we even call something a "major" doctrine which is taught only in one or two verses?
Remember, Satan is not worried at all about what people think of Jesus if he can just keep us from being able to prove that He was virgin born, shed His blood for our sins, rose from the dead, or is coming back physically. Without scripture to prove the above, Jesus was just a man.
The new Bibles have no blood in them, no Lord, no second coming, nor other vital doctrines. In other words, the new Bibles have all of the convictions of B.F. Westcott.
"The Scholar Scam"
Many Christian educators, (especially scholars) claim that the scholarship of today is greater than that of the days of King James. How can they say such a thing? How can men who say that the Bible teaches that everything will get worse and worse with time claim that education is the exception? We see the signs of apostasy all around us. They are evident in world economic systems. They are evident in educational systems. They are evident in the apostasy of religious groups which were formerly loyal to the Bible. They are evident in the worldly learnings of many once separated Christian colleges. Are we to believe that "scholarship" has avoided the "downhill progress?" That is far from being realistic.
Scholar for scholar, the men on the King James translating committee were far greater men of God than Westcott, Hort, or any other new translator. They were not only educated in a powerful, anti-Roman atmosphere, but they looked at the MSS which they handled as the Holy Word of God. They state such in the Dedicatory to King James:
"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...."
As can be seen, they considered themselves "unworthy instruments," for these were humble men.
Compare the words of the King James translators to the pride of the anonymous Lockman Foundation:
"The producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the American Standard Version should be renewed and increased. Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene. As a generation "which knew not Joseph" was born, even so a generation unacquainted with this great and important work has come into being. Recognizing a responsibility to posterity, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to rescue this noble achievement from an inevitable demise, to reserve it as a heritage for coming generations, and to do so in such a form as the demands of passing time dictate. It is enthusiastically anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the availability, value and need of the New American Standard Bible. It is released with the strong confidence that those who seek a knowledge of the scriptures will find herein a source of genuine satisfaction for a clear and accurate rendering of divinely-revealed truth."
The mysterious Lockman Foundation seems not only to believe that they have done us a great service, but seems also to feel that we "ignorant" members of the general public should be grateful to them for their "clear and accurate" translation. Of course we are grateful. We are just as grateful to the Lockman Foundation as we are to the manufacturers of the "Super Sack." Their products seem to be equal in quality.
As stated earlier, the translation of the King James Bible was achieved at a "parenthesis of purity" in English history. It was produced during a brief period following the overthrow of Roman authority and prior to the apostasy of the Church of England. It was translated in the era when the still young English language was at its height of purity. Dr. McClure succeeds in aptly describing this esteemed company of translators:
"As to the capability of those men, we say again, that, by the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek and of the Oriental tongues and/or rabbinical lore had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since."
"This particular field of learning has never been so highly cultivated among English divines as it was at that day. To evidence this fact, so far as necessary limits will admit, it will be requisite to sketch the characters and scholarship of those men, who have made all coming ages their debtors. When this pleasing task is done, it is confidently expected that the reader of these pages will yield to the conviction, that all of the colleges of Great Britian and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled with those mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any one Christian denomination, or out of all, a body of translators on whom the whole Christian community would bestow such a confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious company, or who would prove themselves as deserving of such confidence. Very many self-styled "improved versions" of the Bible, or of parts of it, have been paraded before the world, but the religious public has doomed them all, without exception, to utter neglect."
As Dr. McClure has already stated, to fully apprciate the depth of true scholarship present at the translation of the King James Bible, it is necessary to investigate the character of the individuals on the translating committee. His excellent book, Translator Revived, will be the primary source of the following brief biographical comments.
Dr. Lancelot Andrews, a member of the Westmenster Company is known for his linguistic ability.
"Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he learned some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after a few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe."
"He was not a man of 'head knowledge' only. He was a man of great practical preaching ability and an ardent opponent of Rome. His conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons. Henry, Earl of Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means of converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations."
"As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the 'star of preachers.'"
Dr. Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer.
"Many hours he spent each day in private and family devotions; and there were some who used to desire that 'they might end their days in Bishop Andrews' chapel.' He was one in whom was proved the truth of Luther's saying, that 'to have prayed well, is to have studied well.'"
Although he was a mighty preacher and prayer warrior, he was not "above" the people around him.
"This worthy diocesan was much 'given to hospitality,' and especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it used to be said, 'My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all years 'round.'"
Lastly we review his ability as a translator of the Word of God.
"But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a 'right godly man,' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge speaks of him as 'that great gulf of learning!' It was also said, that 'the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.' A brave old chronicler remarks, that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Intepreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckzidge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages."
Dr. John Overall was another of the King James translators. He, too, was known for his opposition to Roman rule. He was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of 'the Gun-powder Plot.'
In spite of his opposition to Rome, he had an interest in individual souls and urged Garnet to make a true and lively faith to God-ward."
Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers. Without a man with such knowledge it might have been impossible to verify the authenticity of passages such as I John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of Alexandria's philosophers.
This disputed verse is known among textual circles as the "Johannine Comma." Dr. Edward Hills records some of the evidence in its favor:
"The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur in the writings of two fourth century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, who in 385 was beheaded by the emperor Maximus in the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacious Clarus, Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the Fifth Century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Mrica from 439 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. About the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570) in Italy. The Comma is also found in r, an old Latin manuscript of the fifth or sixth century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church."
It was also cited by Cyprian in 225 A.D.
This is one hundred and seventy-five years before Eusebius penned the Vatican manuscript.
We can see then that Dr. Overall's contribution to the translation would be of the utmost importance. No "modern" translation has so candidly investigated the evidence of the church fathers.
Dr. Hadrian Saravia, another learned translator, was as evangelical as he was scholarly. McClure reports:
"He was sent by Queen Elizabeth's council as a sort of missionary to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of the first Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a letter, 'which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God's Word was planted there.' He labored there in a two-fold capacity, doing the work of an evangelist, and conducting a newly established school, called Elizabeth College."
He too, as any truly dedicated soldier for Christ, was a constant foe of Rome. In 1611 he published a treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.
He is said to have been "educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially several languages."
Dr. John Laifield was another man of unique talents which lent to his extraordinary value as a translator. Of him it is said: "That being skilled in architecture, his judgement was much relied on for the fabric of the tabernacle and temple."
Dr. Robert Tighe was known as "an excellent textuary and profound lingtlist."
Dr. William Bedwell was "an eminent Oriental scholar." His epitaph mentions that he was "for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times."
"He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St. John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of Raphelengius, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts to the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a font of types of printing them. His fame for Arabic learning was so great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist, resided in England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his studies. To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it, belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He was also tutor to another Orientalist of reknown, Dr. Pococke."
"Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an advantage in our times over the translators of King James' day, by reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be paid at present to what are called the 'cognate' and 'Shemitic' languages, and especially the Arabic by which much light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell and others, among his fellow-laborers, were thoroughly conversant in this part of the broad field of sacred criticism."
In addition to his work on the Authorized Version, Dr. Bedwell left several other contributions to his age:
"Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laid's manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodelian Library at Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran. To this was annexed his Arabian Trudgeman.
"Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He invented a ruler for geometrical purposes, like that we call Gunther's Scale, which went by the 'Bedwell's Ruler'.
"After Bedwell's death, the voluminous manuscripts of his lexicon were loaned to the University of Cambridge to aid the compilation of Dr. Castell's colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton."
Dr. Edward Lively was known as "one of the best linguists in the world ... Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages."
Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was raised a Roman Catholic and encouraged by his family to become a lawyer. He traveled to London where he was converted to Christ and joined the Puritan Congregation there. It is said that:
"He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them. Moreover he had diligently investigated the numerous writings of the Rabbis, so far as they seemed to promise any aid to the understanding of the Scriptures."
Dr. Chaderton was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching engagement in his later years was described as follows:
"Having addressed his audience for two full hours by the glass, he paused and said, 'I will no longer trespass on your patience.' And now comes the marvel; for the whole congreagtion cried out with one consent for God's sake, go on! He accordingly proceeded much longer, to their great satisfaction and delight."
Dr. McClure leaves us to ponder the direction scholarship has taken in these modern times. "For even now people like to hear such preaching as is preaching. But where shall we find men for the work like those who gave us our version of the Bible?"
Dr. Francis Dillingham was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debate in Greek.
Dr. Dillingham was another soldier for Christ who took aggressive action against the teaching of Rome. "He collected out of Cardinal Bellarmine's writings, all the concessions made by the acute author in favor of Protestantism. He published a Manual of Christian Faith, taken from the Fathers, and a variety of treatises on different points belonging to the Romish controversy."
Dr. Thomas Harrison, it is recorded, was chosen to assist the King James translation due to his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In fact his ability served him well in his duties as Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge.
"On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in the University of those who sought to be public professors of these languages."
John Harding was an ardent scholar of whom it is said concerning his ability: "At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. His occupancy of that chair, at a time when the study of sacred literature was pursued by thousands with a zeal amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding was the man for the post he occupied."
Dr. John Reynolds had been raised in the Roman Catholic Church. As Chaderton, he too trusted Christ and became a Puritan. The attributes leading to his position on the translation committee are recorded as follows:
"Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the ancient records of the Church."
His aggressive nature toward the false teachings of his former church are exemplified in the following record:
"About the year 1578, John Hart, a popish zealot, challenged all the learned men in the nation to a public debate. At the solicitation of one of Queen Elizabeth's privy counsellors, Mr. Reynolds encountered him. After several combats, the Romish champion owned himself driven from the field."
"At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the Goliath of the Philistines at Rome, was professor of theology in the English Seminary at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish doctrine, it was taken down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr. Reynolds; who from time to time, publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus Bellarmine's books were answered, even before they were printed."
His skills in Hebrew and Greek made his appointment to the company of translators a wise one. While on his death bed, it is recorded:
"The papists started a report, that their famous opposer had recanted his Protestant sentiments. He was much grieved at hearing of the rumor; but too feeble to speak, set his name to the following declaration: 'These are to testify to all the world, that I die in the possession of that faith which I have taught all my life, both in my preachings and in my writings, with an assured hope of my salvation, only by the merits of Christ my Savior."
Dr. Richard Kilby was a man worthy of the position of translator. One incident in his life, which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published, suffices not only to reveal his depth, but also the dangers of the self-esteemed "scholars" changing the translation of even one word in God's Book.
"I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the Doctor's friend, and going together to that parish church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and showed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor's friend's house, where after some other confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his auditor's ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed."
Dr. Miles Smith was the man responsible for the preface to the King James Bible. This preface is no longer printed in the present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of the Greek and Latin fathers, as well as being expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. "Hebrew he had at his finger's end." And so was the Ethiopic tongue.
Dr. Henry Saville was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education, skilled with languages and knowledge of the Word, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII.
Dr. McClure tells us, "He is chiefly known, however, by being the first to edit the complete works of John Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers."
We could go on and on concerning the scholarship of the King James translators, but we have not the space here. Dr. McClure's book, Translators Revived, is recommended for an in-depth study of the lives of these men.
It should be noted that these men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers which prevented them from being "locked" to the manuscripts, causing early readings to be overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by modern translators.
It should also be recognized that these men did not live in "ivory towers." They were men who were just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed education. It is a lesson in humility to see men of such great spiritual stature call themselves "poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known."
We shall now briefly examine a few of the translators of the Revised Standard Version. The reasons that we shall examine these revisors are as follows:
First, it is due to the secrecy surrounding translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version. The Lockman Foundation has elected to remain anonymous. This is, of course, the safest method, as it prevents investigative eyes from discovering truths such as those we shall see concerning the Revised Standard Version translators.
The translating committee of the New International Version is also nameless. We are assured of their "scholarship" although words without proof ring of a snake oil salesman in the days of the Old West. Of course, it must be admitted, they are both in the "selling business."
Secondly, we have chosen to examine the Revised Standard Version translators because they are of the exact same conviction concerning biblical MSS as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, the Lockman Foundation, the New Scofield Board of Editors, and the majority of unsuspecting college professors and preachers across America today. Namely, they believed the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS are more reliable than the God-preserved Universal Text.
Thirdly, due to this mistaken preference for Roman Catholic MSS, EVERY Bible translation since 1881 is linked directly to the Revised Version, and had nothing to do with the Authorized Version. These new translations follow the same MSS family as the Revised version. This family is the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt and has no relationship whatsoever to the Authorized Version. It is the text which Satan has altered and promotes as a replacement for God's Universal Text.
All modern translations, such as the New American Standard Version, are linked to the Revised Standard Version of 1952, which is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, which was originally marketed as the American Revised Version - an American creation growing from the English Revised Version of 1881.
Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus Christ as a social reformer who gave His life as a martyr for a "cause." Goodspeed said, "Jesus' youth was probably one of the dawning and increasing dissatisfaction with the prevalent form of the Jewish religion in Nazareth and in his own home. HE DID NOT IN THOSE EARLY YEARS SEE WHAT HE COULD DO ABOUT IT, but he must have felt a growing sense that there was something deeply wrong about it, which should be corrected."
Goodspeed continues, "He faced the question of his next step in his work. He had no mind to die obscured in some corner of Galilee, to no purpose. A bolder plan was now taking shape in his mind. He would present himself to Jerusalem ... publicly offer them their Messianic destiny, AND TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. And he would do this in ways that would make his death something that would never be forgotten, but would carry the message to the end of time. Yet how could this be done?"
Goodspeed also, like Westcott, seemed to think it necessary to explain away Christ's miracles. Here we see what he thought took place at the feeding of the five thousand:
"He took the five loaves and two fishes and looked up to heaven and blessed the loaves, and broke them in pieces, and gave them to the disciples to pass to the people. He also divided the two fishes among them all. And they all ate, and had enough. JESUS' SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF SHARING ALL he and his disiciples had with their guests must have MOVED THOSE GALILEANS as it moves us still. THEY COULD NOT DO LESS THAN HE HAD DONE. THEY FOLLOWED HIS EXAMPLE. He simply showed the way, and they gladly took it." 231
Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an "Oriental story teller at his best."
Julius Brewer, another revisor, stated, "The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable."
Henry Cadbury, another member of the Revised committee, believed that Jesus Christ was a just man who was subject to story telling. "He was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the Oriental world."
He also doubted the deity of Christ. "A psychology of God, if that is what Jesus was, is not available."
Cadbury, like Westcott, was a socialist, and he attempted to fit Jesus Christ into the same mold. "His (Jesus') gospel was in brief, a social gospel."
Walter Bowie was another revisor who believed that the Old Testament was legend instead of fact. He says in reference to Abraham, "The story of Abraham comes down from the ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is legend, no one can positively tell."
In speaking of Jacob wrestling with the Angel, he says, "The man of whom these words were written (Genesis 32:31) belongs to a time so long ago that it is uncertain whether it records history or legend."
Bowie did not believe in the miracle of the burning bush. "One day he (Moses) had a vision. In the shimmering heat of the desert, beneath the blaze of that Eastern sun, he saw a bush that seemed to be on fire, and the bush was not consumed."
Clarence Craig was one of the revisors who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. "It is to be remembered that there were no eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. No canonical gospel PRESUMED to describe Jesus emerging from the tomb. The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was CAPABLE OF MANY EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY."
Craig also held Westcott's view that Christ's second coming was a spiritual coming, not physical. "In other words, the coming of Christ is to THE HEARTS of those who love him. IT IS NOT HOPE FOR SOME FUTURE TIME, but a present reality of faith."
Strangely enough, Craig is found to agree with the position of the present day "godly Christian scholars" who believe that God is not able to preserve His Word. "If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility...The true Christian position is that the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelations."
Frederick Grant was in agreement with Westcott and Hort's belief in prayer for the dead. "It would seem that modern thought...demands that if prayer be real or effective at all, it shall not cease when those who have gone before advance, as by a bend in the road beyond our sight...must we cease to pray for them? The answer is CEASE NOT TO PRAY, for they are living still, in this world of the other, and still have need of prayers."
Willard Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the following statement. "Some of these sayings, it is true, come from the Fourth Gospel (John), AND WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS."
It is a known fact that all liberals attack John's gospel, due to the fact that it makes the strongest statements of the four gospels concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.
William Irwin believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the position of God in the Bible. "The prophets were forced by the disasters that befell to do some hard, painful thinking. THEY WERE FORCED BY THE HISTORY OF THEIR OWN TIMES TO REVISE THEIR MESSAGES AGAIN AND AGAIN IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE AGE. THE ASSYRIANS AND THE BABYLONIANS FORCED THEM TO REVISE THEIR CONCEPTION OF YAHWEH FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL THEY FINALLY MADE HIM GOD OF THE UNIVERSE."
Fleming James was yet another Bible revisor who was as much an infidel as any secular college professor in America today. He said concerning Moses' authorship of the first five books of the Bible, "The idea has been shown by scholars to be untenable on many grounds. The view that now prevails is that through these five books, there were FOUR DIFFERENT STRANDS OF NARRATIVE WHICH HAVE BEEN PIECED TOGETHER to make the present story...Two are older and more reliable as history, two proceed from later time and are so coloured by later ideas that they can hardly be called history at all."
This almost coincides with Fenton John Anthony Horts' belief concerning the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
"I quite agree that it is most essential to study each Synoptist by himself as a single whole. Only I should add that such a study soon leads one to the fact of their having all largely used at least one common source, and that fact becomes an additional element in their criticism."
We also find that he doubted the miracle of the Red Sea crossing.
"What really happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW; but scholars are pretty well agreed that the narrative goes back to some striking and pretentious event which impressed both Moses and the people with the belief that YAHWEH had intervened to save them. THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PLAGUES."
Concerning Elijah's action in 2 Kings 1:10, he said, "The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY."
Millar Burrows finalizes the true convictions of the revisors in his statement, "We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do."
Earlier we studied the beliefs of Drs. Westcott and Hort. We can see how all of these men fit together so well and were able to completely reject God's text in favor of Rome's. Many may make a defense for new translations in claiming that these men are "liberal" scholars, while today's modern translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version are translated by "conservative" scholars. This claim is an empty one, though, because concerning which MSS are to be judged as "best, most reliable, etc...," "conservative" scholars of the day agree wholeheartedly with the conviction of the "liberal" revisors of the 1881 and 1952 revision committees. They BOTH believe that the Roman Catholic text found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc., is better than the Universal Text of the Authorized Version.
Conservative "scholars" also agree with the liberal "scholars" in their conviction that God could not preserve His words through history.
We see then that the men of the King James Bible were men of great education, education which was tempered by true spirituality and biblical convictions. They were used by God as instruments in His plan for the preservation of His words. They were not "inspired" to write a new revelation. They were empowered by the Holy Spirit to preserve that which had already been written. This is what God had promised in Psalms 12:7.
The King James Apocrypha
Another one of the assaults on the Authorized Version is that the early editions contained the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. In defense, we shall list the seven reasons why the Apocrypha was NOT considered inspired by the Authorized Version translators. 'The reasons assigned for not admitting the Apocryphal books into the Canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following:
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church and, therefore, never sanctioned by our Lord.
They were not allowed among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many places.
It includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incarnation.
For these and other reasons the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as "ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions, and history of the East."
We see then that the King James translators did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired by God.
The Greek Game in Action
Still another complaint against God's Authorized Version is the manner in which certain Greek words have been translated. Today's "God-honoring" scholars "love the Lord and His Bible" but are quick to point out and attack any seeming inconsistency in translation in the Authorized Version. Even the most infinitesimal Greek article is attacked under the guise of seeking to give a more "grammatically correct" translation. This is the claim consistently made by the translating groups, such as the anonymous Lockman Foundation.
This is all very noble sounding. It puts into one's mind a picture of these "hard working scholars" slaving away to remove all of the "mistakes" from the Authorized Version so that we can finally have the pure "Word of God." This is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is that the new "Bibles" are translated by men who first, desire to eliminate the detested Authorized Version and second, though never admittedly, to make money in the "Bible business." Sad as that is to think, it is true.
The problem with their hypercritical examination of the Authorized Versions is that the same scrutiny is never applied to their own work.
The Greek Game in Reverse
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who is known for being very Burgonian in his comments, is nonetheless an outstanding authority in manuscript readings. In several of his works, he has done no more than to examine the new translations under the same unyielding eye with which the modern translators examine the Authorized Version.
Before examining any of his findings and the evidence of the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd edition, it must first be remembered that the present day translations and translators act under the premise that the Nestle's Greek New Testament is the closest to the original text. Nestle's text is basically Westcott and Hort's text, which is in turn primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as Dr. Wilkenson has recorded.
"It was of necessity that Westcott and Hort should take this position. Their own Greek New Testament upon which they had been working for twenty years was founded on Codex B and Codex (Aleph), as the following quotations show:
"If Westcott and Hort have failed, it is an overestimate of the Vatican Codex, to which (like Lachman and Tregelles) they assign the supremacy, while Tischendorf may have given too much weight to the Sinaitic Codex."
All modern translators give B and Aleph unbalanced superiority, assuming them to be more accurate because they assume that they are older.
They unfortunately overlooked the fact that the Universal Text has MSS just as old, plus the backing of the church fathers. They also seem not to realize that Egypt is NOT the location for the pure text - old manuscripts maybe, but not pure readings.
Modern translators build their arguments for changing the Authorized Version readings around two very loose rules:
The majority reading is best.
This sounds very good except for one small problem. What happens when the oldest reading conflicts with the majority? The answer is: Do what you want as long as you do not agree with the Authorized Version. This is not an over statement, but it describes the animosity which modern scholarship has for the text of the Authorized Version.
Following will be examples of translations in which modern translators break all their own rules of translating in order to eliminate the readings of the Universal Text of the King James Bible.
The readings to be examined are those which have been pointed out by Dr. Ruckman. We shall compare his references to the footnotes in the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd Edition, unless he states such evidence already. The English translation to be examined will be the New American Standard Version, since it is the one which is assumed by most fundamentalists to be sound.
First, the verse to be discessed will be quoted from the Authorized Version, then it will be quoted from the New American Standard Version. The word, words, or passage in question will be italicized.
AV: "As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."
NASV: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I will send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way."
Here the New American Standard Version sticks with the premise of using the "oldest" reading. The phrase, "Isaiah the prophet" appears in the Hesychian (Local Text) family represented primarily by B, C, and Aleph.
The problem arises when you read the remainder of verse two and then verse three, the Old Testament quote in verse two is NOT from Isaiah! It is quoted from Malachi 3:1. Verse three is from Isaiah. (Isaiah 40:3) Malachi plus Isaiah does not equal "Isaiah the prophet;" it equals "the prophets."
The reading "the prophets" is found in W along with the Textus Receptus (Universal Text) which is represented by E, F, G, and H in the gospels. It is also found in the majority of witnesses. Also it was cited in 202 A.D., 150 years before Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.
Immediately we run into the problem of the "oldest" versus the "majority." It happens though that neither of these two groups is to be judged just because of what they represent. The deciding factor is, which group reads with the Universal Text? That group is the correct group.
In sticking with the Local Text, the Lockman Foundation has managed to print a Bible with a MISTAKE in it! It is obvious that the reading "Isaiah the prophet" is wrong, because Isaiah never said what is quoted in verse two.
Why would anyone try to hide the quote by Malachi? Dr. Ruckman explains, "You see, the quotation from Malachi was reference to Jehovah God the Father! If anyone were to find this reference, they would see that "thy" and "thee" of Mark 1:1,2 is the "me" of Malachi 3:1!"
Thus the deity of Christ is hidden in the New American Standard Version even though it claims to "confirm" the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for the egos of the nameless Lockman Foundation, the Lordship of Jesus Christ was "confirmed" in the wilderness in Matthew chapter four, and God did not have to wait over 1900 years for them to "confirm" it.
AV: "And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up to heaven."
NASV: "And it came about that while He was blessing them, He parted from them."
Here we see a portion of Scripture where both the "oldest" and "majority" texts read in favor of the Authorized Version. The inconsistent Lockman Foundation has omitted the phrase "and carried up into heaven" (kai ephereto eis ton houranan) which is in P75, a papyrus MS of the second century, as well as the entire Receptus family, plus A, B, C, E, most other witnesses, and every Latin copy.
On what "weighty" evidence does the Lockman Foundation remove the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ? On the weight of ONE copy of Sinaiticus and ONE copy of D.
As stated before the only rule which is consistently kept by supposed "godly Christian scholars" is the practice of attacking the Authorized Version reading because it upholds the deity of Christ.
It might be advisable for us to look at Acts 1:1,2.
"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach.
"Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
You will notice that Luke claims that his "former treatise" (the gospel of Luke) ended with a record of Jesus being "taken up." But in the New American Standard Version's translation of Luke's gospel, Jesus Christ does NOT ascend, but He is left standing flat-footed on the Mount of Olives. Thus, we see that if the gospelist, Luke, could examine both a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version, he would quickly expose the New American Standard Version as a fraudulent adulteration of his 'former treatise."
In other words, "If the King James Bible is good enough for the disciple Luke, then it's good enough for me!"
AV: "And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
NASV: "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
In the case of "And they worshipped him" (proskunesantes auton), the New American Standard Version translators actually lose a witness, for in Luke 24:52 even Aleph joins the innumerable mass of witnesses in favor of the King James translators' scholarship. This leaves D to stand alone against several thousands of MSS which uphold the deity of Christ.
With evidence like this, it seems somewhat hypecritical to hear "good, godly men" deride Erasmus for using only five MSS, which represented the oldest and the majority, to collate his text, a text which upholds our Savior. While here we see the Lockman Foundation's corrupters use a minority of the minority to attack two major doctrines of the Bible, the bodily ascension and the deity of Christ.
The argument may be forwarded that "I can still find these doctrines in the New American Standard Version." Yes, but not in as many places as in the Authorized Version. There is NO Bible which upholds Christ's deity as much as the Authorized King James Version.
2 Timothy 2:15
AV: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
NASV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who need not to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth."
The critics of the Authorized Version often complain that the scholars of the translation of 1611 have translated a Greek word with an English word which supposedly does not correspond with the correct meaning. This makes the modern translators seem very sincere in that they present themselves as if they would never do such a thing. Here in 2 Timothy 2:15 we find them guilty of that very thing for which they assail the King James translators.
The Greek word the King James translators translate "rightly dividing" (orthotomeo) means just that. The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Zondervan 1970) has it as "to cut straight." There is no Greek evidence for the two words "handling accurately." The Greek word for 'handle'(pselapho) is found in I John 1:1. The Greek word for "accurate" (doloo) does not appear in the Bible. These two words together in no way resemble the Greek word used in II Timothy 2:15 and correctly translated "rightly dividing." As Dr. Ruckman points out, "The Greek word for 'rightly dividing' is found in all four families of manuscripts, all cursives and uncials, of any century." It might be good to note here that Nestle's Greek Text does not even give an alternate reading!
The question which naturally arises in our mind is, "Why would anyone want 2 Timothy 2:15 to read "handling accurately?" The answer is found in the preface to the New American Standard Version in which it (the NASV)is called a translation of "linguistic accuracy."
In other words the Lockman Foundation says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." The Lockman Foundation then says that IT has handled God's Word accurately! To pat one's self on the back so often and so obviously must make for tired arms.
Let us look at a word change which is designed to keep the Roman Catholic Church "in business."
AV: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
NASV: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
Confession of sins has been a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.
The Greek word for "faults" (paraptomata) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, and Omega, plus the rest of the Receptus family and the greater number of all remaining witnesses. Nestle's text inserts "sins" (tax amarties) with NO manuscript authority, and the misguided men of the Lockman Foundation accept it with no evidence. Perhaps there are more Jesuits lurking in the shadows than we think! Anyone accepting an alternate reading with no evidence CANNOT be credited with acting ethically or scholarly.
One last passage shall suffice:
AV: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
NASV: "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?'"
Here once again the "conservative scholars" of the New American Standard Version and other "Bibles" have attempted to water down the deity of Christ.
The word for "God" (Theou) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, Omega, Theta, the majority of the remaining miniscules, most of the remaining witnesses, plus the entire Latin tradition.
The Greek word "man" (anthropouo) is upheld by one Twentieth Century Greek scholar.
It is strange indeed that the Lockman Foundation is quick to strip Jesus Christ's Godship away from Him. Here, the "conservative" scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation are in complete agreement with the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version. These are strange bedfellows! I am certainly glad that the translators of the Christ-exalting Authorized Version never "slept" in this bed.
This is, of course, NOT a "God-honoring" translation. I know that the deity of Christ "can be found" in other places in the New American Standard Version, but it now "can be found" in one less place than in the Authorized Version.
Would John, in penning the gospel that is intended to exalt Jesus Christ as God, use the term "Son of Man"? Dr. Ruckman explains:
"One of the great critical dictums for correcting the A.V. 1611 Greek manuscripts is that 'one should always choose language and expressions most charcteristic of the author.' Well, what in the world would possess a man who was acquainted with John's style (in the Gospels), to suddenly write "Son of man" where Jesus is dealing with a sinner on matters of doctrinal belief? Is this characteristic of John? It isn't in any 20 passages, anywhere, in the Gospel of John! "The Son of God" is the correct reading, and the ASV, RSV, and all the new 'Bibles' are greatly in error, 'not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.'"
The Apostle John NEVER called Jesus Christ the "Son of Man" anywhere in his gospel when dealing with a doctrinal belief. Furthermore, the context of the book defines the correct translation in that the multitude cried for Jesus Christ's crucifixion in John 19:7 because "he made himself the Son of God." (Greek: huion Theos heauton epoinsen.) This statement so struck the already frantic Pilate, that "he was more afraid" (John 19:8) at which time he hurried back to where Jesus Christ was waiting and asked, "Whence art thou?" Pilate realized that there was something supernatural about Jesus Christ. It is too bad the elusive Lockman Foundation has never come to such a realization.
We have looked at only a few passages where modern translators have made unwarranted changes in God's Word. The result is a change in doctrine. It is evident then that, no matter what Bible salesmen may say about being able to "find" the fundamentals in any of the new translations, they are still weaker on doctrine than the God-honoring Authorized Version. I repeat, EVERY new "Bible" is doctrinally weaker than the King James Authorized Version. Why then should any school or preacher use a "Bible" in which they must "search" to prove doctrines which are more than evident in the King James Bible? If we honor Jesus Christ, then we should just naturally choose and use the Bible which honors Him the most. In case after case, the Christ-honoring Bible is found to be the King James Bible.
Virtue, Not Fanfare
Finally, it must be remembered that the Authorized Version is the only Bible ever released without fanfare.
The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Good News for Modern Man, the New International Version, the New King James Version, and all other new translations have been published with a great advertising "blitz." They have all attempted to replace the Authorized Version in the study, in the pulpit, in memorization, and in the hearts of believers. They have all failed. Those which have not failed are destined to fail, except for one.
To explain the last statement, let us look at a few facts. For every truth which God has, Satan has many counterfeits and then one ultimate counterfeit. Look at the following example:
We see from the above example that there is one true God. Satan has many false "gods" for people in this world to worship. Satan himself is the ultimate "false god."
We further see that there is one true Christ. Satan has many spirits of anti-Christ. During the tribulation there will be a manifestation of "the Antichrist."
God has one true church made up of born-again believers. Satan has many congregations serving him on this earth today. During the tribulation the ultimate Satanic church located in Rome (Babylon the Great) will again be in power.
God has preserved His Words in one Bible. Satan has many "Bibles." I believe it seems certain that someday in the future he will have one ultimate Satanic "Bible." It will probably be called a "New Authorized Version."
Notice that in the examples above, the "many" counterfeits seem to run in conjunction with the Church Age. Satan's ultimate counterfeit is always manifested during the Great Tribulation when the Holy Spirit has ceased to deal with mankind. I believe that there is a time when Satan will have an anti-bible exalted as the true Word of God just as surely as he will have an Antichrist exalted as the Son of God. It seems likely that this will not take place until the great Tribulation. Until then, God will be exalted, Jesus Christ will be exalted, Christ's church will be exalted, and the Authorized Version will be exalted.
The ASV "Bust"
In spite of the publicity campaigns to sell "Bibles," they all fail. The American Standard Version is a prime example. It was heralded as a replacement for the King James when it was published in 1901. Twenty-three years later it went broke and sold its copyright to the National Council of Churches. Was God's hand on this "Bible?" If so, WHY wasn't it accepted and used by Christianity even MORE than the Authorized Version? Was Satan able to overcome God's Will? If God's hand was not on the American Standard Version, why would the Lockman Foundation try to "resurrect" it?
"The producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the American Standard Version should be renewed and increased.
"Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene." (From the Preface of the New American Standard Bible.)
If God wouldn't use the American Standard Version, WHY would the Lockman Foundation want to? If God's blessing was on the American Standard Version, and it died in twenty-three years without even a minor revival, HOW has the Authorized Version lasted nearly four hundred years in spite of all of the "better translations" which God has supposedly been "blessing"?
Of course, there is no answer for these questions, unless it is admitted that God's Bible is the Authorized Version and that He will preserve it whether the Christian educators can help it or not. God will continue to use this English version of sthe Universal Text and will continue to ignore the English versions of the Local Text, no matter who the fundamentalist is that recommends them and no matter what size college may use them. Advertisement will not help.